Gunman opens fire at U.S. church, kills two

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Perhaps it's in the obnoxious way in which you deliver your opinions that makes it unlikely you'll be taken seriously. Open-mouth challenge is not debate. It's just fight club. Learn some civility and perhaps your credibility may return. Until then, all you'll ever be is a know-it-all troll.
 
Last edited:

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Sorry, but I used one derogatory remark. How many have you used?

Usually one per insult thrown my way per person who does. Only seems fair.

You only say that because you either haven't understood a damned thing of what I said or are too blinded by your own bias to accept it. BTW, I don't care what sort of person you are. I find you abusive and immature and that is as much as I want to know about you. Perhaps you may become more civil in the future, but at this point I think you are you are pretty barbaric.

ROARRRRR!!!! I've come for your women and wine!!!! *Swings Axe*

I could list off a few things of what I think of you, but this quote jumping is getting long winded and there's no real requirement for me to do so, esspecially now that the thread is getting some valid responses by other members.

Again, if you had understood what I actually said, you wouldn't have posted this silly comment.

And vice versa.

I will spell it out for you, child: you and others like you suck in these relatively few stories of shootings and that is all you can consider. You don't consider the fact that there are vast amounts of other people out in the world that DON'T wander about shooting others.

Well..... Grandpa.... That's not the case of my position.... please read the last few posts to others to see where I stand perhaps.

Nope. What I expect the media to do is give us UNBIASED and COMPLETE reports. Not editorialised propaganda.

It happens.

Such a pleasant human being you are. lmao

There are worse. *bats his pretty eyelashes*

What are you babbling about. Legal shootings in my view are those by hunters acquiring game, competitors vying for trophies at target matches, plinking in the backyard, etc. Illegal shootings would be people shooting others, get it? So there are a lot more people shooting legally than there are illegally. Get it?

But my resources were focused on "Illegal Shootings" I persoanlly don't care about legal shootings.... and the way you worded it, it sounded like you were referring to justifiable hommicides via a gun.

I stand corrected. See how easy this can move along when we explain ourselves better?

You missed my point. But then, that doesn't surprise me in the least, you frequently display a lack of comprehension.

Huh? (That was a joke)
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Agreed.



Agreed



Agreed, but I would also add perhaps some head shrinks to evaluate people's mental capacity and responsibility of the use of a firearm, but that's not something I'm totally big on, but couldn't hurt.



Seems fair.



See, something like that I could live with..... thank you.

Interestingly, what I outlined is basically the Practical Firearms Control System developed by the National Firearms Association.......it is the "gun lobby's" plan.

You can join by going to NFA.ca..... :)
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
A sensible gun control system:

Dump registration completely.....it is a waste of money and resources, so inaccurate it will not stand up in court.

Keep graduated licenses........requiring different levels of training for possession of each class, say.......one for manual load long guns, one for semi-auto long guns, one for handguns, one for concealed carry permits.

Allow acredited private citizens to give the courses, rate the applicants.....perhaps with testing done by police or other officials, and officialdom to issue licenses.

Got a gun? Got a license for that type of gun/purpose? No problem.

Got a gun? Got no license? Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go.

Cheap, and as effective as any gun control system.

The most effective plan would be to ban guns altogether. Lets not just look at the shooting sprees in the US, but all the other crimes which took place with the use of guns... That number is astronomical.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
The most effective plan would be to ban guns altogether. Lets not just look at the shooting sprees in the US, but all the other crimes which took place with the use of guns... That number is astronomical.

The problem isn't the gun ... or the knife ... or the club ... or the bare hand. The problem is someone lost it. How do we legislate bad tempers? How do we register control freaks? How do we prevent someone from having a bad day? If someone's going to freak out and kill, is it going to make the deceased feel better to know he/she was stabbed with a knitting needle or bonked with a hammer?
 
Last edited:

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Fk'n isn't an insult.... Requesting you to get a clue isn't an insult. Telling you that the clues pour out when you open your eyes is not an insult, that's just explaining the obvious.
Sorry, but I didn't say it was an insult; I said it is abusive. Again you display your lack of comprehensive abilities.



Nope... but it does get more attention then trying to be civil it would seem, as I've already tried that route several times already..... but you couldn't even address accurately what was being presented to you multiple times and you tried to generalize something in which didn't even represent what I was saying.... so it would seem you are the one with the problem with vocabulary.
Not really. I understand you. You want to voice your opinion and get cranky when you don't get the answerrs you think are the right ones. You tell someone else that they see black and white, yet you demand yes & no answers. Sorry, not everyone wants to follow your rules if you won't follow them yourself.



Those are usually signs to leave them the hell alone then.... but hey, if you can blow their brains out with a gun, then I suppose that shows them who's boss.
Sometimes you don't have the choice to leave them alone. But apparently that never occured to you.

I grew up with deer, moose, rabbits, coyotes, skunks, racoons and yes, even your evil little chipmunks. I never had to shoot any of them, even when they continually landed on my property for whatever reason.
Lucky you. Did you have a chicken coop? Did you have fruit crops? Did you have a feed shed?

I mean, when you have to resort to shooting every animal that enters your property and use the excuse that they're full of disease, that sounds like paranoia to me.... but did you even bother to see if they were of any risk, or did you just lodge a round in their heads just for the fun of it?
Who shoots every animal? Again a display of incomprehension. Where did I say I shot all animals that come here? The last one I shot was the cougar that the intention of raiding my chicken coop 2 years ago. Sorry I didn't think of waiting the few hours till the CO got here. The time before that was the blackbear that was raiding my fruit trees. I pumped two rounds of salt into its backside.
Guess you didn't consider asking me how frequently I shoot critters, though. Can't do that. More fun to just leap to conclusions I shoot everything in sight because I offered a few examples. You really should get over your attitude problem.



Perhaps someday when I have some free time I might.
Nevermind. I prefer not to have people like you here. You'd do as you pleased without bothering to find out if you'd be interfering with things.
But for starters, one thing I and my family did with animal pests who kept getting into our garbage or eating our animals' food, was to leave the scraps of food out of the garbage and compost bins, put it on a plate somewhere away from the house, they come and eat it, they remove your scraps for you and at the same time, leave your animal's food and your garbage bags alone.
Ah. So I am supposed to find a place for my chicken coop and fruit trees that won't be bothered by critters? Sorry, but inside my house isn't a feasible place for them. I don't have a problem with my garbage bags. And most of the compost goes to feeding the chickens, the rest goes to the gardens. My feed shed has been reinforced since the old grizzly tore a wall apart to get at the feed. The CO got that one. He just happened to be in the area.

Eventually those rabid evil racoons and skunks weren't such a problem anymore and actually grew into an extended family with my own family.
Evil?

As it goes for mountain lions / cougars, sure, you have a justification for shooting them, or at least scaring them off.... but once again, as I have to continually repeat myself, I'm not talking about the restriction of firearms for hunting or killing animals.... I was focusing on human on human attacks and the lack of laws towards those things.
Nah. You were provoking people into giving you reasons why they think they should have firearms.

Once again, I'm not as black and white on the subject as you or others would like to make me out to be.
Well, a little while ago you posted that you wanted a simple yes or no answer. If that isn't B&W simplistic to you, then I can't help you.

Nor do you of I.
I know enough of you to not want to be around when you have a firearm handy. You have a temper problem and I would hate to see what you are like after you start ignoring the rational and pass the namecalling stage.



Well next time read what's being said properly so I don't have to repeat myself like a teacher for a 5 year old who doesn't listen. If you're going to act like a 5 year old, then I'll talk to you in a way in which you can understand.
Sorry, you beat me to it. And if I don't read things the way you think I should, then perhaps you could learn English a little better.



Once again Wrong.... I talked about the frequency of people getting shot in general down in the US.... not just in churches.... come on now, seriously...
Of course everyone is wrong except you. You aren't ever wrong.

Yup, I did.
And then "bitched and moaned" when other people mentioned gun laws and stated their opinions of them. Sorry, but it is a two way street in the forum. You don't get to voice your opinion and then keep others from voicing theirs.

Sorry, you haven't seen a tantrum of mine yet. And I was talking about the focus on what can be done about gun related violence.... not vehicle related violence.... if you wish to make a topic about vehicles and deaths related to them, knock yourself out.... but this isn't the thread for cars.
Ah, so no-one can make examples except you either. Sorry, but again, it's a two way street. The general topic is unnatural deaths. You picked death by firearms as an example. Other throw in death by vehicle, knife, fists, etc. with your example. Too bad. "Suck it up" as you say. And move on.

Didn't think that was complicated, but I guess it is for some.
Simplify it then rather than spewing abuse, child.



*shakes head*
Oh my... hasn't this already been cleared up by several rule quotes and acknowlegements that this wasn't the case and that what I used, and what I attempted to steer this conversation into, match with one another.
Again, it is a two way street, if people don't want to be "steered" the way you want, that's tough.

But see, now that you can't go and run off on some other tangent and other topic, and you're caught when you hi-jack, you in turn attempt to blame me for hi-jacking......
Well, you did. So?

Question: How the hell can I hi-jack a thread I created before I even started a concept of debate?
Answer: You can't. That would involve some form of time travel.... and I know I am a tallented fellow, I don't think I can do that just yet.
You started the concept of debate by posting the article of the deaths in the church and highlighted parts of the article in red. If you don't think people think you were focusing their attention on what concepts you were thinking about, why the red highlights? Seems pretty easy to understand to me. Sorry it is too complicated for you.

I have been consistant, you haven't.... deal with it.
Sorry but I don't think you comprehend the meaning of the word "consistent".



Confirming the rules, and pointing out when you and others screwed up is a tantrum? Interesting little world you live in.
lol Ahhh, here we go again, everyone else screwed up. Apparently you suffer from a god complex as well as a dictator complex.



Oh by all means, don't.... I certainly don't need imaginary sympathy from a faceless person on the internet. You can do much better things with your time then to feel sorry for me.
Well, I can't help it. I am human. No god complexes.



Yeah, too bad you still don't get it.
Sorry again, but I do understand you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lone wolf

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
They are and they can.
Competition firearms CAN kill, yes. They are NOT designed for it. There's a great deal of difference between a Colt Python and a Remington silhouette gun, for instance. Also a great deal of difference between your Sten and my Anschutz. Sure the silhouette can kill but it is not designed for that. It is a single shot bolt action designed for shooting at target silhouettes. My Anschutz is also a single round bolt action designed for shooting targets. Guess they don't teach weapon types in the military. So, soldiers like you would use incendiary rounds to penetrate armor and a sobot round to clear out enemies wanting to ambush you. Clever.

The only type of firearms I could see your example as being true would be Pellet and BB guns.... but even those can kill small animals.
I guess you can't see much then.

If they don't work, then it doesn't matter now does it? Just like the Sten and Bren guns I mentioned earlier that were in my houshold. But as mentioned before, which you seemed to not connect with, is that the collection excuse doesn't seem valid enough to have the laws as slack as they are.... if all you're going to do is collect them and they don't work.

It simply doesn't make any sense.[/quote]Look, child, I offered the example of firearms in collections to show you that not everyone on the planet wants to shoot others and that some firearms aren't even used for shooting. That's too much for you to comprehend, I guess.



I'm not the one who's having problems reading what has been said properly.

You sure you don't need glasses?
Your posts belie you. Yup. I do need corrective lenses ..... but not for reading.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
The problem isn't the gun ... or the knife ... or the club ... or the bare hand. The problem is someone lost it. How do we legislate bad tempers? How do we register control freaks? How do we prevent someone from having a bad day? If someone's going to freak out and kill, is it going to make the deceased feel better to know he/she was stabbed with a knitting needle or bonked with a hammer?
As I asked in my last post, what about all the other crimes (armed robbery for example) carried out with guns?? Not necessarily a 'freak out' or someone losing it.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
As I asked in my last post, what about all the other crimes (armed robbery for example) carried out with guns?? Not necessarily a 'freak out' or someone losing it.

You can ban. You can shred every gun you can confiscate. Unless someone has figured out a way to put the genie back into its bottle, the gun can't be disinvented. It's here to stay. They will get here one way or another. How many robberies etc are committed with a gun tracable back to the perp? ...or with a long rifle? If I'm going to punch a hole in someone, it sure is NOT going to be with a weapon that points back to me.
 
Last edited:

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
The proper term is "Experienced." :p
wow you found a dictionary and discovered your new word-for-the-day. Good for you.

Oh, so you saying you're more expert makes it so?
If you can do it, so can I. :)

Are you sure you don't work for the US intelligence agency? They always get things right.
Nope. I wouldn't work for them either. Nor would I offer my services to a military organization because I simply don't like killing humans and I don't like people who do.

I never said I was an expert by the way, but I sure as hell ain't claiming you're some kind of expert when your only solution for animal problems is to shoot them.
I didn't say that was my only solution to animal problems. You said that.

Takes a big brain to do that.
If you say so. I disagree, though.



*snickers*
yes... "child." :roll: Because I'm giving you a bit of friction in the debate, I gotta be a little child.
Nope. Because you resort to namecalling and swearing when you don't get your way.

Guess what? News Flash: Hunting for the Pursuit of Game usually involves the "Killing" of that animal... hince the term "HUNT"
So? News flash - hunting still does not = killing.

If you're going to go hunting and not kill your prey, then it's not hunting, you're bird watching.
rofl According to you. Paint ball enthusiasts hunt each other. Photographers hunt for things to shoot. See? I told you your vocabulary is limited and you can only see what you want. Can't conceive of other views because yours is the only one that counts, right? Sorry, I disagree again.

But see.... much like the car situation, nobodys talking about wanting to restrict the right to hunt or shoot for sport and now you're continually trying to side track the argument into something that isn't even of concern.
If you had been civil, a lot less pompous, and stuck to your own post topic, then things could have been different.

In other words, you're making a big farting stink over nothing..... and you continue to do so, even after I already explained to you that I couldn't give a rats ass about the hunting part of things.
Good, then drop it.



*twirls finger*
Whoopie Doo..... I already explained multiple times of my own training and use of firearms, both for hunting and target practice. I suppose mentioning that my brother went to the '96 Canada Games for Range doesn't help exclude your freak out over hunting and target practice?
Nope, because you apparently still can't see the difference in the purpose of design.

Oh but this is where you try and pin point where I somehow said those should be banned as well.... and then I will respond with correcting you that I said those things are not justification for allowing the laws to remain the way they are.
Nope. I am not the one who said you wanted firearms banned. I didn't see anyone but Risus come up with that moronic comment.

Are you figuring this out yet, or shall I stoop to sign language?
I understood you long ago.



Did I? No.


Did I? Nope....



Did I say that as well? Nope.... keep trying though, you might get something right eventually.
lol Looks like you don't understand rhetorical questions when you see them either.



Of course it is, which is why I didn't say that was the right answer.
Good for you. :)



I've accepted it as it stands.... it just doesn't really give you any foundation for your argument.
Who's arguing?


Is it? Nope.... but keep trying. You can't annoy an annoyance, that's like some sorta conundrum.
Sorry. If you weren't being annoyed then you would have no need to resort to namecalling and swearing.



Yes, and no.... you still got the second part wrong.
no I didn't.



Well no wonder, because you haven't begun to understand what's been said. Perhaps it's my accent.
You only think I don't understand. That's why I am laughing at you.



Fair enough.... although I mentioned it before, I suggested that people getting firearms should be tested in a similar fashion as people trying to fly a plane, or drive a car. In many places this does already happen, but in places like Virginia and Georgia, all you need is a drivers license and you get a gun.... that's the thing I have a personal problem with.
So do something about it.
Here all you need is a firearms acquisition permit to get a firearm. I don't see a big difference. I've known cops in the US who shouldn't have firearms. And that group is very small and tested. You intend on making everyone in the US that wants gun take tests? Sorry, but I think there still will be firearm deaths.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
The most effective plan would be to ban guns altogether.
Uhuh. That sure worked in the UK, didn't it? If I remember correctly, the crime stats involving firearms went up after they tried that there.
Lets not just look at the shooting sprees in the US, but all the other crimes which took place with the use of guns... That number is astronomical.
Too much I agree. But you just go ahead and tell congres that they should ban guns in the US. At best they would simply laugh at you, at worst one of the members would shoot you themselves. Um, in case you didn't notice, just the gun registry itself was enough to cause people to hide guns and it didn't keep guns from being carried across the border. Try a ban and that would get you nowhere, also.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
Too much I agree. But you just go ahead and tell congres that they should ban guns in the US. At best they would simply laugh at you, at worst one of the members would shoot you themselves. Um, in case you didn't notice, just the gun registry itself was enough to cause people to hide guns and it didn't keep guns from being carried across the border. Try a ban and that would get you nowhere, also.
Well if congress just laughs, that shows you the mentality of the yankees in charge. They need to get their heads out of their butts.

I dare them to try to shoot me themselves! :p
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Well if congress just laughs, that shows you the mentality of the yankees in charge. They need to get their heads out of their butts.

I dare them to try to shoot me themselves! :p

Risus, let me explain something to you.....Congress in the United States does not have the power to ban guns.

Let me say that again........Congress does not have the power to ban guns.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment garauntees an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

In doing so, it overturned a law that banned handguns in Washington D.C.

The ONLY way to legally ban guns in the USA would be to amend the Constitution. That would require that two thirds of the State legislatures approve an amendment (33 states), and that it pass both houses of Congress with a 2/3 majority.

Good luck with that.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
Risus, let me explain something to you.....Congress in the United States does not have the power to ban guns.

Let me say that again........Congress does not have the power to ban guns.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment garauntees an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

In doing so, it overturned a law that banned handguns in Washington D.C.

The ONLY way to legally ban guns in the USA would be to amend the Constitution. That would require that two thirds of the State legislatures approve an amendment (33 states), and that it pass both houses of Congress with a 2/3 majority.

Good luck with that.
Well thats what they should do, otherwise the slaughter will continue...
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Interestingly, what I outlined is basically the Practical Firearms Control System developed by the National Firearms Association.......it is the "gun lobby's" plan.

You can join by going to NFA.ca..... :)

To me, what you laid out was something I could agree as a start off point, but the problem is that there are areas where there isn't even this sort of plan in place, there's basically no regulation.... and to me, that's where one root of the problem lies.

But no, I'm not about to join up to an organization at this time.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Sorry, but I didn't say it was an insult; I said it is abusive. Again you display your lack of comprehensive abilities.

I know exactly what you said, and I attempt to reduce my personal insults to a minimum.... as it goes for "Abusive" I couldn't give a sh*t... it's words, deal with it.

I don't have to suck hole anybody to say what I have to say.... and quite honestly, saying it as I see it tends to get the message across a lot faster then pampering people's sensitive eyes from words they might find mean.

Not really. I understand you. You want to voice your opinion and get cranky when you don't get the answerrs you think are the right ones.

As case in point in a couple of posts above.... you're wrong.

You tell someone else that they see black and white, yet you demand yes & no answers. Sorry, not everyone wants to follow your rules if you won't follow them yourself.

Well gee sorry, but it seems like the question and debate was too complex for some, so I dumbed it down a little to a yes and no question.... now you complain it's too simple.... geez... sometimes you just can't please a person.... always "I want this I want that, Gimmie gimmie gimmie."

Don't make me turn this car around.... I swear we'll all go home and never see Disney Land.

Sometimes you don't have the choice to leave them alone. But apparently that never occured to you.

And I'll repeat myself, yet again, and again, and again.... I already said there are some situations where there is no option..... but as I also said before, and again, and I'll say it again.... Shooting animals isn't always the solution either..... such as the chipmunks you mentioned.... I can't remember the last time I ever had to gun down a chipmunk because he was a danger.

Lucky you. Did you have a chicken coop? Did you have fruit crops? Did you have a feed shed?

Do you have things called fences? Do you have things called locks? Do you have things like Motion Sensor Lights? There's all kinds of things one can use.

Who shoots every animal? Again a display of incomprehension. Where did I say I shot all animals that come here? The last one I shot was the cougar that the intention of raiding my chicken coop 2 years ago. Sorry I didn't think of waiting the few hours till the CO got here. The time before that was the blackbear that was raiding my fruit trees. I pumped two rounds of salt into its backside.

And you know something? And old trick my family has used for their camps on the lake and farms when they had to deal with bears breaking in or stealing food, was to take fishing net and drape it over the doors, or around the trees or food. The majority of bears with sense this as a trap and leave well alone.... in fact, the last time my grandparents camp was raided by a bear was back when I was still in school before they started to do that.

The bear leaves well enough alone, we leave them well enough alone, and everybody lives.

Guess you didn't consider asking me how frequently I shoot critters, though. Can't do that. More fun to just leap to conclusions I shoot everything in sight because I offered a few examples. You really should get over your attitude problem.

I only reflect what's given my way. You like to generalize, so I'll generalize for you, since it seems to be a hobby of yours.... oh, but now you're getting all pissy because it's not working on me.... oh.... too bad *Makes a Sad Face*

Nevermind. I prefer not to have people like you here.

Well gee, too bad that decision isn't up to you. If I had all the time in the world, I'd move right next door to you, since our friendship is going oh so well so far.... I think we could be the bestest of buddies.

Then again, there's probably plenty of people like me surrounding you where you live already..... I suppose I should hold the fort in my neck of the woods.

You'd do as you pleased without bothering to find out if you'd be interfering with things.

Asking questions, raising topics, debating things and talking is one thing.... doing is another. As it stands, I'm not interfering with anything, other then your peaceful day.... but you can always just move onto another topic... I can do this forever.

Ah. So I am supposed to find a place for my chicken coop and fruit trees that won't be bothered by critters? Sorry, but inside my house isn't a feasible place for them. I don't have a problem with my garbage bags. And most of the compost goes to feeding the chickens, the rest goes to the gardens. My feed shed has been reinforced since the old grizzly tore a wall apart to get at the feed. The CO got that one. He just happened to be in the area.

There is such a thing as the internet which holds all kinds of other affordable, more effective, and less time consuming approaches one can take for each paticular situation and location. Since I don't know the details of the size of your land, the amount of animals in your care, the amount of wild animal encounters you have on a regular basis, I am not about to shoot off all kinds of things which may never work.

The garbage thing was just one example of a recent problem we had to deal with, where something simple worked far better then us chasing around an animal in the dark.


Evil, as opposed to being Good.

Nah. You were provoking people into giving you reasons why they think they should have firearms.

It worked didn't it?

But my apologies if I didn't clarify that I personally had no issue with hunting or sporting events.... My focus, which I thought was obvious, was towards the generic availability of firearms for anybody in regards to using them against other humans.

Well, a little while ago you posted that you wanted a simple yes or no answer. If that isn't B&W simplistic to you, then I can't help you.

The Yes was for the ability to go further into the reasons why you think "Yes" as with No, you would clearly be stating that you personally didn't feel there was an issue... you would have stated your opinion, and that was all that was needed.... I just wanted to check out the general feedback on people and where the majority/minority stood on the subject.

If you don't feel there is a problem, by all means, state why if you like.... if you think there is a problem, like I do, then by all means, state why and for bonus points, you can offer your own solutions or ideas.... I'm open to it all.

But when people go into side arguments that don't really relate, such as this whole long winded argument between you and I on how we post and argue (As it has nothing really to do with the original conversation) it side tracks the whole thing in a very big way... as it should be very obvious by now, since we're going into two pages of bitching about the same crap over and over again.

I know we're doing this, and I'll keep doing it until it is reconized.

I know enough of you to not want to be around when you have a firearm handy.

Personally, I'm quite capable with a firearm, not to mention responsible. I've taken the proper training and background checks during my training.... that is the argument I am supporting.... proper training and background checks for people prior to them being handed a gun.

You have a temper problem and I would hate to see what you are like after you start ignoring the rational and pass the namecalling stage.

A former Roman Catholic Irish Male from a Fishing/Military family with a Father as a school teacher in the school you went to has a slight Temper?

Heavens to Betsy! Say it isn't so! *slaps cheecks*

I don't have a temper problem, I have an attitude problem, please get it straight. The moment I stop using sarcasm, then you might start to see a temper.... but you have yet to see anything remotely towards what I would call a temper.

Sorry, you beat me to it. And if I don't read things the way you think I should, then perhaps you could learn English a little better.

Meh, why should I stop my whole life just to suit your reading abilities?

Of course everyone is wrong except you. You aren't ever wrong.

You know.... I'm starting to get this whole Jesus Christ impression.... You and others continually claim I say I'm always right and everybody else is wrong, when I have never said that.

Pull more sh*t out of your ass if you like, it's all still gonna smell the same.

And then "bitched and moaned" when other people mentioned gun laws and stated their opinions of them. Sorry, but it is a two way street in the forum. You don't get to voice your opinion and then keep others from voicing theirs.

No, people bitch and moan when I don't entertain their little side track arguments, such as how I'm entertaining this load of crap right now..... but see if I didn't do this, you'd be all in an even worse uproar then you currently are now, and chances are I'll be changed from someone with a "Temper and Attitude Problem" to a Nazi Forum member.

*clicks boots*

Ah, so no-one can make examples except you either. Sorry, but again, it's a two way street.

Oh, I know. You're making a perfect example right now.

The general topic is unnatural deaths.

The topic is about unnatural deaths? Gee, if I wanted to simplify things like that, I could just claim the topic is about "Human Interaction."

You picked death by firearms as an example. Other throw in death by vehicle, knife, fists, etc. with your example. Too bad. "Suck it up" as you say. And move on.

The report originally posted was related to gun violence and deaths related to guns.... if you think cars are a related example, then your imagination is a lot more wild then my own.

Simplify it then rather than spewing abuse, child.

And you claim I'm the d*ck? You know if I was such a jerk, why are you stooping to my level.... Grampa? Keep it up smart ass... I can do this for a lot longer then you can.

And Child isn't going to affect me none... it just keeps reminding me that you're going to die of old age long before I do.

Again, it is a two way street, if people don't want to be "steered" the way you want, that's tough.


Too bad... start your own damn thread and stay out of mine if you don't like it.

Well, you did. So?

*shakes head some more* You can't hi-jack a topic on the very first post, which is the post that creates the topic.... use your head.

You started the concept of debate by posting the article of the deaths in the church and highlighted parts of the article in red. If you don't think people think you were focusing their attention on what concepts you were thinking about, why the red highlights? Seems pretty easy to understand to me. Sorry it is too complicated for you.

I highlight anything I feel others, for whatever reason, may find interesting or might relate to them in a topic, and to perhaps help them find parts of the article they want to read, beyond the none important or repetative parts of the article.

Is that too complicated for you? I know exactly why I do the things I do, and trust me, I think about what I am about to say or do before I do it.

Sorry but I don't think you comprehend the meaning of the word "consistent".

Your continual bitching about me rather then actually focusing on the topic is pretty consistent... is that a good enough explination for you, oh grand master of words?

lol Ahhh, here we go again, everyone else screwed up. Apparently you suffer from a god complex as well as a dictator complex.

See, there you go with not reading things again..... are you sure you shouldn't be on some sort of medication for that problem?

I never said "Everyone Else Screwed Up" I said "Others Screwed Up" which is a general classification of a select few.... not all.

And just because I take the time and effort to follow as many of the rules as humanly possible at one time, doesn't make me a God.... that just means I'm not lazy like you.

And the Dictator thing will come eventually.... first I have to win the world over with my Dr. House / Pierre Trudeau charm of not giving a rats ass of what other's think of me.

Well, I can't help it. I am human. No god complexes.

Well that's good.... not everybody can handle that level of power.

Sorry again, but I do understand you.

Well if that's the case.....

 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
wow you found a dictionary and discovered your new word-for-the-day. Good for you.

:-? That's the best you can do?

If you can do it, so can I. :)

See the difference is, I didn't. Now who's being cocky? *snickers*

Nope. I wouldn't work for them either. Nor would I offer my services to a military organization because I simply don't like killing humans and I don't like people who do.

Oh well, you don't like people who do, so there's a start.... how would you attempt to reduce the amount of people killing one another? (Hint: I don't care if it has to do with reduction of guns, etc..... whatever pops in your head)

I didn't say that was my only solution to animal problems. You said that.

Well that was the only solution you presented.... until you present more, that's all you got.

If you say so. I disagree, though.

And that's your right to do so.

Nope. Because you resort to namecalling and swearing when you don't get your way.

Well holy snappin crap, I'd hate to see how you deal with people in real life. By the way, you're the one constantly calling me the child. (And I'll keep calling you grandpa until you stop)

Oh and the "Maggot" comment earlier.... that was just for entertainment purposes and to relate to the image used. Nothing personal :p

[/i]So? News flash - hunting still does not = killing.

So long as you never catch or see anything to shoot at, you're right. But the intent is still there.

rofl According to you. Paint ball enthusiasts hunt each other.

Paintball guns are not designed to kill, nor would I even call it hunting.....

Photographers hunt for things to shoot.

Cameras are not weapons, nor are they designed to kill. I suppose you're going to use the "Steals your Soul" argument next?

What's next? Water Guns?

See? I told you your vocabulary is limited and you can only see what you want. Can't conceive of other views because yours is the only one that counts, right? Sorry, I disagree again.

Well I just expanded on your views a bit further then you did, and kinda sheded a better light on each then you did.... I can't help it if your argument is flawed :p

If you had been civil, a lot less pompous, and stuck to your own post topic, then things could have been different.

Yeah well sh*t happens.

Good, then drop it.

Now why would I go and do something as silly as that? I already tried to drop it.... you kept egging this whole bit*h-fest on with me... now I found some entertainment in this little argument we're having.... you have only yourself to blame because of your lack of ability to read things properly the first time.

Nope, because you apparently still can't see the difference in the purpose of design.


Sure I can. I can also see the easy potiential of things that can kill. Just because I point out that something can kill beyond it's original design, doesn't mean I'm trying to make an entire argument for that thing to be removed off the face of the earth.... I was just stating a fact.... you blew it all out of proportion.

Nope. I am not the one who said you wanted firearms banned. I didn't see anyone but Risus come up with that moronic comment.

And I just took your post wayy back a few pages ago and made it as an example, as you did relate to me as being black and white, which is why I pulled out the Full Metal Jacket routine on you, as well as used that point in time to attempt to clarify my postion even further.... in a humorous way.... you just can't take a joke.

I understood you long ago.

Then why are you still arguing with me?

lol Looks like you don't understand rhetorical questions when you see them either.

Doesn't matter if I'm giving a question expecting an answer or not, I'll answer it regardless.

Good for you. :)

I thought so.

Who's arguing?

Arguing, Debating, Having a Tea Party, take your pick.

Sorry. If you weren't being annoyed then you would have no need to resort to namecalling and swearing.

Sorta hypocritical if you ask me.... ie: Child.

I could probably go through and pick a few more out, but I got other things to do soon.

no I didn't.

Yes you did, I'm not talking about people who don't kill people (with firearms).... I'm talking about people who kill people. (with firearms) Those who don't, I really don't care about obviously.

You only think I don't understand. That's why I am laughing at you.

Laugh all you want... it doesn't help the discussion though.

So do something about it.

It's not my country to do anything about it.... But last I checked, there wern't thought police on here restricting the ability to talk about it.

Here all you need is a firearms acquisition permit to get a firearm. I don't see a big difference. I've known cops in the US who shouldn't have firearms. And that group is very small and tested. You intend on making everyone in the US that wants gun take tests? Sorry, but I think there still will be firearm deaths.

Of course there will be... but there is an opportunity to reduce the amount of deaths, and I sorta figured doing something is better then doing nothing at all.
 

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
:-? That's the best you can do?



See the difference is, I didn't. Now who's being cocky? *snickers*



Oh well, you don't like people who do, so there's a start.... how would you attempt to reduce the amount of people killing one another? (Hint: I don't care if it has to do with reduction of guns, etc..... whatever pops in your head)



Well that was the only solution you presented.... until you present more, that's all you got.



And that's your right to do so.



Well holy snappin crap, I'd hate to see how you deal with people in real life. By the way, you're the one constantly calling me the child. (And I'll keep calling you grandpa until you stop)

Oh and the "Maggot" comment earlier.... that was just for entertainment purposes and to relate to the image used. Nothing personal :p



So long as you never catch or see anything to shoot at, you're right. But the intent is still there.



Paintball guns are not designed to kill, nor would I even call it hunting.....



Cameras are not weapons, nor are they designed to kill. I suppose you're going to use the "Steals your Soul" argument next?

What's next? Water Guns?



Well I just expanded on your views a bit further then you did, and kinda sheded a better light on each then you did.... I can't help it if your argument is flawed :p



Yeah well sh*t happens.



Now why would I go and do something as silly as that? I already tried to drop it.... you kept egging this whole bit*h-fest on with me... now I found some entertainment in this little argument we're having.... you have only yourself to blame because of your lack of ability to read things properly the first time.



Sure I can. I can also see the easy potiential of things that can kill. Just because I point out that something can kill beyond it's original design, doesn't mean I'm trying to make an entire argument for that thing to be removed off the face of the earth.... I was just stating a fact.... you blew it all out of proportion.



And I just took your post wayy back a few pages ago and made it as an example, as you did relate to me as being black and white, which is why I pulled out the Full Metal Jacket routine on you, as well as used that point in time to attempt to clarify my postion even further.... in a humorous way.... you just can't take a joke.



Then why are you still arguing with me?



Doesn't matter if I'm giving a question expecting an answer or not, I'll answer it regardless.



I thought so.



Arguing, Debating, Having a Tea Party, take your pick.



Sorta hypocritical if you ask me.... ie: Child.

I could probably go through and pick a few more out, but I got other things to do soon.



Yes you did, I'm not talking about people who don't kill people (with firearms).... I'm talking about people who kill people. (with firearms) Those who don't, I really don't care about obviously.



Laugh all you want... it doesn't help the discussion though.



It's not my country to do anything about it.... But last I checked, there wern't thought police on here restricting the ability to talk about it.



Of course there will be... but there is an opportunity to reduce the amount of deaths, and I sorta figured doing something is better then doing nothing at all.

In all honesty what can any of us do about senseless violence. More often than not it is not pre-meditated but a spur of the moment thing. Knife, gun, axe, rock, baseball bat etc., all capable of killing.
Unless one has premonitions about these things they will continue to go on. Humans are better predators than any animal in the wild, but at least they kill to eat and are equipped to do that.
I do not see a solution.
Ever.