The reasons people kill with anything, is largely to do with inequality amongst people, due to fear. That's been the case since the beginning of our time. Our legacy, if you will! But of course it's also true that even if all were equally not starving, having the same means to grow and flourish, there would be those that are physically deficient in the brain pan, chemically unbalanced. But then, isn't that the reason why we have so much plutonium floating around in the first place? Yes I'm suggesting that the human animal, from the very beginning, has been chemically imbalanced, as evidenced by it's fear laden history, of continually building a better means for killing another, not itself, finally ending with the ultimate killing device that can ensure no human is left standing, potentially ending it's fear laden journey down insanity lane. Then bickering about relative pop guns. The monkey boys just really make me laugh out loud, the fools they are! Always serving self, yet not quite!FlashDangerpants wrote:These are the words the OP wroteSpheresOfBalance wrote: If the claim that when terrorists use bombs - the terrorists get blamed, but when they use guns the guns get blamed instead were true, then guns would be irrational instrument for terrorism (terrorism must by definition have a political objective, guns by definition have no political aspirations).
You misunderstood Bob's, (the OP's), OP. He was contrasting the verbiage used to comment on gun control relative to bomb usage. At least that's how I took it. Ask him and see.Don't tell me he wrote something else.Direct copy and paste of the OP! wrote: When terrorists kill and maim people with bombs, people don't blame the bombs, they blame the terrorists. But when the terrorists use guns, people blame the guns.
That's exactly what he wrote! But it's his meaning that's at issue.
"When terrorists kill and maim people with bombs, people don't blame the bombs, they blame the terrorists. But when the terrorists use guns, people blame the guns.
It's obvious to at least me, that he's speaking of the rhetoric surrounding gun control. The difference between the significance of each means of destruction, relative to the rhetoric supplied for each.
I can't believe you people are actually whining about guns when humanity is so far past their destructive potential that it's not funny. Just last night I saw a documentary on nuclear weapons grade plutonium, or more specifically, I'm referring to the outrageous number of metric tons that are floating around every day, every where, yes every country, like it's candy. When only a quantity as large as a grapefruit yields megatons of total destruction, cities of people completely gone, nothing left but a fucking shadow of what once was. You people are fucking hilarious, many of you I'm sure, defend nuclear power plants as a viable source of energy. Simply because energy serves your selfish needs, to run your toys! Please shut the fuck up, not for mine, but for yours, as it's your ass that's obviously showing. Like ostriches you brain dead people are. (my nastiness reserved for those to whom it applies, not necessarily for he/she to whom I initially replied).
The same point has been used multiple times in this thread.
You guys are saying it's just a metaphor when that suits you, and treating it as literal when it doesn't.
I'm bored of infantile suggestions that I and other low lifes like me only disapprove of murder when it is committed with particular implements. Guns are sold in shops in your country and used to kill rooms full of school children, bombs are not. If bombs were packaged and sold the same way guns are, we would be appalled by it, as we are by the reckless sale of guns.
Don't lie about our motives when we don't congratulate you on the widespread sale of armaments to psychopaths.
All arguments for and against hand guns are in fact fear laden. PERIOD! But there's a new kid on the block, indiscriminate of the source of everyone's fears! It's surely M.A.D.!