NorthDallas40
Displaced Hillbilly
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2014
- Messages
- 56,717
- Likes
- 82,391
Still searching for the point you think you have made.We are on a regionally-associated anonymous Internet forum. I invite you to carry your views to a forum with an association in a less gun-friendly region.
I made my point, and it rings true. Keep devaluing competing perspectives at your own peril.
That's all true, BUT no one buys an automobile to use as a weaponAn automobile actually has a brain and can even drive itself today. A firearm is an inert group of formed metal pieces incapable of doing any action on its own. I’d say the auto clearly has more propensity for destruction from its own capability.
It's another reason I liked my illustration. Alcohol's purpose is to inebriate. So if the beef is with either purpose or quantity, alcohol is far more deadly and destructive than guns.Irrelevant. The “a firearms only purpose is to kill people” broke back implied point has already landed with a resounding thud. An automobile can start itself, drive itself, and run over unintended things.
Yep. And good ole Luther bobbed and weaved to avoid the point completely as usual. But also alcohol is an inert object. Let’s hope Elon Musk never installs opposable thumbs on his damn cars or they will buy their own liquor, get hammered, and kill us all. Thus at that point the only logical solution would be to limit automobile ownership to people.It's another reason I liked my illustration. Alcohol's purpose is to inebriate. So if the beef is with either purpose or quantity, alcohol is far more deadly and destructive the guns.
Oh, I like that one.
How bout limit everyone to 5 texts per month since texting while driving is a national crisis? Or ban phones with text capabilities?