Do ya like guns???

[Link]

Originally posted by /)eathKiller: You'll shoot your eye out, kid...

Are you talking to me there?

[RevRuby]

nathan plans on having a shotgun to be "cleaning" when our daughters dates pick them up! and vaskez, your language needs cleaned up. besides kids these days don;t respond to just bulk, most of them carry guns too

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Yorick: Gun companies should be sued by the families of people killed by their products. Timber? Surely there's a buck in that for you?

I love you to bits Yorick but I think this argument is invalid. Who do we sue? The gun manafacturer, the bullet manafacturer, the cartridge manafacturer, the gunpowder manafacturer/inventor without whom none of this would be possible.

Right, let's all sue the Chinese....

If you have to hide behind a gun (outside of warfare and in times of extreme self defence) then you have no arsehole and no confidence in your right or left hook. Honestly, I'd rather take a good hiding than use a gun.

PS. The answer to the original question is an emphatic and resounding NO!! I very much do not like guns.

[ 02-10-2003, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Charlie ]

Originally posted by Yorick: Gun companies should be sued by the families of people killed by their products. Timber? Surely there's a buck in that for you?

Yorick, that is quite possibly the most unintelligent thing you have ever written on these forums. If you follow your logic, Human society as a whole would come to a halt. Every time some stupid ass pokes himself with a tooth pick, or some one gets hit with a car, the manufacturer would be liable. Completely ridiculous and assinine theory in my opinion.

Edit: But of course, you knew before you posted it that it would spark this kind of response...so would that be considered trolling?

[ 02-10-2003, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Charlie: Quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Gun companies should be sued by the families of people killed by their products. Timber? Surely there's a buck in that for you?

I love you to bits Yorick but I think this argument is invalid. Who do we sue? The gun manafacturer, the bullet manafacturer, the cartridge manafacturer, the gunpowder manafacturer/inventor without whom none of this would be possible.

Right, let's all sue the Chinese....

If you have to hide behind a gun (outside of warfare and in times of extreme self defence) then you have no arsehole and no confidence in your right or left hook. Honestly, I'd rather take a good hiding than use a gun.

PS. The answer to the original question is an emphatic and resounding NO!! I very much do not like guns.[/QUOTE]You'd sue the gun manufacturer alone. The one who assembles all the parts to create the instrument who's sole purpose is to end human life.

The cartridge isn't going to kill someone. The bullet alone won't either. Unless you choke on it while biting it.

I don't know. It seems America is driven by a culture of litigation. I'm suprised no-one has tried this. Maybe they have and failed. I don't know... it would seem like they could have a case though. If a thief can sue the owner of a house who leaves a rake in their yard why not?

[Annatar]

Guns bad..... people owning guns......REAL BAD.... mie no like gunpeople

seriously... look at america with there ''guns for all'' policy..

the only thing that happens with a gun there is shootings at school and innocent people getting killed with it...

with these monsters posted here (meaning the pics not the ''civilzed'' people here [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img] ) you can take out Saddam Huissain is Royal Body Guard Legion without moving a single muscle ( edit.. only 1 finger is needed )

[Yorick]

Originally posted by MagiK: Quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Gun companies should be sued by the families of people killed by their products. Timber? Surely there's a buck in that for you?

Yorick, that is quite possibly the most unintelligent thing you have ever written on these forums. If you follow your logic, Human society as a whole would come to a halt. Every time some stupid ass pokes himself with a tooth pick, or some one gets hit with a car, the manufacturer would be liable. Completely ridiculous and assinine theory in my opinion.

Edit: But of course, you knew before you posted it that it would spark this kind of response...so would that be considered trolling?[/QUOTE]A toothpick that pokes someones eye out is misused. It is designed to clean your teeth.
A car that crashes, deviates from it's purpose. It's designed to transport you from one place to another.

A guns sole purpose is to terminate life. Special bullets that explode when inside a body? Guns that fire off countless bullets per second? Come on! They have no other purpose. A gun that kills is doing precisely what it's intended to do. Thus the manufacturer is directly responsible for designing, creating, assembling and making publicly available a thing that will end someones life.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Yorick:

You'd sue the gun manufacturer alone. The one who assembles all the parts to create the instrument who's sole purpose is to end human life.

The cartridge isn't going to kill someone. The bullet alone won't either. Unless you choke on it while biting it.

[/QB][/QUOTE]

But the only part of any gun that can propell the bullet with enough force to kill..... is the gunpowder.
The clue to the whole scenario is within the name of the propellant. Is it the gun, or the gunpowder....upon who's existence the gun was devised?

Difficult arguments I accept.

[Larry_OHF]

Hmmm...It seems like some of you are taking me too seriously. I did not mean for this to be a pro/anti gun debate. My thoughts were as follows:

1. Wow! That is a large gun!
2. Wow! That gun costs more than my house!!!
3. I wonder if anyone on Ironworks would like to see the size of this thing?

Remember the joke "10 Rules to Dating My Daughter"? None of you took the guy seriously and made hurtful comments about him being less of a man for creating jokes about what terrible things he said he'd do to those guys that wanted to date his baby-girl, so why do you start on me now?

The problem is, you know I was joking about needing one of those to protect my daughter from dates...so stop acting like this.

[Charlie]

LOL. Larry I knew it was light hearted. Guns are emotive issues you must accept. It's not always easy to keep emotive issues within the bounds that they were meant. [img]smile.gif[/img]