Yes, dumbass, the answer is more guns

[dyno dan]

The fact that we *need* armed guards in body armor in our schools
should make it obvious to the casual observer that the answer is *not*
"more guns".

Nor is it less guns. As is obvious to logical thinkers, it is the
KILLER who kills, not the gun. We need to return to law and order,
respect for others, respect for authority, and the teaching (and
learning) of critical thinking. Knee-jerk reactions rarely work.

Remember that Pres.Cilinton decided NOT to renew his "assault rifle"
ban, since even he could see that it didn't work to reduce shootings.
Wrong answer then, wrong answer now.

-dan z-

[!Jones]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 09:32:47 -0400, in talk.politics.guns dyno dan

Post by dyno dan
Nor is it less guns. As is obvious to logical thinkers, it is the
KILLER who kills, not the gun. We need to return to law and order,
respect for others, respect for authority, and the teaching (and
learning) of critical thinking. Knee-jerk reactions rarely work.
Remember that Pres.Cilinton decided NOT to renew his "assault rifle"
ban, since even he could see that it didn't work to reduce shootings.
Wrong answer then, wrong answer now.

While I mostly agree (I'd drop the "... people kill people" cliche),
the "knee-jerk reactions" usually mean anything that reduces access to
guns. Perhaps we should sit down quietly and apply some "critical
thinking"? (I mean, it's almost a super-power, it's so rare!)

Can we agree that our little experiment with gun proliferation is
*not* going well at this point? We have been throwing guns into our
public spaces for three decades and all we get for it is daily mass
shootings. They darn sure haven't decreased any! If guns were going
to reduce violent crime, they've had time to have done so by now.

Applying "critical thinking" to the problem would lead me to suggest
that, if something isn't working, doing more of the same thing, only
harder, will *probably* not work, either.

May we agree on that?

P.S.: Clinton likely "decided" not to renew his assault rifle ban
because he knew it was a loser in the GOP-controlled House. As a
president, I didn't like him because he was dishonest and cheated on
his wife... but he wasn't stupid and he picked his battles well.

[Just Wondering]

Post by !Jones
Perhaps we should sit down quietly and apply some "critical
thinking"? (I mean, it's almost a super-power, it's so rare!)

Some critical thinking would be good. Very few gun-grabbers
know how to do it.

Post by !Jones
Can we agree that our little experiment with gun proliferation
is *not* going well at this point?

No, we can't agree to that. First, it's not an experiment.
Second, the problem is not with gun proliferation.

Post by !Jones
We have been throwing guns into our public spaces for three decades

No we haven't.

Post by !Jones
and all we get for it is daily mass shootings

which are not caused by "gun proliferation".

Post by !Jones
Applying "critical thinking" to the problem would lead me to suggest
that, if something isn't working, doing more of the same thing, only
harder, will *probably* not work, either. May we agree on that? >

Applying critical thinking to a problem suggests that the first
step is to agree on what the problem is. Since you define "gun
proliferation" as the problem when it isn't, until you change
your mind on that, your "critical thinking" proposal is pretty much DOA.

[!Jones]

Well, JW... when you paste your writing all over the page like that,
it is very difficuly to figure out what you're talking about. I
*think* you're saying that everything is fine(???) I'm just wondering
(pun intended), would you clarify that in complete sentences, please?

[Just Wondering]

Post by !Jones
Well, JW... when you paste your writing all over the page like that,
it is very difficuly to figure out what you're talking about. I
*think* you're saying that everything is fine(???) I'm just wondering
(pun intended), would you clarify that in complete sentences, please?

Well, Jones, when you clip literally everything that came before,
it is very difficult to figure out what you're talking about.

[!Jones]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 23:37:59 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just

Post by Just Wondering

Post by !Jones
Well, JW... when you paste your writing all over the page like that,
it is very difficuly to figure out what you're talking about. I
*think* you're saying that everything is fine(???) I'm just wondering
(pun intended), would you clarify that in complete sentences, please?

Well, Jones, when you clip literally everything that came before,
it is very difficult to figure out what you're talking about.

That's not my problem.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Post by !Jones
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 23:37:59 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just

Post by Just Wondering

Post by !Jones
Well, JW... when you paste your writing all over the page like that,
it is very difficuly to figure out what you're talking about. I
*think* you're saying that everything is fine(???) I'm just wondering
(pun intended), would you clarify that in complete sentences, please?

Well, Jones, when you clip literally everything that came before,
it is very difficult to figure out what you're talking about.

That's not my problem.

Chances are Jones is just lying again anyway.




Have you ever seen a hot-air balloon aloft at night? No? Well, you
won't because they need the sun to warm the air.
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
Jones FakeFacts™ No. 349,123
Collect them all!

Post by !Jones
Aren't you the stupid motherfucker who claimed balloons can't fly at night?

No. I said that balloons don't "fly" anymore than a marine buoy
"swims" or an anchor "dives" when it's dropped into the water. An
object will rise if displaces a greater mass of air than its own
mass... but that's not flying. You must be the stupid motherfucker who
cannot (or does not) read.
-Jones, desperately trying to walk back his idiocy and failing
miserably.
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
Jones FakeFacts™ No. 349,124
Collect them all!

[dyno dan]

Post by !Jones
(I'd drop the "... people kill people" cliche)

Of course you would. I would expect nothing else from you. Obviously
it couldn't possibly be that people, not firearms, are responsible for
killing people.

Those dang guns stay awake nights plotting their next killing.


-dan z-

[konan]

Post by dyno dan

Post by !Jones
(I'd drop the "... people kill people" cliche)

Of course you would. I would expect nothing else from you. Obviously
it couldn't possibly be that people, not firearms, are responsible for
killing people.
Those dang guns stay awake nights plotting their next killing.

Yep, You can hear them clicking and clacking away in the dark as they
grind the bullets to sharp points with their teeth.

[Scout]

Post by konan

Post by dyno dan

Post by !Jones
(I'd drop the "... people kill people" cliche)

Of course you would. I would expect nothing else from you. Obviously
it couldn't possibly be that people, not firearms, are responsible for
killing people.
Those dang guns stay awake nights plotting their next killing.

Yep, You can hear them clicking and clacking away in the dark as they
grind the bullets to sharp points with their teeth.

Guns have teeth??????????????????

OMG

[!Jones]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 10:05:43 -0400, in talk.politics.guns dyno dan

Post by dyno dan
Those dang guns stay awake nights plotting their next killing.

Really? I thought they stayed awake guarding your home.

[Gronk]

Post by dyno dan

The fact that we *need* armed guards in body armor in our schools
should make it obvious to the casual observer that the answer is *not*
"more guns".

Nor is it less guns. As is obvious to logical thinkers, it is the
KILLER who kills, not the gun. We need to return to law and order,

That gun sure makes the killing a lot easier, eh?

Post by dyno dan
respect for others, respect for authority, and the teaching (and
learning) of critical thinking. Knee-jerk reactions rarely work.
Remember that Pres.Cilinton decided NOT to renew his "assault rifle"
ban, since even he could see that it didn't work to reduce shootings.
Wrong answer then, wrong answer now.
-dan z-