and maybe the perp will fall over from laughing at them
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
and maybe the perp will fall over from laughing at them
she had locked the gun up LOCKED IT UP
he took her keys and retrieved it.
and you take the guns away from the police whats gonna take them away from the criminals??
will you go up and say please hand it over?
if this world was shangrila maybe you would live but this isn't shangrila
is more true in the country where the police are far away.
... a firearm would be a need if an intruder came. The cops are too far away to get here in time assuming I could get to the phone.
You have intruders where you live? Where do intruders get their guns? Is a vicous circle i think.
Please ignore the obvious trolling and DNR. Ever.
Notice the repetitious pattern? It's all trolling questions, no answers, phony difficulty with English combined with this phony chop suey name...
The only way we can win is to ignore them EVERY TIME, no matter what new names they use. There's some comedy in witnessing this bunch of losers trolling this place, but sheeeeeeesh the continuous leftist effort is sooooo pathetic.......
Only good thing I can say is this: They all work for me but still can't realize it, lol!
DE
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Trying to be good - M@N
i didnt see this until now. your funny though! hope you had a nice st patricks day.
Why is it that the pro-innocent victim disarmament crowd always brings up the same old arguments, then fails to acknowledge when these arguments are refuted, only to rehash these very same arguments the next time the subject comes up?
Make no mistake, we've gone over this before, several times, once quite recently.
Mark
Not that I expected different.
But while we're on the subject, I'll be out of town for a bit, and so probably won't be able to reply immediately, should anyone have further comment. But I'll check back in here when I return.
Ciao - Mark
A question for you, Fu.
Why is it that the pro-innocent victim disarmament crowd always brings up the same old arguments, then fails to acknowledge when these arguments are refuted, only to rehash these very same arguments the next time the subject comes up?
Make no mistake, we've gone over this before, several times, once quite recently.
Mark
Posted by: MarkatNite
the arguments of those who condemn the guns are just as refuted. why do that crowd always bring up the same old argument? i think its convictions. and you
i like to shoot at targets, i am out late at night, there drug dealers in the world.
why shouldnt i have the right to have a gun?
i dont hunt but i eat meat.
but why shouldnt i have a equal chance as the criminal have because they wont give up there guns.
you dont want a gun thats your right and i wouldnt force you to have one, but what gives you<not saying you for you if you can follow what i mean the right to deprive me?
ive tought my sons which are now 19/25 the way to shoot, and i can say they never used a gun to hurt any one.
blame the gun owner, do you blame the auto maker for drunk drivers?
to have breathalyzer-keyed ignitions in some places, Mark. The technology for personally-keyed guns exists, and wouldn't really add much to the cost of a gun if they were mass-produced. Such a system would do much to solve the problems with kids and guns, and also stolen guns. (Legitimate transfers work like changing a password on your computer -- you have to enter the old one first). But God forbid we require manufacturers to incorporate such systems into their weapons of death. The difference between a car and a gun, Mark, is that the purpose of a gun is to kill something. Yes, they can be used for target practice -- but that began as training to kill, and that's the purpose many still use it for today.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Although many times we have very patiently explained things to you, you seem to purposely AVOID the facts.
Persistent firearms violations don't result in breath tests, they result in an inability to legally own or purchase.
Yes, there is technology that keys a firearm to a single person and the technology is not only unsound but could result in the deaths of others. You have, right here in this forum, been linked to many accounts of a police officer being saved because a bystander was able to pick up his firearm and defend him--not possible with a keyed firearm. You have also been linked to at least one account of a person killed because his firearm would not function because he was forced by injury to fire with his weak hand and the firearm can only be keyed to one or the other.
You have been told many times that you are absolutely incorrect in your statement of the PURPOSE of a firearm. Once more though and this time see if you can retain it--the PURPOSE is to (in simple terms) launch a projectile or projectiles from point a to a target point b. Most firearms are fitted with sighting systems allowing for more precisely locating the exact impact point of the launched projectile. The ONLY TIME that killing enters the picture is when the target point b happens to be living and that is the case in far less than 1/100 th of the times firearms are fired.
The purpose of an automobile is transportation and either it or the firearm can be used productively or carelessly and both can kill. Same applies to MOST TOOLS used by people.
dave get out your soap box and make booze unlawfull, wait that was done what happened.
and lets take your higteck gizmo on a gun, ok and the persons over powered before he/she reaches it, the other person sees there loved one in dire need but since that guns only good now as a paper weight there loved, ones dead.
no thanks you take that high teck gizmo and put it in file 13
one expects nothing but the drivel you found Dave.
That "article" was simply another attempt to infringe on the rights of bot citizens and legitimate and already highly regulated manufacturers and distributors.
Another sniveling cry for "more laws" rather than enforcing the over ten thousand (10,000) firearms laws already in existence.
When is the last time you saw or heard of anyone whimpering and whining about law suits against cutlery manufacturers? Speak up Dave!
Most states allow minors to handle and use firearms on private property--they also allow them to drive motor vehicles. It is PRIVATE PROPERTY and government has no business intruding.
If you and the HC editorial board actually wanted to do something meaningful to reduce accidental shootings and injuries you would be screaming for MANDATORY firearms training in the schools. Such training used to be widely available (especially in schools that had ROTC or CAP programs) as an elective course until ignorant gun banners fought to remove such valuable training and to replace it with an intentional IGNORANCE concerning firearms.
Dave, since the thread started with a story about a 4 year old and a two year old, and you're hanging your hat on child saftey, what about Zippo cigarette lighters. I don't have statistics offhand, but I'll wager that many more 2 year olds have been killed in fires started by another little kid playing with a Zippo-type lighter than have been killed by another little kid shooting them. Heck, the basic Zippo doesn't even have a "safety".
Let me play word substitution with your "logic". Texas does not require child-safety locks on Zippo lighters; does not allow allow cities to hold the Zippo manufacturer liable for harm that might come from the use of their products; does not give cities the authority to enact Zippo restrictions that are stronger than those found in state law; does not impose consumer safety standards on Zippos; and does not require safety training for Zippo buyers.
I dare say that Texas allows minors to purchase and possess Zippos. Dave, do you also think that without sensible regulation to keep Zippo lighters from children, children will needlessly suffer and die?