School Shooting in Knoxville

#451
#451
luthervol said:
Please.......one of your greatest talking points is busted.
It reduced it to 30% of previous levels and then increased to 60-70% of previous levels. That means even after the increase, it was still 30-40% less.
Click to expand...
By making everyone who drank criminals.....

That's not exactly a win. Not sure how it is for you.
 
#452
#452
luthervol said:
Nope, just a little buzzed.
I never buy non-alcoholic beer.
Click to expand...
if the purpose of alcohol is to inebriate [buzz] (i am aware of your careful choice in terminology, here) then we must have a national crisis of alcohol related deaths in America given the number of adults who drink. How can you morally support financially the industry by purchasing alcohol which kills so many, is a catalyst for spousal abuse, and date rape?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, Behr, LouderVol and 1 other person
#454
#454
McDad said:
if the purpose of alcohol is to inebriate [buzz] (i am aware of your careful choice in terminology, here) then we must have a national crisis of alcohol related deaths in America given the number of adults who drink. How can you morally support financially the industry by purchasing alcohol which kills so many, is a catalyst for spousal abuse, and date rape?
Click to expand...
It is also a leading cause in underage traffic fatalities. Isn't it already illegal to drink under 21?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Behr and McDad
#455
#455
luthervol said:
But then there is that pesky fact that one was designed to kill things and the other was designed to build things.
Click to expand...
No. It was designed to shoot. Period.

What it shoots (the target) is up to the person pulling the trigger.

I can go to the gun range, fire off 1 shot, hit the paper bullseye; and the gun worked as designed.

It's not rational or reasonable to claim it's designed to do something that less than .1% of them ever do. And I am pretty sure there are a couple zeros between the decimal and the 1 in that percentage but I am too lazy to do the math again for you to just ignore, again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#457
#457
luthervol said:
Of course it matters. Humans understand the concept of intended use.
Click to expand...
Not really. Many/most of our greatest innovations are taking a thing intended to do one thing and doing another with it.

And you are still missing ion it's intended use.
 
#458
#458
luthervol said:
Please.......one of your greatest talking points is busted.
It reduced it to 30% of previous levels and then increased to 60-70% of previous levels. That means even after the increase, it was still 30-40% less.
Click to expand...
That's not what it said. Looth. You still being special over here? They should rename the Politcal Forum the short bus.
 
#463
#463
OHvol40 said:
That’s a whole lot of word salad to avoid admitting the purpose of a tool. The purpose of a saw is to cut wood, not move back and forth. The purpose of a shovel is to dig and scoop earth, not to just thrust downward. The purpose of a hammer is to pound a nail, not just for swinging... and the purpose of a gun is to kill or maim, not fire a projectile.

Of course it matters what an operator chooses to do with any of those tools, but that doesn’t change their intended purpose for existing in the first place.
Click to expand...
Saw is just to cut. Shovel just to dig. Hammer just to hit. What you cut/dig/hit is up to the operator.

Again you are arguing to the preposterous that guns are designed to do a very specific thing that less than .1% do.

You either believe gun designers are complete garbage, or have no concept of what guns are designed to do.

What makes a gun designed to kill or maim? I bet you cant define it without first describing how it was designed to shoot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and InVOLuntary
#464
#464
luthervol said:
I didn't say that at all.
What I said was the intended purpose behind the invention of guns was to kill things. (primarily people)
I never once said that was the only purpose for guns today.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Went back, looked and you did not say that in the referenced conversation.
 
#465
#465
So every body needs to start hammering Luther on which title II items he is willing to remove restrictions on since it highlights his hypocrisy on guns. Silencers have no real reason being on there. And since they’re regulating more items like pistol braces and bump stocks it’s only reasonable to compromise on other non firearm items in the list.

Luther is playing the long game of eating the elephant one bite at a time. Eventually the elephant will be gone. Time to start restoring the elephant to whole.
 
#468
#468
luthervol said:
It decreases the ease of purchasing multiple guns "legally" only to turn around and sell them "illegally".
Click to expand...

But Luther, you admit there is already a law defining the illegal sale of guns! If I buy five guns over the next few months, turn around and sell them to people from out of state (whether I knowingly do or not) is already illegal. But you want to make me buying five guns over the new few months to keep for myself illegal.

This seems to be akin to posting a piece of paper on an office door that says "No Guns Allowed." Well, I'm not sure how much deterrence that provides to some murderous SOB armed with a gun, knife, fork, shiv, baseball bat, or wasp spray to keep them from busting in and killing who they want to kill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and Rickyvol77
#469
#469
If they start a buy back program no questions ask I'll be purchasing a 3d printer. I'll run it 24/7 and cash in on the silliness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#470
#470
McDad said:
if the purpose of alcohol is to inebriate [buzz] (i am aware of your careful choice in terminology, here) then we must have a national crisis of alcohol related deaths in America given the number of adults who drink. How can you morally support financially the industry by purchasing alcohol which kills so many, is a catalyst for spousal abuse, and date rape?
Click to expand...
I support all of their rational and reasonable restrictions........same with guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40
#471
#471
LouderVol said:
No. It was designed to shoot. Period.

What it shoots (the target) is up to the person pulling the trigger.

I can go to the gun range, fire off 1 shot, hit the paper bullseye; and the gun worked as designed.

It's not rational or reasonable to claim it's designed to do something that less than .1% of them ever do. And I am pretty sure there are a couple zeros between the decimal and the 1 in that percentage but I am too lazy to do the math again for you to just ignore, again.
Click to expand...
Look at the history of firearms. I even provided a link. There is no debate.
 
#472
#472
luthervol said:
It decreases the ease of purchasing multiple guns "legally" only to turn around and sell them "illegally".
Click to expand...
No it decreases the ease of purchasing multiple guns, period. Your limit on legal gun sales doesnt do anything to the illegal sales. It hurts citizens, not criminals.

There are already laws in place that decrease the ease of selling guns illegally. Funny you dont address that side, and just want to focus on punishing the legal members of society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top