Samm
186
In either case, it is the person who commits the violence.
Samm
187
My thinking is just fine. Your metaphor is ridiculous.
Samm
188
There you go … assuming. What’s the deal, has the OAN card replaced the Fox News and talk radio cards?
Samm
189
Why do you only care about people who die from being shot?
No Samm, your thinking is idiotic. Without an assault weapon designed to kill people and a President whooping up the hate so his minions feel obligated to kill in his name and his supporters, the amount of innocent people would still be alive. Again pick a weapon and lets compare the number of deaths as murder this year alone and we ill see who is being honest here and who is a puppet.
Samm
192
So a person is not involved in which case?
Samm
193
My thinking is completely sound. Without an “assault weapon” deranged people will still kill lots of other people. The danger to others is in their mind, not in the tool they chose. As I have said before, if you really want to kill a lot of people in a short time, a chain and a gallon of gasoline (or some high-nitrogen fertilizer and some diesel fuel) will out perform a gun every time. Take away every “assault weapon” in the country and the nuts will still find a way. Do you really think they are so stupid that they can’t figure it out?
You make it so sadly impersonal. Have you ever fired an assault rifle? What do you think the intention of these killers are? Plastic cutlery can kill in the hands of a skilled assassin. Maybe you are equating AK-47’s with plastic cutlery
Let me know when they become equivalent.
And there will still be less mass murders than with guns.
Its such a stupid deflective argument, Guns dont kill people. Its such nonsense and derived to avoid the problem. Idiotic circles ran with Dopes. What a waste of our time.
I applaud your interest though
What society, that purports to be civilised, can accept that you can to bed at night aware that 20 people have been shot and killed and more shot and injured, then wake up to the news that another 9 have been shot and killed and many more shot and injured?
I thought it must have been a rhetorical question as patently it made sense.
In the spirit of bi-partisanship what reason can there be to refuse to take to the Senate floor a bill that requires universal background checks?
I don’t think it was medication.
He was taught to hate. He was taught well. He has many teachers.
There’s no pill to stop the spread of ignorance.

Samm:
That’s just plain wrong. Alcohol consumption at any level causes physiological changes in a person and it inherently induces drunkenness if the person chooses to drink more than they should, but guns do not induce violence in anybody. They are no more the cause of violence than are hammers or screw drivers, both of which can and are used to kill with.
These arguments in defense of guns make the guns sound like they are the living entities that should be protected.
Seriously? There is a link to the original article updated on the 1st March, 2014. It is reported that more than 10 people were armed with knives.
If 10 people had semi-automatic rifles in a similar coordinated attack do you seriously think that there would have been fewer killed?