wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:33:11 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
You're going to use darwin to explain the death of a 3 year old?

Should the parents of a 3 year old who is not in a car seat be thrown in
jail if the child is killed in an accident?


Again, just like the gun, they would charge the parent in Florida for
a child not in a car seat. I suppose that is OK too.
In the infamous "moral equivalency" business, what is the difference?

We have decided there are no accidents, only criminal offenses, if a
kid is killed.
I suppose you know, the National Electrical Code now requires all
receptacles are child proof (shuttered).

What a load of BS.
You're qualifying as a gun-nut real fast.
You and the others talking about rocks, knives and cars are just full of
****. Probably just don't like jps.
Got nothing to do "moral equivalency."
Got nothing to do with rocks, cars, knives or electricity.
They ain't designed to kill.
Guns are designed to kill.
The purpose of a gun is to kill.
And for daddy, it worked as designed on his 3 year-old.
There was no ****ing "accident."
The gun worked perfectly and did its job.

Daddy did no different than if he ushered a lion or grizzly bear into
his 3 year-old's bedroom and shut the door.
I don't care one way or another about guns.
Outlaw them or make everybody carry. Probably won't make difference.
But it really takes a gun nut to defend this prick daddy.
I don't say throw him in jail, because he killed his own blood.
If it was neighbors kid he should get 20 years in the clink.
But he should never be allowed to possess a firearm again.
You're either for "personal responsibility" or you ain't.

Jim - Lame arguments are still better than name-calling I say.

In article , says...

wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:33:11 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
You're going to use darwin to explain the death of a 3 year old?

Should the parents of a 3 year old who is not in a car seat be thrown in
jail if the child is killed in an accident?


Again, just like the gun, they would charge the parent in Florida for
a child not in a car seat. I suppose that is OK too.
In the infamous "moral equivalency" business, what is the difference?

We have decided there are no accidents, only criminal offenses, if a
kid is killed.
I suppose you know, the National Electrical Code now requires all
receptacles are child proof (shuttered).

What a load of BS.
You're qualifying as a gun-nut real fast.
You and the others talking about rocks, knives and cars are just full of
****. Probably just don't like jps.
Got nothing to do "moral equivalency."
Got nothing to do with rocks, cars, knives or electricity.
They ain't designed to kill.
Guns are designed to kill.
The purpose of a gun is to kill.
And for daddy, it worked as designed on his 3 year-old.
There was no ****ing "accident."
The gun worked perfectly and did its job.

Daddy did no different than if he ushered a lion or grizzly bear into
his 3 year-old's bedroom and shut the door.
I don't care one way or another about guns.
Outlaw them or make everybody carry. Probably won't make difference.
But it really takes a gun nut to defend this prick daddy.
I don't say throw him in jail, because he killed his own blood.
If it was neighbors kid he should get 20 years in the clink.
But he should never be allowed to possess a firearm again.
You're either for "personal responsibility" or you ain't.

Jim - Lame arguments are still better than name-calling I say.

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article , says...

wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:33:11 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
You're going to use darwin to explain the death of a 3 year old?

Should the parents of a 3 year old who is not in a car seat be thrown
in
jail if the child is killed in an accident?


Again, just like the gun, they would charge the parent in Florida for
a child not in a car seat. I suppose that is OK too.
In the infamous "moral equivalency" business, what is the difference?

We have decided there are no accidents, only criminal offenses, if a
kid is killed.
I suppose you know, the National Electrical Code now requires all
receptacles are child proof (shuttered).

What a load of BS.
You're qualifying as a gun-nut real fast.
You and the others talking about rocks, knives and cars are just full of
****. Probably just don't like jps.
Got nothing to do "moral equivalency."
Got nothing to do with rocks, cars, knives or electricity.
They ain't designed to kill.
Guns are designed to kill.
The purpose of a gun is to kill.
And for daddy, it worked as designed on his 3 year-old.
There was no ****ing "accident."
The gun worked perfectly and did its job.

Daddy did no different than if he ushered a lion or grizzly bear into
his 3 year-old's bedroom and shut the door.
I don't care one way or another about guns.
Outlaw them or make everybody carry. Probably won't make difference.
But it really takes a gun nut to defend this prick daddy.
I don't say throw him in jail, because he killed his own blood.
If it was neighbors kid he should get 20 years in the clink.
But he should never be allowed to possess a firearm again.
You're either for "personal responsibility" or you ain't.

Jim - Lame arguments are still better than name-calling I say.

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial. Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.

On 9/18/10 8:54 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial. Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.


You obviously haven't seen that show on Versus..."Swordslashing that
Deer to an Easy, Sportsmanlike Death"

It takes a brave man to hunt defenseless animals... :)

"Secular Humorist" wrote in message
...
On 9/18/10 8:54 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial.
Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.


You obviously haven't seen that show on Versus..."Swordslashing that Deer
to an Easy, Sportsmanlike Death"

It takes a brave man to hunt defenseless animals... :)

Yeah, I knew a guy who hunted deer with a bow/arrow... a whole different
sport from guys driving around in ATVs.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:57:08 -0400, Secular Humorist
wrote:

On 9/18/10 8:54 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial.
Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.


You obviously haven't seen that show on Versus..."Swordslashing that
Deer to an Easy, Sportsmanlike Death"

It takes a brave man to hunt defenseless animals... :)

... and those defenseless fish.

For the last 40 years my hunting has been against the wily skeet

Krause is a recently reformed fish torturer and killer. The new kinder and
gentler Krause hunts only tree stumps and paper targets.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial.
Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.

Not for mass killing. That's the point of restricting guns or bullets.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:20:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial.
Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.

Not for mass killing. That's the point of restricting guns or bullets.

The biggest mass murder in our history was executed with box openers.
Prior to that it was a truckload of fertilizer.

On in single acts, and they weren't the typical kind of mass killing we're
discussing. Columbine for example. That's more typical isn't it.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:14:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:20:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user
of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user
to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial.
Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.

Not for mass killing. That's the point of restricting guns or bullets.

The biggest mass murder in our history was executed with box openers.
Prior to that it was a truckload of fertilizer.

On in single acts, and they weren't the typical kind of mass killing we're
discussing. Columbine for example. That's more typical isn't it.


More people were killed in Oklahoma city than all the school and work
place mass killings combined.

That sounds doubtful. 168 people were killed there. Maybe not that many from
school/work/etc. in that year... Citation?

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:20:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial.
Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.

Not for mass killing. That's the point of restricting guns or bullets.

The biggest mass murder in our history was executed with box openers.
Prior to that it was a truckload of fertilizer.


I wonder. Why does DelaPlume keep that shotgun. We know she isn't a hunter.
Must be that she's planning a mass murder.