Psycho wants a gun !!!!

Originally posted by Delmer
Or we can do it your way, find him guilty and string him up before he commits a crime.

BTW, SS, nobody supports the right of a psycho to own a gun. And, because of the wording of the initial post, everyone knows this is a psycho.

I never said that. You know it too, Delmer. You shouldn't bring lies into debates - I'll hit you over the proverbial head with that one later.

All I suggest is that without private gun ownership he is not going to get his hands on a legal gun, and because of the reduced prevalence of guns in society generally, is less likely to get his hands on an illegal gun.


BTW Delmer, it's much harder to know who are the psychos in real life - just one of the reasons allowing private gun ownership is a bad idea. That's the entire point of the thread.

Originally posted by 7ate9
I think it doesn't matter if it's in a real or unreal as to WHO we CONSIDER a psycho. Usually it's people at different areas in life who war. Like belief/non-belief is a battle where psychotic tendencies get formed through fighting for what one believes or thinking it makes no sense(lol, which is understandable)... there are also many other areas. Bascially it ...[text shortened]... -list. A moderate volcanic earthquake hapened. A lahar(lol, back to front flood) at risk.

Re Ruapehu; there was a small eruption - don't know if that foreshadows something bigger, but probably not.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I never said that. You know it too, Delmer. You shouldn't bring lies into debates - I'll hit you over the proverbial head with that one later.

All I suggest is that without private gun ownership he is not going to get his hands on a legal gun, and because of the reduced prevalence of guns in society generally, is less likely to get his hands on an ...[text shortened]... easons allowing private gun ownership is a bad idea. That's the entire point of the thread.

Typical of the disingenuous Gun lovers to twist the truth to suit their flawed agenda.

Originally posted by howardgee
Typical of the disingenuous Gun lovers to twist the truth to suit their flawed agenda.

I'll tell you what gets twisted over and over again. That a person that believes in liberal gun ownership wants or advocates (in the words of scottish) "thousands" dead. If anything gun owners and those that believe people should be able to own guns are as disgusted as anyone when a lunatic goes on the rampage and doubly offended when the busybodies and control freaks use the actions of said lunatic as an excuse to violate their right to hold a gun. So let's get past this "either you're for banning guns or your for thousands dying."

If this was out of the way about 75% of all posts so far could have been sent to the trash rather than cluttering up the thread.

From flexmore: just for fun and sport, or defense against a hypothetical burglar is not good enough to me - we can use our hands and feet and kitchen knives and just run.

it must be for purposes like farming or policing etc.

The thread was supposedly about stopping psychos from getting hold of guns, but I could see a thousand miles off that was not where the thread was going and it is not flexmores agenda nor scottishes. Their agenda is one of control and assigning to others what they should or should not value.

BTW saying "hypothetical burglar" is about as pathetic as saying "hypothetical school shooting".

Originally posted by Wajoma
I'll tell you what gets twisted over and over again. That a person that believes in liberal gun ownership wants or advocates (in the words of scottish) "thousands" dead. If anything gun owners and those that believe people should be able to own guns are as disgusted as anyone when a lunatic goes on the rampage and doubly offended when the busybodies and con ...[text shortened]... "hypothetical burglar" is about as pathetic as saying "hypothetical school shooting".

"That a person that believes in liberal gun ownership wants or advocates (in the words of scottish) "thousands" dead"

Given the facts, either this is indeed the case, or else the gun nuts must just be stupid.
Which is it?

Originally posted by howardgee
"That a person that believes in liberal gun ownership wants or advocates (in the words of scottish) "thousands" dead"

Given the facts, either this is indeed the case, or else the gun nuts must just be stupid.
Which is it?

I just got through saying it's neither of those options howard, so then you say it's one or the other, then I say it's neither of those two, then you say it's one or the other, then I say it's neither of those two, then you say it's one or the other, then I say it's neither of those two, then you say it's one or the other, then I say it's neither of those two, then you say it's one or the other, then I say it's neither of those two, then you say it's one or the other, then I say it's neither of those two, then you say it's one or the other, then I say it's neither of those two, then you say it's one or the other, then I say it's neither of those two, then you say it's one or the other, then I say it's neither of those two, then you say it's one or the other, then I say it's neither of those two,

Originally posted by Wajoma
I just got through saying it's neither of those options howard, so then you say it's one or the other, then I say it's neither of those two, then you say it's one or the other, then I say it's neither of those two, then you say it's one or the other, then I say it's neither of those two, then you say it's one or the other, then I say it's neither of those two ...[text shortened]... , then you say it's one or the other, then I say it's neither of those two,

Stupidity it is then in your case!

Originally posted by howardgee
Stupidity it is then in your case!

...and so it now proceeds: no you're stupid howard, then howard says no you're stupid Wajoma, no you're stupid howard, then howard says no you're stupid Wajoma, no you're stupid howard, then howard says no you're stupid Wajoma, no you're stupid howard, then howard says no you're stupid Wajoma, no you're stupid howard, then howard says no you're stupid Wajoma, no you're stupid howard, then howard says no you're stupid Wajoma, no you're stupid howard, then howard says no you're stupid Wajoma, no you're stupid howard, then howard says no you're stupid Wajoma,

so I'll leave it at that let you have the last word howard maybe you'll get some satisfaction from that.

Originally posted by Wajoma
...and so it now proceeds: no you're stupid howard, then howard says no you're stupid Wajoma, no you're stupid howard, then howard says no you're stupid Wajoma, no you're stupid howard, then howard says no you're stupid Wajoma, no you're stupid howard, then howard says no you're stupid Wajoma, no you're stupid howard, then howard says no you're stupid Wa ...[text shortened]... et you have the last word howard maybe you'll get some satisfaction from that.

Yeah, go play Russian roulette with your beloved guns.

Originally posted by 7ate9
My views are way, way different. I don't care about 'guns' even being problems that much. People will always be able to get guns, if not then it's something else that they will use.

What is the mathematical equation... psychotic + ease of weapon + environment* = outcome.




1) People don't help psychotic people because of prejudice hate.

2) People ...[text shortened]... ust goes round 'n' circles. lol.


[North Korea having Nuclear Weapons is different]

3) People foolishly through excessiveness look to fix the problems through the guns(they cannot take away), because it seems the best option of three.

Interesting that you prejudge this option as foolish, and yet it is the simplest of the 3 to initiate.
I guess you are a gun lover too.
Also of note is that you say North Korea is different, and yet it is exactly the same principle: Remove the tools of destruction and you remove the threat. Be it guns or nuclear weapons.