Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:55 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:What complete nonsense. Asteroids, MAD, alien invasion, swine flu and the heat death of the universe have got nothing to do with this, stop embarrassing yourself.
So ridiculous it's not even worth a response. Or! You're only speaking to a mirror, surely not me. Take your pick.

The problem with guns is that you own one (I assume), and if I say something mean to you on the internet, you might just lose your shit and go and kill a bunch of people. It's easy, because you keep a weapon suitable for killing lots of people just lying around ready for the day when your piss just boils that way.
You speak of yourself, surely! Question 1: How many gun owners have there ever been in the USA? Question 2: How many gun owners that have ever been in the USA, did as you've described above? I want a damn accurate percentage, or your words are far more ludicrous than mine. It's my assertion that the percentage of gun owners that have ever lived in the USA, that have done as you have fantasized above, is an exceedingly fractional quantity. That it's just plastered all over the news because it's so exceedingly rare, relative to the total number of gun owners that actually exist.

Sure, if we took your gun away, you could still fashion a weapon to kill people with.
This isn't about me, it's about you! You could kill, not I!

But it would take a lot more work.
Guns are very expensive my friend, which to some, is a lot more work than working with their hands.

I suppose you could quickly duct tape a bread knife to broom handle and try go on a murder rampage your home made spear, but that would be pretty shit compared to what you could get up to with some kind of semi automatic thingy.
I worked for the US DOD for 16 years. I worked in, on and around a squadron of multi million dollar aircraft, all their systems, including the weapons system. I was a nuclear weapons loading team member. I've also worked as a machinist, I could make a gun better than any one you could buy from an assembly line manufacturer. You ignored my use of the phrase "Machine Tool," or you're ignorant of what it meant. And there are thousands of people like me out there. Germany is filled with many, and we all know what they were able to do with such knowledge. Are you Hebrew?

Those kids who shoot up your schools so frequently wouldn't get on the news if they had turned up armed only with a pair of scissors at the end of a stick.
How about some arsenic from everyday rat poison and access to the school cafeteria. Silent but extremely deadly for anyone hungry that day!

You have highly efficient have murder weapons packaged up as consumer goods and sold to any old mad bastard without consequence. These aren't equivalent to actual consumer goods that happen to be convertible to inefficient murder weapons.
Already dealt with this, I have worked as a machinist and a family friend has a Federal Gunsmith License.
FYI, I'm against guns and any other sort of weapon. Ain't that a hoot?

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2230
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:37 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Question 1: How many gun owners have there ever been in the USA? Question 2: How many gun owners that have ever been in the USA, did as you've described above? I want a damn accurate percentage, or your words are far more ludicrous than mine. It's my assertion that the percentage of gun owners that have ever lived in the USA, that have done as you have fantasized above, is an exceedingly fractional quantity. That it's just plastered all over the news because it's so exceedingly rare, relative to the total number of gun owners that actually exist.
Well we seem to have some common ground after all. There should be accurate numbers, damn accurate ones!
There should be a record of exactly who is responsible for which guns. An immediate census would allow us to answer your question.
Then we can address some of mine too, like: "does this guy hear voices telling him to shoot people, and should we take his gun away for the good of everybody?"
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I worked for the US DOD for 16 years. I worked in, on and around a squadron of multi million dollar aircraft, all their systems, including the weapons system. I was a nuclear weapons loading team member. I've also worked as a machinist, I could make a gun better than any one you could buy from an assembly line manufacturer. You ignored my use of the phrase "Machine Tool," or you're ignorant of what it meant. And there are thousands of people like me out there.
Well, Kudos for you amazing shop class skills. Most of us couldn't do that, surely you agree on this? So I am going to stand by my intended point that most of us are not able to easily fashion a terribly well designed implement of mass murder. Therefore, if we are not able to purchase one without some real scrutiny of - what I maintain is a relevant question - whether we are vile people who intend to murder innocents with it, then there would be a corresponding loss of firepower among the vile murderous proportion of the population.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: How about some arsenic from everyday rat poison and access to the school cafeteria. Silent but extremely deadly for anyone hungry that day
I think you are feeding me poop and calling ice cream sir ¬_¬

In the instance of school shootings, I don't believe that rat poison would adequately fill the lethality void that would be left behind if guns were removed from the equation. It is very hard to fill up all the Sloppy Joes with enough of the stuff to kill people, I doubt that rat poison is flavourless, and I doubt that the dosing is all that easy. You couldn't get the same kind of body count that you get with a gun.

Furthermore, think of all the other situations where angry, bitter, lazy and stupid people are able to kill others just because they have a gun to hand. The minor traffic incidents that somehow end in bloodshed, the violent ex boyfriends who shoot their SO's + a bunch of colleagues; the guy who just really wants to murder his entire family for some reason or other; and the guy who, having shot one person for whatever reason, just thinks fuck it, let's shoot some other people. There's so much variety of location and motive, but not so much when it comes to choice of implement.

There's really no other type of weapon you can just grab and use to kill loads of people wherever you go when you just feel like it. I'm not denying you can get yourself a high score lots of ways. But for lazy people with no impulse control, a gun is what you want, when you want to get down to some killing right here and now.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Obvious Leo » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:00 pm

I think killing a school full of children with rat poison is unlikely to provide our psychopath with the frisson of excitement and attention which he craves. The military assault rifle has the necessary shock and awe for him to get his jollies as well as to get his inadequate personality featured in the media. Don't forget that we're usually just talking about some sorry shithead who can't get laid because he's such a fucking loser.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:58 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Question 1: How many gun owners have there ever been in the USA? Question 2: How many gun owners that have ever been in the USA, did as you've described above? I want a damn accurate percentage, or your words are far more ludicrous than mine. It's my assertion that the percentage of gun owners that have ever lived in the USA, that have done as you have fantasized above, is an exceedingly fractional quantity. That it's just plastered all over the news because it's so exceedingly rare, relative to the total number of gun owners that actually exist.
Well we seem to have some common ground after all. There should be accurate numbers,
Of course there are accurate numbers, I just made it your responsibility to provide them. I noticed you don't have a clue, or at least you've provided nothings to support your ravings.

damn accurate ones!
There should be a record of exactly who is responsible for which guns. An immediate census would allow us to answer your question.
Then we can address some of mine too, like: "does this guy hear voices telling him to shoot people, and should we take his gun away for the good of everybody?"
Keeping 'all' weapons from nuts is the responsibility of everyone, unfortunately some are reclusive, a flag for law enforcement, as to the possibility.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I worked for the US DOD for 16 years. I worked in, on and around a squadron of multi million dollar aircraft, all their systems, including the weapons system. I was a nuclear weapons loading team member. I've also worked as a machinist, I could make a gun better than any one you could buy from an assembly line manufacturer. You ignored my use of the phrase "Machine Tool," or you're ignorant of what it meant. And there are thousands of people like me out there.
Well, Kudos for you amazing shop class skills.
Nothing amazing about it! Anyone could do it if they had interest.

Most of us couldn't do that, surely you agree on this? So I am going to stand by my intended point that most of us are not able to easily fashion a terribly well designed implement of mass murder.
NO, it's not guns responsible for M.A.D., it's nucs! Hand guns, nothing more than pop guns.

Therefore, if we are not able to purchase one without some real scrutiny of - what I maintain is a relevant question - whether we are vile people who intend to murder innocents with it, then there would be a corresponding loss of firepower among the vile murderous proportion of the population.
Well obviously! Who wants mad humans running around with their finger on the button?
SpheresOfBalance wrote: How about some arsenic from everyday rat poison and access to the school cafeteria. Silent but extremely deadly for anyone hungry that day
I think you are feeding me poop and calling ice cream sir ¬_¬

In the instance of school shootings, I don't believe that rat poison would adequately fill the lethality void that would be left behind if guns were removed from the equation.
You missed the point, there are many ways to kill, hundreds, maybe thousands.

It is very hard to fill up all the Sloppy Joes with enough of the stuff to kill people, I doubt that rat poison is flavourless, and I doubt that the dosing is all that easy. You couldn't get the same kind of body count that you get with a gun.
Not at all, I'm sure many more would eat lunch, than the number of bullets a gun toter could carry.


Furthermore, think of all the other situations where angry, bitter, lazy and stupid people are able to kill others just because they have a gun to hand. The minor traffic incidents that somehow end in bloodshed, the violent ex boyfriends who shoot their SO's + a bunch of colleagues; the guy who just really wants to murder his entire family for some reason or other; and the guy who, having shot one person for whatever reason, just thinks fuck it, let's shoot some other people. There's so much variety of location and motive, but not so much when it comes to choice of implement.
If no one notices the clown in the room does it exist? Guns are not only what they're good for, they're unfortunately also what some make them.
"...If Jesus saves, well he better save himself, from the gory glory seekers, that use his name in death.

aaaahhhhooowwww

Oh if Jesus saves me..." --Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull--


There's really no other type of weapon you can just grab and use to kill loads of people wherever you go when you just feel like it.
BS, there are all kinds of ways. Bombs, as pipe bombs, pretty damned nasty, shrapnel wise, is at least one good example, as one can slip away and not get caught, at least for a little while. Guns, in the way you're using them, are only for those wanting to get caught, or be killed, to be noticed. So if you really cared, you'd give them attention before they picked up a gun. Who is responsible for one using them in that way, you, me, everybody, anybody?

I'm not denying you can get yourself a high score lots of ways. But for lazy people with no impulse control, a gun is what you want, when you want to get down to some killing right here and now.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sun Mar 27, 2016 11:08 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:I think killing a school full of children with rat poison is unlikely to provide our psychopath with the frisson of excitement and attention which he craves.
You're acting as though you've missed my point. Seemingly you fail to understand the reason why this seems to be true.

The military assault rifle has the necessary shock and awe for him to get his jollies as well as to get his inadequate personality featured in the media.
Sure for those wanting to die, many of them eat their last round, and it's still not the gun.
In such a case don't you think that one should ask themselves why someone wants to die in that way, in the first place? I believe that, is where one shall find the reason for such events, unless it might somehow rub ones interests, (they the catalyst, creating such a socioeconomic deterministic setting, as one example of many), the wrong way.

Of course anyone would be a fool to think that ones parents buying them a set of six shooter cap guns complete with holster, or allowing them to watch movies or play games modeled after American Westerns, Feudal England, or any other place or time where people kill others for power, money or resources, is not a place to look for the seeds of such behavior. That people blow others away is a sign of the times, indicating the sickness that modern society creates through selfish competition, neglect, materialism, consumerism, and many other failings.


Don't forget that we're usually just talking about some sorry shithead who can't get laid because he's such a fucking loser.
So you've actually considered taking a gun and shooting up a restaurant or other such human gathering, do tell.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2230
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:28 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Of course there are accurate numbers, I just made it your responsibility to provide them. I noticed you don't have a clue, or at least you've provided nothings to support your ravings.
You're bluffing. You don't have the numbers because you would have to make them up.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Most of us couldn't do that, surely you agree on this? So I am going to stand by my intended point that most of us are not able to easily fashion a terribly well designed implement of mass murder.
NO, it's not guns responsible for M.A.D., it's nucs! Hand guns, nothing more than pop guns.
M.A.D is still completely irtrelevant to the question of household firearms.
Hand guns and pop guns are clearly distinguishable by the fact that thousands of Americans are not murdered every year with real guns.
None to my knowledge are murdered with pop guns.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
There's really no other type of weapon you can just grab and use to kill loads of people wherever you go when you just feel like it.
BS, there are all kinds of ways. Bombs, as pipe bombs, pretty damned nasty, shrapnel wise, is at least one good example, as one can slip away and not get caught, at least for a little while. Guns, in the way you're using them, are only for those wanting to get caught, or be killed, to be noticed. So if you really cared, you'd give them attention before they picked up a gun. Who is responsible for one using them in that way, you, me, everybody, anybody?
As I already mentioned: I'm not denying you can get yourself a high score lots of ways. But for lazy people with no impulse control, a gun is what you want, when you want to get down to some killing right here and now. Those aren't the people who put together intricate plans with careful doses of poison, those poisoners probably couldn't be stopped anyway. But the lazy fuckers with the guns can. So stop them - take their boom sticks away.

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by UniversalAlien » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:24 pm

Once again for you so-called Humanists who want to make the world safe from gun deaths:

Death by Gun Control:
The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament

By Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens

"Deadly parasites contaminate your drinking water. A rabid dog roams the school playground. The power mad ruler threatens to invade. How do you react? Can you ignore a danger to yourself, your children, and your homeland?

What if that danger is a killer idea?

Our new book, Death By Gun Control, exposes the biggest killer in modern history: the killer idea of victim disarmament. In the 20th Century, at least 170,000,000 people were murdered by their own governments -- more killed than by crime – more than killed by war.

Professor R.J. Rummel, author of the monumental book Death by Government, said: “Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth.” For power to concentrate and become dangerous, the citizens must be disarmed.

What disarms the citizens? The idea of “gun control.” It’s the idea that only the government has the right to possess firearms, and that citizens have no unalienable right to use force to defend against aggression.

Death by Gun Control carefully examines the “gun control” idea: its meaning, its purposes, its effects. It comes in many forms, but in every form it enables the evildoers and works against righteous defense.

The Mother of All Stats

When the gun prohibitionists quote a statistic about how many people are killed by firearms misuse, the discussion sometimes bogs down into whose crime stats to believe and how to count crimes vs. the defensive firearm uses. Death by Gun Control works on a level that nobody can dispute: documented world history.

In the 20th Century:

• Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.

• Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.

How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power – and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed.

Death by Gun Control concisely delivers the horrifying facts of government-sponsored genocide in nation after disarmed nation, including the USSR, Ottoman Turkey, China, Uganda, Cambodia, and Rwanda. The book shows how “gun control” laws and policies are enacted and then employed to disarm civilians ? the civilians who later become the victims when the government goes bad. It examines also the racist roots of “gun control” in America, the rise of criminal violence in “disarmed” nations like Britain and Japan, and Zimbabwe’s teetering toward genocide.

The United Nations is now pushing hard for worldwide “gun control” – the disarming of civilians and the concentrating of arms in the hands of undemocratic governments. The UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not protect any individual right to keep and bear arms. Rather, the UN works to empower the member governments – most of which are regimes ruling nations that are not free. Death by Gun Control unmasks the UN’s thinly-veiled “small arms disarmament” agenda.

Contributors Featured

There is much more. Death by Gun Control features articles contributed by:

• James Bovard (Introduction): "Not every firearms regulation leads inexorably to genocide. ... But there is no trigger guard on political ambition."

• Stephen Halbrook, Ph.D. (Chapter 9): How Nazi firearms laws disarmed German Jews -- the whole story.

• Jacob Hornberger (Chapter 10): Retelling the tragic, inspiring tale of the The White Rose Society, college students who paid the ultimate price for freedom of mind.

• Larry Pratt (Chapter 18): What the Bible says to Christians and Jews about self-defense and victim disarmament.

Honored by Endorsements

We are so honored that many intelligent and articulate people have endorsed our book. Here are excerpts from just two of them:

• David Kopel, prominent scholar and prolific author: “One of the best books ever written about the right to keep and bear arms.”

• Wendy McElroy, columnist and author: “Death by Gun Control provides a vital and neglected argument for the right of private gun ownership: namely, that people with guns can defend themselves against government criminals as well as against common ones.”

If you realize that we need to destroy “gun control,” then you need to read Death by Gun Control. Easy to read & use.

Source:
http://jpfo.org/common-sense/cs17.htm

So you see to me and most others who accept the facts of history, and I'm sure there are some in the UK, this debate is trivial - Because you know and I know you do not want 'gun control', every country, including the US has some form of gun control - But what Americans fear most, is if they could take a once proud nation, a once proud people, whose empire once never set, and turn its people into gun fearing slaves of the socialist elite now ruling Britain, they could do it here, and they now have one of their candidates running for President of the US - And I'm not talking about Trump or Sanders.

"In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated."
- Joe Wurzelbacher

"In 1939, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, six million Jews and seven million others unable to defend themselves were exterminated."
- Joe Wurzelbacher


"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"
-George Orwell, "1984"

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12312
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:47 pm

UniversalAlien wrote:...
and turn its people into gun fearing slaves of the socialist elite now ruling Britain, ...
What 'socialist elite'? You mean the ones from Eton and Harrow? :lol:

We don't fear guns, we fear the lazy loons who would kill us in a fit of lunacy if they had easy access, we think this because we can see the stats between us and those countries who love easy access to guns. It's a no-brainer.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 7744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:04 pm

"we fear the lazy loons"

A legit concern.

Equally legit: being wary of those in power, being wary of those without scruples, being wary of those who eye 'you' as theirs.

Like it or not: we live on a predator-prey axis...not seein' how removing or restricting a viable means of my defense (or, if need be, offense) helps me, or any one beyond cultivating a false sense of security in folks who can't or won't self-defend.

I got no solutions to offer for gun violence. All I can say, as I have over and over, is, I won't be punished for the crimes of others, won't be hobbled cuz other folks do wrong.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:31 am

UniversalAlien wrote:Once again for you so-called Humanists who want to make the world safe from gun deaths:

Death by Gun Control:
The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament

By Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens

"Deadly parasites contaminate your drinking water. A rabid dog roams the school playground. The power mad ruler threatens to invade. How do you react? Can you ignore a danger to yourself, your children, and your homeland?
b]


Hysterical bullshit.

We pay tax for public health standards. Now we know that shooting the water with a snub-nosed .38 won't help. Rabies is rare to non-existent, and we also have a vaccine. And if you are worried about a power mad ruler - then don't vote for Trump idiot.

If you are so scared. Stop being a pussy and come and live in Britain.



"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"
-George Orwell, "1984"

This is not a recommendation - it is a warning for idiots like you.

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by UniversalAlien » Wed Mar 30, 2016 10:32 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
UniversalAlien wrote:Once again for you so-called Humanists who want to make the world safe from gun deaths:

Death by Gun Control:
The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament

By Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens

"Deadly parasites contaminate your drinking water. A rabid dog roams the school playground. The power mad ruler threatens to invade. How do you react? Can you ignore a danger to yourself, your children, and your homeland?
b]


Hysterical bullshit.

We pay tax for public health standards. Now we know that shooting the water with a snub-nosed .38 won't help. Rabies is rare to non-existent, and we also have a vaccine. And if you are worried about a power mad ruler - then don't vote for Trump idiot.

If you are so scared. Stop being a pussy and come and live in Britain.



"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"
-George Orwell, "1984"


This is not a recommendation - it is a warning for idiots like you.


Listen JACKASS you have proved your point - People {and I use the word loosely} like you should definitely not have the right to own guns - And I would not trust you with a slingshot or a knife either.

I want to make one thing very clear to you 'Hobbes' Choice' I take your use of Ad hominem attack, as an excuse for your low level of intelligence, to be inexcusable - And if you wanted to make it personal you have succeeded.

In years of debating on the internet you Hobbes' Choice are the first entity who has achieved the status of a personal enemy, not terrorists, not Isis - but you Hobbes' Choice are my enemy. Happy now creep :?:

PS: If you own any weapons I suggest you sell them, after all if you would attack a person on a forum you may one day develop some guts and attack someone for real - And use plastic knives and forks, we need to keep the world safe from mentally unbalanced beings like you :!:

"There are horrible people who, instead of solving a problem, tangle it up and make it harder to solve for anyone who wants to deal with it. Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all."-
Friedrich Nietzsche


"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:12 pm

UniversalAlien wrote: Listen JACKASS you have proved your point - People {and I use the word loosely} like you should definitely not have the right to own guns - And I would not trust you with a slingshot or a knife either.

I want to make one thing very clear to you 'Hobbes' Choice' I take your use of Ad hominem attack, as an excuse for your low level of intelligence, to be inexcusable - And if you wanted to make it personal you have succeeded.

[/b]
1) So you are in favour of gun control. Didn't take much to change your mind.
2) Look up "ad hominem", you've not got a fucking clue what it means. When I can you an idiot is it an accurate description not an ad hom.
3) I'm glad you are now in favour of gun control, as it's embarrassing watching you keep on shooting yourself in the foot.

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by UniversalAlien » Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:34 pm

To Hobbes' Choice I do sympathize with people who need help:

A guide to mental health services in England
Where to start?
Life's issues and problems can take many forms. Sometimes you may feel down for a few days, or you could be having a stressful time at work, causing you to feel worried and anxious. The best way to work out where to go next is to take the mood assessment quiz.
If you want to talk to someone right away, the mental health helpline page has a list of organisations you can call for immediate assistance. These are helplines with specially trained volunteers who'll listen to you, understand what you're going through, and help you through the immediate crisis. The Samaritans operates a service 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for people who want to talk in confidence. Call them on 08457 90 90 90.
See whole article here:
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSse ... vices.aspx


"The best place to store your weapons safely is in your enemy’s hands. It is in your best interest to be defenseless while your rulers have all the weapons. After all, the government knows what’s best for you.”
― Jarod Kintz, Xazaqazax

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Wed Mar 30, 2016 10:30 pm

UniversalAlien wrote:To Hobbes' Choice I do sympathize with people who need help:

A guide to mental health services in England
Where to start?
I'm sorry you are feeling mentally ill.
Just put the gun against your head and squeeze the trigger.

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by UniversalAlien » Thu Mar 31, 2016 3:45 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
"Just put the gun against your head and squeeze the trigger."

Is this the kind of statement you would expect from a philosopher :?: - Or is this the kind of statement you would expect from a sick psychopath with serious mental problems :?:

Of course he does partially make his point- No one in their right mind would trust an individual espousing violence and bodily harm becuase he can't win a point on a forum, with a gun - Or a knife, or any other weapon for that matter.

But they trust him here, allow him to spread his infection to others - so you have stopped personal self protection from guns where you are - And maybe you are a little safer, at least from guns - But how about from sick minds on forums - sick minds advocating violence and Human destruction - Claiming to be philosophers while they are not much better than terrorists - Terrorists of the mind, advocates of mind control.

And isn't that what the real issue is - NOT GUN CONTROL - BUT MIND CONTROL :!:

Don't these terrorists most of all want to control your mind :?: - And isn't taking away you right to defend yourself top of the list :?:

"Expecting a carjacker or rapist or drug pusher to care that his possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces."
--Joseph T. Chew, "Usenet posting in talk.politics.guns"

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gaffo and 2 guests