Quote:
I wont even justify your responses to my questions on the abortion issue as it is beyond my comprehension how a person can see a baby one second as a human life but the second before just a lump of valueless flesh.
Allow me to translate:
I'm ****** and have no answer to that argument so I'll ignore it.
Quote:
Time and again? is it really time and again? how many of the people that have been put to death in this country has it been proven they were innocent after the fact? You make it sound as if it is a daily occurance.
How many innocent people being mudered would be ok with you, exactly?
Let me know wha tthe number is and I'll check and see if the statistics are in your favor or not.
Quote:
And I never said that the justice system does not make mistakes no human endevour is infallable.
Which is exactly why the justice system shouldn't be meteing out sentances it can't reverse or commute if it realizes there was an error.
Quote:
I dont even know what you are saying here.. I get the first sentence but I am lost on the second one.
I'll try to use smaller words.
Me say that you is want to give rights to thing that too small to see that same as you give to girl.
How was that?
Quote:
Hmm small differance between owning a hand gun or rifle/shotgun and owning a WMD. Just a small difference.
No diffrence in terms of your argument.
Hmm, none at all.
Just
NONE WHATSOEVER.
Either selling people weapons that are created solely for killing other people is wrong or it isn't. You're saying it isn't. Break out the nukes!
Quote:
I am going to address this statement in 2 parts as they are seemingly 2 different topics.
1. people arent born criminals... so your saying that a normally law abiding citizen sees a gun or owns a gun legally and suddenly the fact that he/she owns or has access to this weapon drives them to commit crimes? So it is the gun's fault. That if the gun were not there this criminal act would not have occured somehow. Hmm I didnt know that crime was invented at the same time as guns. That's an interesting factiod.
I'm saying that it's a whole hell of a lot easier to kill or injure someone with a gun than it is with a pointy stick.
Of the children killed at Colombine five years ago, probably one of them would have died if guns weren't involved. So yes, it is an intresting factoid.
Go explain to the parents of the dead children how the guns were no big deal.
So for the children after the first one, if the guns weren't there, the criminal act would not have occured.
Quote:
2. I think that you maybe manipulating the stats here a little Smash. There probably are more homocides commited with legally owned guns by the fact most homocides are commited by a familly member or a friend in the heat of passion. If you look at the stats far more crimes are stopped by citizens who legally own guns than there are crimes committed with guns. Like a rate of almost 4:1. The other thing I dont understand is you act as if these crimes would stop if guns were outlawed. (refer to above paragraph)
In every single case, countries with tougher gun laws than us have lower homicide rates per capita than us.
Every case.
So yes, I think it's a little difficult to act as if these crimes would continue if guns weren't more plentiful than people in this country by afactor of 100.
Quote:
One other point. I have read a fair number of posts on this board and you are regarded with some of the others as an intelligent well spoken person as far as I can tell. It seems odd to me that someone of your supposed inteligence would stoop to name calling and yelling (the bold I assume is you yelling) during a debate.
I only stoop to it when it's clear to me that someone hasn't put any actuall thought of their own into something and instead has merely adopted a position based solely upon what they've been told.
Particularly I stoop to it when it's clear a five year old child could spot the inconsistancies in the position.
