Set fire to them

[Gob]

Arsonists anyone?

[dales]

Just how do you arrive at this conclusion?

Reading is fundamental.

[dales]

Arsonists anyone?

Back on topic.

Yes, set fire to them (arsonists).

[rubato]

36,000 motor vehicle deaths in the US in 2009. It would be higher but we sensibly require people to register cars, have valid licenses to drive them, and have insurance.

If we did all 3 for guns there would be fewer deaths.

yrs,
rubato

What the fuck was that? You know, for a person that represents himself as a scientist and a student and adherent of empirical research? You totally suck. Are you fucking joking? Listen to me closely. The entire debate surrounding the Second amendment debate is PRECISELY that WE as a people have the right to bear Arms. The knee jerk emotional visceral reaction to an isolated tradegy is only a vehicle being manipulated by the Government to try to pass laws that ONLY AFFECT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS is the entire point you fucking tool. The Government wants to disarm the General populace. This retarded mindset that you so ignorantly and willfully display is simply advancing that agenda exponentially. Shame on you for not doing your due diligence.

Your post perfectly reflects the misbegotten belief that if firearms are "regulated" that the problem of gun violence will magically disappear. You are dead wrong.


ETA: Econoline- Grow a sense of humor. Which would include a grasp of sarcasm and irony. Life is too short. Notice that I not once stated that Rube was more dangerous than a box of hammers...

If we regulated guns in the eminently sensible way we regulate dynamite and cars we would have less of a problem.

But you, individually, are too stupid for me to care much what you think about anything.

We don't have to be the worst in the first world.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Guns are dangerous things. Only a stupid person says otherwise. Or a liar.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Guns are inanimate objects. They can not load themselves, nor cock their hammer nor pull their trigger. They are no more dangerous than a screwdriver.

Only when the wrong man gets his hands on them might they become dangerous.

[Big RR]

rubato--careful aboout comparing guns to cars for regulation purposes; I only need to register and insure my car, and have a license to drive it, if I plan to use it on public roadways. If I use it on my private property, I can legally be an unlicensed driver of an unregistered and uninsured car. Don't most of those who want to use a gun for defense plan only to use it on their private property?

[oldr_n_wsr]

And many municipalities have a "no discharge" (aka can't fire a gun) law. No one can come onto my property and take away my kids go-cart while they are riding it on my propery and have not violated any noise laws nor going off my property. Yet I can be cited for firing my gun on my property. I have 1/2 and acre and my back yard ubutts an abondoned sump (aka recharge basin) so I have a good 1000 feet til the next property.
Not that I would fire a gun in my area, just saying.

[Big RR]

Well, 1000 feet isn't all that big--many guns have a range (maybe not with accuracy, but still a range) beyond that. And that's my point, guns are (and should be) more regulated than cars; ordinarily even if you plan to use it on your own property you will still have to register to purchase it (and rightfully so, IMHO) and are subject to laws to prevent th eunitentional injury of a third party. If guns were regulated as cars are, we'd be worse, not better off.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I do not disagree.
I would not fire my 1968 model Remington 600 rrifle (350 magnum cartridge) anywhere on LI. Heck, even my Sheriden pellet gun can do some considerable damage (.22 pellet). I do shoot my bow and crossbow into a target with my compost pile (5 bins 3x3feet each one against the other) as my backstop. 100 feet usual distance with the sump behind the target (900 feet across at least)

[Sean]

Guns are inanimate objects. They can not load themselves, nor cock their hammer nor pull their trigger. They are no more dangerous than a screwdriver.

Only when the wrong man gets his hands on them might they become dangerous.

Oldr, I know that you are much more intelligent than that post would suggest. You don't seriously believe that a screwdriver is just as dangerous as a gun do you?


Gob, I don't think this thread is ever going to get back on topic. Suffice to say, it's all Tim's fault!

[Rick]

Guns are dangerous things. Only a stupid person says otherwise. Or a liar.

yrs,
rubato

Actually anything used improperly is dangerous...

[Lord Jim]

you, individually, are too stupid for me to care much what you think about anything.

Yes, but there are different justifications for interaction....

For example, you, individually, (and most specifically) are too stupid for me to care at all about what you think about anything...

But that doesn't stop me from being amused by your attempts at "thought"....

[oldr_n_wsr]

Guns are inanimate objects. They can not load themselves, nor cock their hammer nor pull their trigger. They are no more dangerous than a screwdriver.

Only when the wrong man gets his hands on them might they become dangerous.

Oldr, I know that you are much more intelligent than that post would suggest. You don't seriously believe that a screwdriver is just as dangerous as a gun do you?

Put both of them on a table (you can even put bullets in the gun), with no human interaction, and which one causes more damage?

Put each in the hands of a human, then the difference MAY become significant. The MAY part is the big question, not the "hardware". Just as a chainsaw can cut up more people than a pocket knife. Law abiding, careful gun owners are just that. But then, those people pose little to no problems with owning ANY gun. But those are the exact people these laws will affect. The nut jobs and criminals care little (aka not at all) for the laws.

[Guinevere]

And many municipalities have a "no discharge" (aka can't fire a gun) law. No one can come onto my property and take away my kids go-cart while they are riding it on my propery and have not violated any noise laws nor going off my property. Yet I can be cited for firing my gun on my property. I have 1/2 and acre and my back yard ubutts an abondoned sump (aka recharge basin) so I have a good 1000 feet til the next property.
Not that I would fire a gun in my area, just saying.

Not true. If the riding of go-karts or motor bikes or anything similar either interferes with a neighbor's ability to enjoy their property, or is harassing, I can get a court to order you to stop that behavior, even if you're only on your property, and there is no noise ordinance to violate (most concern start of work (or other activity) times, outside of industrial settings most do not set decibel limits). And I got that very order entered in one of my cases, and we're fighting over the compliance now.

[oldr_n_wsr]

So my lawn mower (aka tractor) which makes more noise and more dust (when it's dry out) is ok but the kids go-cart making less noise and less dust would not be allowed because some neighbor doesn't like go-carts? Sounds idiotic.
AFAIK, motor noise (weedwaker, leafblower, lawnmower, etc) is allowed from 7am-6pm on weekdays and 8am-5pm on weekends around here. No mention of the motor nor device making that noise as long as it's below the decibel level.

Now harassing is another issue. Am I riding my go-cart just to bug you, or for my own enjoyment? And how do you know? and how do you prove otherwise?