If that's what you took from my statement, I would like to present you as evidence of a greater need for gun control, because I trust no one who would come to such a conclusion has the proper intelligence to handle a firearm.
Lifelong NRA, baby.
And yet, he chose to use a gun instead. Think about the implication of that. Obviously it was EASIER to kill with guns.
Seriously, why am I having to repeat myself just to make the exact same point?
Shooting people in a face to face situation is one million times easier then setting a bomb and blowing them up from miles away. Good call, genius.
Clearly YOU already agree that someone who has it in his mind will find a way to try and hurt people. Why would giving 12 year olds a gun make a difference?
Give a 12 year old a gun and it doesn't mean a damn. Give EVERY twelve year old a gun and suddenly you're afraid to F with a twelve year old.
You've refused to answer any of my questions, and in a show of poor sportsmanship you negative rep'd me. You're a coward and you know it. I'm calling you out [yet again], bitch. Answer the questions.
So let me see if I have this right. A maniac intent on killing people will do so no matter what...unless we give everyone, including children, a gun. Is that what you're saying?
He wouldn't do it with a gun. He'd do it with explosives, which Holmes was equally capable of doing. See original argument.
I'm sorry, but that argument has absolutely ZERO credibility. If it's hard to buy guns illegally, why would you think MORE gun crime would occur?
Every gun shot would be illegal, thereby making every shot of a gun a gun crime. There would be no hunters to average out the gun shots per gun crime equation. 100% of gun shots would be criminal. That's simple math.
Well...no. You've already argued people who wish to cause harm will do so regardless of the circumstance. All you're doing is giving more crazy people guns.
Have you actually thought about your argument at all, and how it contradicts itself?
In crime, guns are used as an advantage because most people aren't prepared to defend themselves from a gun. If everyone, even cowardly SlyFox, had a gun then less people would try to rob cowardly SlyFox with that same tool. Cowardly, stupid SlyFox.
And it's not like law enforcement will lose their guns, so there will still be plenty of firearm protection.
You must be lost, little boy. Most police can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground. You'll never be safe relying on law enforcement.
The mantra "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is simply ridiculous. Guns are manufactured for the purpose of killing. People are not.
How about the Rizzini MS790? It's a 20-gauge trap gun, manufactured for skeet shooting. Unless clay is a living creature? In retort... suicide bomber.
You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. If someone really wants to hurt people no matter what, that same someone would still hurt people no matter what. You don't get to have it both ways.
Where in that quote did you mention a gun hurting someone? You didn't. You enforced my original point. People hurt people, NOT GUNS. I'm not having it both ways. Lets reinforce it for the 1,001st time. Guns do not kill people. People kill people. If you can't blame the gun for the bullets kill, then you can't blame the gun for the human's kill. Nor can you arrest a gun, try it under a court of law, or accuse it of aiding a criminal. Am I speaking to a child?
Furthermore, I'm saying your asinine assumption that civilians firing their guns blindly in a darkened theater, after being incapacitated with tear gas, is not only completely ludicrous, it is also far more dangerous. Finally, I'm saying you are contradicting yourself by saying intent to harm is in a person's mind, and that a person who wants to harm will do so...and then going on to say that same person won't hurt anyone if we give a bunch of teenagers guns.
SlyFox, use your common sense. Pretend guns don't make you wet yourself. If you ever dared own one, would you go all O.K. Corral if you knew every one of your targets had a gun too? Seriously... would you take on 200 people all by your lonesome? Tell you what, you can have all the tear gas you want. Would you take them on then? No, because they'd rape you with lead.
C'mon you coward. Debate me, don't just red rep me because you're backed into a corner and crying. Come on, bitch, do ya feel lucky?
Really? I thought you were debating me because you're either drunk or high, and don't have the first clue what you're saying right now.
Three miles down the road is a township of 400, and 10 miles away from that is the closest "city", a population of 10,000. The suburbs there consist of one street, everyone else in the damned place is furlough. My next door neighbor woke up to a drunken stranger passed out on their living room floor. The guy drove 15 miles from the other direction, broke in, and passed out. What if that was your house, SlyFox? Or your 4th Grade daughter upstairs?
What sheltered world do you live in?
Still I await any of your answers, going back to my original post. No more improvable conjectures, no more misquoting me, no more economy talk (the dollars in the shitter anyway and I could eat you in that debate too), I want some straight answers instead of your private little red rep plus improvable insults. Be a man and answer me or surrender your testicles. You won't need them anyway.