GUNS SAVE LIVES DAY - Dec. 14

[eye95]

NO they don't BUT their presence make criminals NOT do something. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

False. A gun in the middle of the street will not cause a criminal NOT to do something. Quite the opposite. A person having left the gun there will surely cause a crime.

You should have said: A person carrying a gun may cause a criminal not to do something. The person. Not the gun. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

mbass.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[WalkingWolf]

False. A gun in the middle of the street will not cause a criminal NOT to do something. Quite the opposite. A person having left the gun there will surely cause a crime.

You should have said: A person carrying a gun may cause a criminal not to do something. The person. Not the gun. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

mbass.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

We can keep this up forever, IMO you are wrong, as you are most of the time. In your mind you are the only right person on the planet. So either you or I or both of us should move on. Otherwise I will keep making fun of you for such ignorance.

 

[FreeInAZ]

It will be a stupid pin that helps foster the "Guns kill people" stupidity.

Again, guns don't do a damned thing.

Right EYE, but "Law-abiding people who carry guns safely for protection on a daily basis save lives" is a bit much to fit on a pin. Do you agree...?

 

[Rusty Young Man]

Right EYE, but "Law-abiding people who carry guns safely for protection on a daily basis save lives" is a bit much to fit on a pin. Do you agree...?

Damn. If this point had just been brought up sooner, we could be having a slightly different conversation: how do we get our message across IN A CATCHY PHRASE, and still have it FIT ON A PIN (that isn't comically large)?

 

[eye95]

We can keep this up forever, IMO you are wrong, as you are most of the time. In your mind you are the only right person on the planet. So either you or I or both of us should move on. Otherwise I will keep making fun of you for such ignorance.

And I will keep pointing out your blatant stupidity.

 

[eye95]

Right EYE, but "Law-abiding people who carry guns safely for protection on a daily basis save lives" is a bit much to fit on a pin. Do you agree...?

Yes, but "Guns save lives" implies that guns can do things, which indirectly supports "Guns kill people." Guns don't do a damned thing. People do.

 

[eye95]

Damn. If this point had just been brought up sooner, we could be having a slightly different conversation: how do we get our message across IN A CATCHY PHRASE, and still have it FIT ON A PIN (that isn't comically large)?

Wear your gun. That action says all that needs to be said.

 

[WalkingWolf]

And I will keep pointing out your blatant stupidity.

Wanna keep pounding your stupid chest like a ape, get treated like a dumb ape.

 

[papa bear]

It will be a stupid pin that helps foster the "Guns kill people" stupidity.

Again, guns don't do a damned thing.

Shucks, I was waiting for eye to claim the roofer stops the rain... :lol:

WOLF EYE is notorious for ingnoring post that make him look like a ass but then he makes his own posts that make him look like a ass

And I will keep pointing out your blatant stupidity.

wow eye it took you a while to call people asses and stupid. progressives are usually quicker then that
now did the pin do something stupid are did you for reading it.

but here is a question to you ill point. BG see man standing in on the sidewalk. he doesn't have a gun. another is standing on the sidewalk the other direction, and is wearing OC. which one does the BG rob.

did the fire arm make a difference or not. you don't have to answer that, i just don't care

 

[sudden valley gunner]

WOLF EYE is notorious for ingnoring post that make him look like a ass but then he makes his own posts that make him look like a ass



wow eye it took you a while to call people asses and stupid. progressives are usually quicker then that
now did the pin do something stupid are did you for reading it.

but here is a question to you ill point. BG see man standing in on the sidewalk. he doesn't have a gun. another is standing on the sidewalk the other direction, and is wearing OC. which one does the BG rob.

did the fire arm make a difference or not. you don't have to answer that, i just don't care

It's binary thinking that leads to labeling.....

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Argument of semantics. I was first willing to say the same thing as Eye until I read the replies by others it makes some very good and intriguing points.

The human action to kill someone in the actual use of the tool, so no guns don't kill people. The trauma by the bullet ejected might.

The mere presence of the gun can very well save lives, without it being used, the mere visual impact of the gun acting as a deterrent and not being used is an intriguing aspect I can accept that guns do save people without having to be used.

 

[JustaShooter]

Argument of semantics. I was first willing to say the same thing as Eye until I read the replies by others it makes some very good and intriguing points.

The human action to kill someone in the actual use of the tool, so no guns don't kill people. The trauma by the bullet ejected might.

The mere presence of the gun can very well save lives, without it being used, the mere visual impact of the gun acting as a deterrent and not being used is an intriguing aspect I can accept that guns do save people without having to be used.

But I think that, as others are, you are missing that the gun is being used - the act of openly carrying a firearm is using the firearm. It is not the mere presence that causes the effect, it must be in use, by a LAC, for it to be effective.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

But I think that, as others are, you are missing that the gun is being used - the act of openly carrying a firearm is using the firearm. It is not the mere presence that causes the effect, it must be in use, by a LAC, for it to be effective.

Nope, I am not missing that argument and that would have been my original argument. I am understanding and seeing that the other side has a valid point. The tool it self is not being used like it would have to be to end a life. Capice?

 

[eye95]

It is still being used. It is not doing a damned thing.

Ascribing the ability to do things puts it one iota away from one of the things it does being killing people. Please stop helping make the anti argument.

(And, no, I am not calling you an "anti," nor a "statist," for that matter.)

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Semantics semantics people must have a lot of time on their hands.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Semantics semantics people must have a lot of time on their hands.

I found the semantic argument interesting because it opened my mind a bit to think a little differently than I was thinking. Made me think of the different types of personifications we use and that there does appear to be a difference between the physical use of the tool, and the inactive use of the tool. To kill a person with a gun you must use it physically, to deter crime "save lives" it just has to be present in some cases, it's an interesting discussion in my viewpoint.

 

[OC for ME]

The only time i compromise is when i say "yes dear, you're right." I don't normally recommend compromise, but in this case how about calling it "GUNS DO NOT KILL DAY" vs. "GUNS SAVE LIVES DAY."

 

[papa bear]

Argument of semantics. I was first willing to say the same thing as Eye until I read the replies by others it makes some very good and intriguing points.

The human action to kill someone in the actual use of the tool, so no guns don't kill people. The trauma by the bullet ejected might.

The mere presence of the gun can very well save lives, without it being used, the mere visual impact of the gun acting as a deterrent and not being used is an intriguing aspect I can accept that guns do save people without having to be used.

SVG, your point it takes a human to do it is well and valid. if some one uses an ax to kill someone. we don't say the ax killed them. the person wielding the ax is the killer. i think this is what EYE is trying to say. but i say that the sight of a gun will deter and stop the BG. there are lots of time i don't even know it. would that not be a major factor. that if it was us then we would have to actively be deterring a specific act

The only time i compromise is when i say "yes dear, you're right." I don't normally recommend compromise, but in this case how about calling it "GUNS DO NOT KILL DAY" vs. "GUNS SAVE LIVES DAY."

OFM, would that not be an act of comprimise but an act of submission. kind of like what Boehner did with the president

 

[JustJack]

The only time i compromise is when i say "yes dear, you're right." I don't normally recommend compromise, but in this case how about calling it "GUNS DO NOT KILL DAY" vs. "GUNS SAVE LIVES DAY."

Why not "GUNS IN THE POSSESSION OF PERSONS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO CARRY THEM CAN AND HAVE SAVED LIVES DAY"? :monkey:banana:

 

[eye95]

Why not "GUNS IN THE POSSESSION OF PERSONS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO CARRY THEM CAN AND HAVE SAVED LIVES DAY"? :monkey:banana:

True, but not pithy enough. Pithy trumps true.