What Stimulated the Gun and Ammo Market?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"I don't have sympathy but PM me anyway to talk about it"

Are you for real?

an analytical perspective is indication that the psyche has recovered from the damage inflicted by the trauma. maybe someday you'll get there. hal appears unready, as well.

Perhaps. Or its an indication that you're a sociopath.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You don't have to think about it very hard to realise what a terrible, impractical murder weapon a car would be.

Cars have been used by suicide bombers quite a few times.

[HAL 9000 96]

"I don't have sympathy but PM me anyway to talk about it"

Are you for real?

an analytical perspective is indication that the psyche has recovered from the damage inflicted by the trauma. maybe someday you'll get there. hal appears unready, as well.

I already told you what to do with yourself. You should stick to making idiotic claims and plagiarized posts about yourself at the most.

You don't have to think about it very hard to realise what a terrible, impractical murder weapon a car would be.

Cars have been used by suicide bombers quite a few times.

Hey AJ. Long time no read.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Yeah, been "busy".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You don't have to think about it very hard to realise what a terrible, impractical murder weapon a car would be.

there was a story on here last week about a driver of a car that was shot 20 times by police in a traffic stop, who claimed that he endangered their lives with his car. explain?

Explain what?

As I said - a car is a terrible, impractical murder weapon.

If you seriously want to argue that a car is as practical and effective a weapon as a gun - I have one response for you....

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If you seriously want to argue that a car is as practical and effective a weapon as a gun ...

A knife is, though. And I don't mean a butter knife.

[*Robert* 2]

"I don't have sympathy but PM me anyway to talk about it"

Are you for real?

an analytical perspective is indication that the psyche has recovered from the damage inflicted by the trauma. maybe someday you'll get there. hal appears unready, as well.

Perhaps. Or its an indication that you're a sociopath.

I'm picturing him up in the Bell Tower on the UT campus, or a McDonald's in Chula Vista.

Definitely wound a little too tight!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"I don't have sympathy but PM me anyway to talk about it"

Are you for real?

an analytical perspective is indication that the psyche has recovered from the damage inflicted by the trauma. maybe someday you'll get there. hal appears unready, as well.

Perhaps. Or its an indication that you're a sociopath.

I'm picturing him up in the Bell Tower on the UT campus, or a McDonald's in Chula Vista.

Definitely wound a little too tight!

He's from Pennsyltucky.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You don't have to think about it very hard to realise what a terrible, impractical murder weapon a car would be.

Cars have been used by suicide bombers quite a few times.

I'm sure. But the car on its own is an inherently impractical weapon.

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

while it may have what you may want to term a "strong base" that does not, nor should not, translate into remove or rewrite the 2nd amendment. people die in car wrecks too, yet i don't see a huge outcry over stricter licensing procedures and more tests and so on.

no, methinks the problem isn't about comprehension on my end, it's more like emotion on yours.

Sure and you're talking about wild tangents now?

How many cars are used to kill people purposely? Great question!

You know what they say about emotion- even though you're highly mistaken about me- it does work quite a lot when you lose loved ones when their loss is at best, unnecessary. Nobody is talking about culling Macho-Man's right to bear arms, as you are trying to make it. We're talking about removing the possibility that the killers out there don't have real access to high-power weaponry. Big difference there that you could go in circles all week long with semantics just to evade simple logic.

cars make good weapons too, i'm sure you're aware of that. but no, cars aren't on your agenda, are they, so it's easy to discount any reference to them!

no one has mentioned macho man prior to your post. maybe it's about you trying to portray it that way, instead of the rest of us. and it's quaint that you think removing a killers access to high powered rifles or pistols will solve the problem - again, look at mexico. gun bans, highly restrictive ownership, and what could possibly be the problem now down there?

simple logic indeed, yet it evades you like morality does a crack ho.

Like I implied-

When gang-bangers start using their wheels to ram into people drive-by style, then we'll talk about your example making some sense.

Also like I told you- México has it gun problem directly related to their cartels being able to buy weapons up here.

Funny you mention morality, using emotive excuses to FAIL at rationalizing a right to bear arms against a non-existent government and social plot to take all of your guns away while ignoring the criminals having access to the same weaponry you might have at home. Morality indeed.

you carry on about gang bangers doing drive bys like it happens every hour. is chicago obamaland that bad, really?

need i add that a car can take out more people quicker on the street than some yoyo with a pistol?

mexico may get it's guns from the usa, but if you'd read matt's link, you'd see who the real culprit is.

just keep on with your fail this and fail that. it's apparently what you've majored in when it comes to the topic of guns. while you may not mind abdicating your constitutional rights, some of us do mind because we see the slippery slope it will lead to. too bad you're blind, oblivious, or both to that.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You don't have to think about it very hard to realise what a terrible, impractical murder weapon a car would be.

Cars have been used by suicide bombers quite a few times.

I'm sure. But the car on its own is an inherently impractical weapon.

A gun on its own can't kill anyone either. You gotta have bullets in it. And you have to point it at a deserving douchebag.

A car, similarly, must be rigged with explosives and then driven into something.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you seriously want to argue that a car is as practical and effective a weapon as a gun ...

A knife is, though. And I don't mean a butter knife.

It can be sure. Although it would be a hard sell to argue that the VT killer would have been as "successful" had he been using a knife.

Its the same argument Prince Philip threw out about cricket bats after Dunblane.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Its the same argument Prince Philip threw out about cricket bats after Dunblane.

I don't know who Prince Philip is nor do I know what a Dunblane is (although it sounds yucky).

But I know what a cricket bat is and I had 2 friends in high school (in India) who had their heads bashed in (killed) with them by people they pissed off.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You don't have to think about it very hard to realise what a terrible, impractical murder weapon a car would be.

Cars have been used by suicide bombers quite a few times.

I'm sure. But the car on its own is an inherently impractical weapon.

A gun on its own can't kill anyone either. You gotta have bullets in it. And you have to point it at a deserving douchebag.

A car, similarly, must be rigged with explosives and then driven into something.

That's a faulty comparison IMO.

The gun is useless without bullets.

The car is useless without gasoline, a battery or keys.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The gun is useless without bullets.

You can kill a man with its butt.