Mass Shooting in Atlanta

[C-south]

What does hunting, self defense, and killing have in common?

The letter “n”?

 

[hog88]

What rabbit hole?

the reason for guns.

 

[OHvol40]

We have always had violence in our society.

Yes we have... and we have always had wars since the dawn of civilization. So, which wars have been more deadly, the ones with guns or the ones without?

 

[hog88]

What does hunting, self defense, and killing have in common?

All are necessary.

 

[C-south]

Yes we have... and we have always had wars since the dawn of civilization. So, which wars have been more deadly, the ones with guns or the ones without?

Ban missiles?

 

[hog88]

I’m not arguing anything yet, I’m trying to create a productive dialogue.

Where did I make a determination, other than the determination that facts are required to pinpoint problems and create solutions to said problems?

You are not trying to have a productive dialog, far from it. You are ignoring productive dialog because it doesn't fit your agenda.

 

[OHvol40]

you haven't been open to the dialogue anytime anything besides guns is brought up. or at least you always steer it back to guns.

I’m sorry, I was under the impression this thread is now about two mass killings via guns, we can talk about knives and spears in the threads dedicated to to the threads covering the knife and spear mass killings if that’s what you prefer.

 

[hog88]

Sure it does. You have no problem admitting vehicles are designed to move people... you don’t say their purpose is to combust gas... you truly don’t see the logical problem you have?

The intended purpose of a product has no bearing on it being used in a nefarious act.

 

[OHvol40]

All are necessary.

When is killing necessary outside of self-defense?

 

[hog88]

Yes we have... and we have always had wars since the dawn of civilization. So, which wars have been more deadly, the ones with guns or the ones without?

^^When you have nothing of value to contribute.

 

[hog88]

When is killing necessary outside of self-defense?

Eating. I prefer my meat be at least dead.

 

[OHvol40]

You are not trying to have a productive dialog, far from it. You are ignoring productive dialog because it doesn't fit your agenda.

I’m not the one sidestepping the suggestion that information is important.

 

[MG1968]

I’m sorry, I was under the impression this thread is now about two mass killings via guns, we can talk about knives and spears in the threads dedicated to to the threads covering the knife and spear mass killings if that’s what you prefer.

What about machetes? 900 thousand Rwandans were murdered by those.

 

[Carl Pickens]

It does crack me up that the gun control morons think those of us who carry will all come running like captain America when the shooting starts. In that situation a gun is a defensive tool. You basically try to escape like anyone else and if you can’t get away you have a fair chance at survival.

Captain America is now gay Teen Captain America..... he wouldn’t run.... he’d sashay

 

[UT_VOLS13]

When is killing necessary outside of self-defense?

FOOD!!!

 

[OHvol40]

^^When you have nothing of value to contribute.

^^^ When you haven’t ever contributed anything and can’t think through the logic of their own position so you resort to ad hominem ^^^

 

[hog88]

I’m not the one sidestepping the suggestion that information is important.

You are completely sidestepping the fact people have been committing violence on other people since the dawn of time. You are completely sidestepping the discussion on why we need to figure out the "why" behind these mass murder events.

 

[LouderVol]

Sure it does. You have no problem admitting vehicles are designed to move people... you don’t say their purpose is to combust gas... you truly don’t see the logical problem you have?

no. I am against cars. I take the train to work, the car I do have is fuel efficient. My friends know that if I have to drive to get somewhere I am less likely to show up. if it wasn't to visit family in other states I may not even have one.

a gun shoots. thats what it is designed to do, that is what happens when someone pulls the trigger on a loaded gun.

guns also combust flammable materials.

you keep wanting to tie guns owned and operated by private citizens to something that not even .03% do. that's the logical problem.

 

[Carl Pickens]

What about machetes? 900 thousand Rwandans were murdered by those.

Not to mention those that had hands, arms, feet, legs and etc. amputated for intimidation purposes

 

[LouderVol]

Yes we have... and we have always had wars since the dawn of civilization. So, which wars have been more deadly, the ones with guns or the ones without?

attila or ghenghis khan killed enough people to reset forest growth, can't remember which killed more. ghenghis did have explosives though.

your scenario is a function of which have been fought with the most people, not guns. again the problem is people. not guns.

Afghanistan and Iraq have been far less deadly than pretty much any medieval war you could name.

 

[LouderVol]

I’m sorry, I was under the impression this thread is now about two mass killings via guns, we can talk about knives and spears in the threads dedicated to to the threads covering the knife and spear mass killings if that’s what you prefer.

people have been brought up. don't see you spending much time even acknowledging that.

 

[OHvol40]

You are completely sidestepping the fact people have been committing violence on other people since the dawn of time. You are completely sidestepping the discussion on why we need to figure out the "why" behind these mass murder events.

No I didn’t at all. What I actually said is “why is that the only thing we should study?”

You just prefer to pigeon hole yourself into “why” instead of looking at the way to solve any other problem, which is who, what when, where, why, and how.

 

[OHvol40]

no. I am against cars. I take the train to work, the car I do have is fuel efficient. My friends know that if I have to drive to get somewhere I am less likely to show up. if it wasn't to visit family in other states I may not even have one.

a gun shoots. thats what it is designed to do, that is what happens when someone pulls the trigger on a loaded gun.

guns also combust flammable materials.

you keep wanting to tie guns owned and operated by private citizens to something that not even .03% do. that's the logical problem.

You can dance around the purpose of a gun all you want, but it just makes you sound silly.

 

[OHvol40]

FOOD!!!

You eat people? Because hunting was mentioned as well.

 

[OHvol40]

attila or ghenghis khan killed enough people to reset forest growth, can't remember which killed more. ghenghis did have explosives though.

your scenario is a function of which have been fought with the most people, not guns. again the problem is people. not guns.

Afghanistan and Iraq have been far less deadly than pretty much any medieval war you could name.

Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t as deadly because the allies choose not to make it as deadly, not because the capability isn’t there. How many died in WWII when there wasn’t any restraint?