quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Interesting. What would you think might be more of a threat to an American life, violence wise, THB?

Really angry people who are likely to use any means available to hurt others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


>K, please stop this snide stuff. I know where you want to go with it and I can't see how it adds anything useful to anything.

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Jeez - that was a case of a car deliberately used as a lethal weapon? Does that happen often in the USA - cars being used deliberately as lethal weapons? What did the perpetrator get as a punishment?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

No, you obviously won't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

No, you obviously won't.

you don't really get irony do ya??

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

No, you obviously won't.

you don't really get irony do ya??

I get it well enough to understand that, coming from you, that was possibly the most ironic post I've ever seen on these boards, BY.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Nevermind... LOL

In other words....epic fail.
THB hasn't been back either,oh well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Of course the number one threat to an American life,violence wise ,is another armed American....but why split hairs,eh ?
Unless your a child.... I've been told it's pools

And I am sure you will be back with links to back that up right? Because you wouldn't spew random bullshit without some studies proving your point, right?

What a shame this guy didn't have a gun, things might have ended differently but I know that kind of thing doesn't matter. If you don't think anyone in the country needs a gun then I guess they don't.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2014/10/03/man-mauled-dogs-detroit/16635281/

Tell you what,rather than wasting your considerably important time finding a dog bites man story...why don't you use that time to debunk my bullshit.'
Seeing as you chose the dog bites man piece of shit story I'm guessing you can't
Another impartial post brought to us by CS's resident expert on impartiality and assorted piles of dung

Okay,here is the original post that the bet was based on.....you guys can read can't you THB suggested I didn't thing ANYONE in the country needs a gun.
Anyone to me suggests that he is asserting I am for banning ALL guns.
That was the proposition.....if I wasn't clear enough,that's on me.
But if you guys are having trouble with following the bouncing ball....that's on you.
Either way ,the bar is still set at a gun ban,as in a general gun ban....which really should have been clear when I linked that to CONFISCATION.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


>Of course the number one threat to an American life,violence wise ,is another armed American

You were wrong. Again. Get over it, bozo.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Interesting. What would you think might be more of a threat to an American life, violence wise, THB?

Really angry people who are likely to use any means available to hurt others.

Yep. That would be true anywhere including here in the UK, I'd guess. But I don't know whether, in the USA, those 'means available' would be a gun more often than not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Interesting. What would you think might be more of a threat to an American life, violence wise, THB?

Really angry people who are likely to use any means available to hurt others.

Yep. That would be true anywhere including here in the UK, I'd guess. But I don't know whether, in the USA, those 'means available' would be a gun more often than not.

From the stories I read every day in the paper I would say no. Contrary to what folks across the pond seem to think most americans are not running around with guns. and while some do the others have to make due with the things they have easy access to like baseball bats, bottles and even the occasional crock pot. Last week a man was sentenced for punching a referee after he tried to use a red card on him. All he had available were his fists yet he still managed to kill the guy with one blow to the head.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Interesting. What would you think might be more of a threat to an American life, violence wise, THB?

Really angry people who are likely to use any means available to hurt others.

Yep. That would be true anywhere including here in the UK, I'd guess. But I don't know whether, in the USA, those 'means available' would be a gun more often than not.

From the stories I read every day in the paper I would say no. Contrary to what folks across the pond seem to think most americans are not running around with guns. and while some do the others have to make due with the things they have easy access to like baseball bats, bottles and even the occasional crock pot. Last week a man was sentenced for punching a referee after he tried to use a red card on him. All he had available were his fists yet he still managed to kill the guy with one blow to the head.

Under the usual British definition of 'armed', a baseball bat or even a crock pot would be considered as a 'weapon' if it's been used in order to attack someone; therefore, the attacker would be considered to be 'armed'. Is it different over there?

quote:


ETA: I don't recall any Brit, ever, accusing an American of 'running around'. Again just saying.

quote:


(Well, we've reached the point in the thread where everyone makes an effort to misinterpret everyone else. I can't beat them - so I've joined them.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

If the only reason that we want to ban guns because they can kill someone, then we should ban everything, go back to running around nude, cut off our hands and feet and live in caves. Obamacare will take care of us LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Again where is confiscation or banning guns mentioned....surely you can do better than this.
This doesn't come close to the bar I set. That's not a coincidence either,since I don't advocate either position there is little chance of you finding any post wherein I say that.
Now if what you are looking for are posts where I suggested things you don't like...well there you go .
You found it,of course it's a big swing and miss,but hey at least you are trying



p.s Hint,banning any one class,or group ,is not equal to banning guns...and is miles away from confiscation.Which is an integral part of the position that thb postulated was mine

Hint once you can ban one class of guns you just keep redefining other guns as being of that class. Not one weapon banned by the original assault weapons ban was an assault weapon but some looked like an assault weapon, close enough.
You ban armor piercing ammunition then start claiming other ammunition as armor piercing even though it does not fit the definition.
They now want to ban all 5.56 ammo because some pistol has been chambered for it, ever hear of the buffalo bison, looks like a piece maker but chambered in 45-70 government. Dwarfs the 5.56 and neither handgun has ever been used against a police officer. However if we pretend hard enough we can say it is not banning all ammo just one type of very dangerous ammo, then keep redefining other ammo as fitting in that class. Not miles from confiscation, just inches.

While I'm at it...and before going back to sleep...I would like to look at Bama's first sentence there,wherein he suggests that a ban on one class of guns would lead to banning all guns.He follows that up by complaining that the "original assault weapons ban......"
So on the one hand a specific ban on a specific class of weapons will lead to gun Armageddon...followed by an example where that is PROVED to be so much NRA bullshit.
A few posts prior someone was making quite a fuss about taking me far too literally.....how does this contradiction pass muster ?