U.S. Senator Says Videogames Are Worse Than Guns

[grigjd3]

I'm grateful we have a first amendment that allows people to say stupid things. It makes it easier to pick out the idiots of the world.

 

[144_v1legacy]

I'll take your non-response to the punishment section as conceding.

An empty gun is as dangerous as an empty car. In other words, safe for the time being, but not to be used carelessly.

"How and when a loaded gun becomes dangerous?" Gee, I wonder. A loaded gun is in a position that, if treated carelessly, will kill people. Ignoring this makes reference to that illusory world you brought up earlier. A loaded gun is a dangerous weapon. That's the whole point of the gun. Giving someone the power to shoot and kill someone else.

If you can't link to statistics, you shouldn't bring this up. The wonderful thing about internet debates is that the opponent can check everything you say, and has enough time to do so at his leisure.

Yet you were never the person that brought up the point with punishment. The entire basis of your argument is moot.

So is shooting someone a careless action and therefore unsafe under every circumstance?

How does one make it so you can shoot safely?

Can there ever be a case where not shooting someone would be also unsafe?

Earlier, I implied that you might not be reading the entirety of those posts that you respond to. Once again, this is shown, because you speak in extremes, taking any point I make as an item you want to hear, and not what I actually said. Also, the point about punishment was something you brought up. I responded to it. For no reason does that make any argument moot. This is you backing away from part of an argument you've lost, showing you'd rather not have the argument anymore than defend a position, the opposite of which has too much strength against it.

Shooting carefully isn't careless. Shooting carelessly is careless. Careless handling of firearms is dangerous. The ownership of a gun by an insane individual is dangerous. There are too many examples in favor of this statement to deny it. I don't see why this is so difficult to get across. I'm trying to dumb it down as much as I can, but you seem to be reading something that isn't written.

So, before responding this time, go back and reread the posts before a few times, let my intentions (hopefully made clearer in the context of this post) sink in, and try to react like a mature individual instead of the radical stereotype I see you as approaching.

There was a time not very long ago when we taught firearms safety in American schools prior to sex-ed. They also had high school rifle teams. Teaching basic firearms safety would reduce the number of deaths from negligent discharges there are in the United States. Even the Dick Cheney had one, non-fatal though. These deaths result from complacency and ignorance, which is at the end of the day the cause of most accidents fatal or not.

How does shooting someone carelessly happen? You only point your muzzle at something you want to shoot. You are fully responsible and accountable for everything you do. People that are 'insane' and therefore 'not accountable' for what they do should have been identified long ago. During this identification process these people should be brought to a trial where they can have their right to bear arms suspended until such a time they can prove they can be held accountable for their actions. Even now if they are brought before a court and this occurs, they will be flagged as among those that can't be sold a firearm during a NCIS check IAW current law.

I have yet to see why I should be civil to you when you insist on taking the best tools of defense against attacks on my person and property away from me. Quite frankly you should go out to a range and learn to shoot, you might learn about firearms.

So it seems now that this is an admission that guns have the potential to be unsafe? It may be true that the reason is complacency or insanity or whatever, but while being complacent with my pencil doesn't result in killing/injuring people, being complacent with a gun does. That's why they are unsafe. I never said I wanted to take your guns. I never said that once in all of these posts. That's you projecting yourself into my text. I keep saying that you, instead of seeing what I write, see something far more incendiary, and you keep proving me right. That said, I do think that you, specifically, shouldn't have a gun, because you refuse to admit that they are dangerous, and are therefore careless in your attitude toward them. Also, for various medical reasons, no, I don't think I should go out to a range and learn to shoot. It would be irresponsible to do so, because guns are dangerous and should be handled with care. Also, I am all for teaching firearms safety. Because guns are dangerous and should be handled only by those who have the proper training.

 

[aelreth]

I'll take your non-response to the punishment section as conceding.

An empty gun is as dangerous as an empty car. In other words, safe for the time being, but not to be used carelessly.

"How and when a loaded gun becomes dangerous?" Gee, I wonder. A loaded gun is in a position that, if treated carelessly, will kill people. Ignoring this makes reference to that illusory world you brought up earlier. A loaded gun is a dangerous weapon. That's the whole point of the gun. Giving someone the power to shoot and kill someone else.

If you can't link to statistics, you shouldn't bring this up. The wonderful thing about internet debates is that the opponent can check everything you say, and has enough time to do so at his leisure.

Yet you were never the person that brought up the point with punishment. The entire basis of your argument is moot.

So is shooting someone a careless action and therefore unsafe under every circumstance?

How does one make it so you can shoot safely?

Can there ever be a case where not shooting someone would be also unsafe?

Earlier, I implied that you might not be reading the entirety of those posts that you respond to. Once again, this is shown, because you speak in extremes, taking any point I make as an item you want to hear, and not what I actually said. Also, the point about punishment was something you brought up. I responded to it. For no reason does that make any argument moot. This is you backing away from part of an argument you've lost, showing you'd rather not have the argument anymore than defend a position, the opposite of which has too much strength against it.

Shooting carefully isn't careless. Shooting carelessly is careless. Careless handling of firearms is dangerous. The ownership of a gun by an insane individual is dangerous. There are too many examples in favor of this statement to deny it. I don't see why this is so difficult to get across. I'm trying to dumb it down as much as I can, but you seem to be reading something that isn't written.

So, before responding this time, go back and reread the posts before a few times, let my intentions (hopefully made clearer in the context of this post) sink in, and try to react like a mature individual instead of the radical stereotype I see you as approaching.

There was a time not very long ago when we taught firearms safety in American schools prior to sex-ed. They also had high school rifle teams. Teaching basic firearms safety would reduce the number of deaths from negligent discharges there are in the United States. Even the Dick Cheney had one, non-fatal though. These deaths result from complacency and ignorance, which is at the end of the day the cause of most accidents fatal or not.

How does shooting someone carelessly happen? You only point your muzzle at something you want to shoot. You are fully responsible and accountable for everything you do. People that are 'insane' and therefore 'not accountable' for what they do should have been identified long ago. During this identification process these people should be brought to a trial where they can have their right to bear arms suspended until such a time they can prove they can be held accountable for their actions. Even now if they are brought before a court and this occurs, they will be flagged as among those that can't be sold a firearm during a NCIS check IAW current law.

I have yet to see why I should be civil to you when you insist on taking the best tools of defense against attacks on my person and property away from me. Quite frankly you should go out to a range and learn to shoot, you might learn about firearms.

So it seems now that this is an admission that guns have the potential to be unsafe? It may be true that the reason is complacency or insanity or whatever, but while being complacent with my pencil doesn't result in killing/injuring people, being complacent with a gun does. That's why they are unsafe. I never said I wanted to take your guns. I never said that once in all of these posts. That's you projecting yourself into my text. I keep saying that you, instead of seeing what I write, see something far more incendiary, and you keep proving me right. That said, I do think that you, specifically, shouldn't have a gun, because you refuse to admit that they are dangerous, and are therefore careless in your attitude toward them. Also, for various medical reasons, no, I don't think I should go out to a range and learn to shoot. It would be irresponsible to do so, because guns are dangerous and should be handled with care. Also, I am all for teaching firearms safety. Because guns are dangerous and should be handled only by those who have the proper training.

Granted, the issue I took with you, is that you think that my cavalier thoughts on safety means that I'm safety hands off. I practice range safety in my home and at all times when handling my firearms. If you don't provided you are the only one hurt, you will be made an example of.

My reason for the hostility is when you say that they are unsafe and always dangerous. That's a red flag and can be used as a reason for mass confiscation of arms.

And what are those medical reasons? Are you willing to share? I would recommend a homeopathic solution, I have one that could impair the use of arms so I have to use others myself.

I also recently observed a revelation where a blind man should not be deprived his use of arms.
As unintuitive as that sounds. Apparently some blind guy called into a radio show and explained why he shouldn't be deprived the use of arms. He shot a 12 point buck.

 

[144_v1legacy]

I'll take your non-response to the punishment section as conceding.

An empty gun is as dangerous as an empty car. In other words, safe for the time being, but not to be used carelessly.

"How and when a loaded gun becomes dangerous?" Gee, I wonder. A loaded gun is in a position that, if treated carelessly, will kill people. Ignoring this makes reference to that illusory world you brought up earlier. A loaded gun is a dangerous weapon. That's the whole point of the gun. Giving someone the power to shoot and kill someone else.

If you can't link to statistics, you shouldn't bring this up. The wonderful thing about internet debates is that the opponent can check everything you say, and has enough time to do so at his leisure.

Yet you were never the person that brought up the point with punishment. The entire basis of your argument is moot.

So is shooting someone a careless action and therefore unsafe under every circumstance?

How does one make it so you can shoot safely?

Can there ever be a case where not shooting someone would be also unsafe?

Earlier, I implied that you might not be reading the entirety of those posts that you respond to. Once again, this is shown, because you speak in extremes, taking any point I make as an item you want to hear, and not what I actually said. Also, the point about punishment was something you brought up. I responded to it. For no reason does that make any argument moot. This is you backing away from part of an argument you've lost, showing you'd rather not have the argument anymore than defend a position, the opposite of which has too much strength against it.

Shooting carefully isn't careless. Shooting carelessly is careless. Careless handling of firearms is dangerous. The ownership of a gun by an insane individual is dangerous. There are too many examples in favor of this statement to deny it. I don't see why this is so difficult to get across. I'm trying to dumb it down as much as I can, but you seem to be reading something that isn't written.

So, before responding this time, go back and reread the posts before a few times, let my intentions (hopefully made clearer in the context of this post) sink in, and try to react like a mature individual instead of the radical stereotype I see you as approaching.

There was a time not very long ago when we taught firearms safety in American schools prior to sex-ed. They also had high school rifle teams. Teaching basic firearms safety would reduce the number of deaths from negligent discharges there are in the United States. Even the Dick Cheney had one, non-fatal though. These deaths result from complacency and ignorance, which is at the end of the day the cause of most accidents fatal or not.

How does shooting someone carelessly happen? You only point your muzzle at something you want to shoot. You are fully responsible and accountable for everything you do. People that are 'insane' and therefore 'not accountable' for what they do should have been identified long ago. During this identification process these people should be brought to a trial where they can have their right to bear arms suspended until such a time they can prove they can be held accountable for their actions. Even now if they are brought before a court and this occurs, they will be flagged as among those that can't be sold a firearm during a NCIS check IAW current law.

I have yet to see why I should be civil to you when you insist on taking the best tools of defense against attacks on my person and property away from me. Quite frankly you should go out to a range and learn to shoot, you might learn about firearms.

So it seems now that this is an admission that guns have the potential to be unsafe? It may be true that the reason is complacency or insanity or whatever, but while being complacent with my pencil doesn't result in killing/injuring people, being complacent with a gun does. That's why they are unsafe. I never said I wanted to take your guns. I never said that once in all of these posts. That's you projecting yourself into my text. I keep saying that you, instead of seeing what I write, see something far more incendiary, and you keep proving me right. That said, I do think that you, specifically, shouldn't have a gun, because you refuse to admit that they are dangerous, and are therefore careless in your attitude toward them. Also, for various medical reasons, no, I don't think I should go out to a range and learn to shoot. It would be irresponsible to do so, because guns are dangerous and should be handled with care. Also, I am all for teaching firearms safety. Because guns are dangerous and should be handled only by those who have the proper training.

Granted, the issue I took with you, is that you think that my cavalier thoughts on safety means that I'm safety hands off. I practice range safety in my home and at all times when handling my firearms. If you don't provided you are the only one hurt, you will be made an example of.

My reason for the hostility is when you say that they are unsafe and always dangerous. That's a red flag and can be used as a reason for mass confiscation of arms.

And what are those medical reasons? Are you willing to share? I would recommend a homeopathic solution, I have one that could impair the use of arms so I have to use others myself.

I also recently observed a revelation where a blind man should not be deprived his use of arms.
As unintuitive as that sounds. Apparently some blind guy called into a radio show and explained why he shouldn't be deprived the use of arms. He shot a 12 point buck.

Regarding medical exceptions, it's nice that you can think of a few exceptions. That's what they are. Exceptions. The issue you took with me, too, was simply a response to the issue I took with you, calling out poor argumentative reasoning in your statements against Aardvaarkman. If you want the medical issues, let's see if you can figure it out. A more resourceful person would have already.

Regarding for your alleged reason for hostility, saying that I'm saying that they are unsafe and always dangerous (my wording was actually "potentially" dangerous, a not-so-minor detail that I thought I'd brought significant attention to in many of my earlier posts, over and over), yes, that would certainly be a red-ish flag that can be used as a reason for mass-confiscation of arms. That's probably why politicians are attempting to do exactly that. It's an easy point to make.

But it's not what I said. Taking away your guns is not a subject I brought up. It's a subject you fear, and are overly defensive of in any guns-related argument. But it's not an argument I was trying to have with you. Go have that one with someone else, because I know that it's a wasted effort. But what I am saying about guns is that your reasoning and argumentative points regarding their safety were inherently flawed, especially regarding examples and logic leading to the thought that something that can be used safely is always safe.

 

[aelreth]

I'll take your non-response to the punishment section as conceding.

An empty gun is as dangerous as an empty car. In other words, safe for the time being, but not to be used carelessly.

"How and when a loaded gun becomes dangerous?" Gee, I wonder. A loaded gun is in a position that, if treated carelessly, will kill people. Ignoring this makes reference to that illusory world you brought up earlier. A loaded gun is a dangerous weapon. That's the whole point of the gun. Giving someone the power to shoot and kill someone else.

If you can't link to statistics, you shouldn't bring this up. The wonderful thing about internet debates is that the opponent can check everything you say, and has enough time to do so at his leisure.

Yet you were never the person that brought up the point with punishment. The entire basis of your argument is moot.

So is shooting someone a careless action and therefore unsafe under every circumstance?

How does one make it so you can shoot safely?

Can there ever be a case where not shooting someone would be also unsafe?

Earlier, I implied that you might not be reading the entirety of those posts that you respond to. Once again, this is shown, because you speak in extremes, taking any point I make as an item you want to hear, and not what I actually said. Also, the point about punishment was something you brought up. I responded to it. For no reason does that make any argument moot. This is you backing away from part of an argument you've lost, showing you'd rather not have the argument anymore than defend a position, the opposite of which has too much strength against it.

Shooting carefully isn't careless. Shooting carelessly is careless. Careless handling of firearms is dangerous. The ownership of a gun by an insane individual is dangerous. There are too many examples in favor of this statement to deny it. I don't see why this is so difficult to get across. I'm trying to dumb it down as much as I can, but you seem to be reading something that isn't written.

So, before responding this time, go back and reread the posts before a few times, let my intentions (hopefully made clearer in the context of this post) sink in, and try to react like a mature individual instead of the radical stereotype I see you as approaching.

There was a time not very long ago when we taught firearms safety in American schools prior to sex-ed. They also had high school rifle teams. Teaching basic firearms safety would reduce the number of deaths from negligent discharges there are in the United States. Even the Dick Cheney had one, non-fatal though. These deaths result from complacency and ignorance, which is at the end of the day the cause of most accidents fatal or not.

How does shooting someone carelessly happen? You only point your muzzle at something you want to shoot. You are fully responsible and accountable for everything you do. People that are 'insane' and therefore 'not accountable' for what they do should have been identified long ago. During this identification process these people should be brought to a trial where they can have their right to bear arms suspended until such a time they can prove they can be held accountable for their actions. Even now if they are brought before a court and this occurs, they will be flagged as among those that can't be sold a firearm during a NCIS check IAW current law.

I have yet to see why I should be civil to you when you insist on taking the best tools of defense against attacks on my person and property away from me. Quite frankly you should go out to a range and learn to shoot, you might learn about firearms.

So it seems now that this is an admission that guns have the potential to be unsafe? It may be true that the reason is complacency or insanity or whatever, but while being complacent with my pencil doesn't result in killing/injuring people, being complacent with a gun does. That's why they are unsafe. I never said I wanted to take your guns. I never said that once in all of these posts. That's you projecting yourself into my text. I keep saying that you, instead of seeing what I write, see something far more incendiary, and you keep proving me right. That said, I do think that you, specifically, shouldn't have a gun, because you refuse to admit that they are dangerous, and are therefore careless in your attitude toward them. Also, for various medical reasons, no, I don't think I should go out to a range and learn to shoot. It would be irresponsible to do so, because guns are dangerous and should be handled with care. Also, I am all for teaching firearms safety. Because guns are dangerous and should be handled only by those who have the proper training.

Granted, the issue I took with you, is that you think that my cavalier thoughts on safety means that I'm safety hands off. I practice range safety in my home and at all times when handling my firearms. If you don't provided you are the only one hurt, you will be made an example of.

My reason for the hostility is when you say that they are unsafe and always dangerous. That's a red flag and can be used as a reason for mass confiscation of arms.

And what are those medical reasons? Are you willing to share? I would recommend a homeopathic solution, I have one that could impair the use of arms so I have to use others myself.

I also recently observed a revelation where a blind man should not be deprived his use of arms.
As unintuitive as that sounds. Apparently some blind guy called into a radio show and explained why he shouldn't be deprived the use of arms. He shot a 12 point buck.

Regarding medical exceptions, it's nice that you can think of a few exceptions. That's what they are. Exceptions. The issue you took with me, too, was simply a response to the issue I took with you, calling out poor argumentative reasoning in your statements against Aardvaarkman. If you want the medical issues, let's see if you can figure it out. A more resourceful person would have already.

Regarding for your alleged reason for hostility, saying that I'm saying that they are unsafe and always dangerous (my wording was actually "potentially" dangerous, a not-so-minor detail that I thought I'd brought significant attention to in many of my earlier posts, over and over), yes, that would certainly be a red-ish flag that can be used as a reason for mass-confiscation of arms. That's probably why politicians are attempting to do exactly that. It's an easy point to make.

But it's not what I said. Taking away your guns is not a subject I brought up. It's a subject you fear, and are overly defensive of in any guns-related argument. But it's not an argument I was trying to have with you. Go have that one with someone else, because I know that it's a wasted effort. But what I am saying about guns is that your reasoning and argumentative points regarding their safety were inherently flawed, especially regarding examples and logic leading to the thought that something that can be used safely is always safe.

Then I apologize for being a boor.