There seems to be another assumption underlying all this 'scary' stuff,ie every one who owns a gun is a potential maniac
.What's so strange about taking responsibility for themselves and their family?(relying on some State to do it for you,now that's strange)
Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with
- boboff
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 1809
- Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:29 am
- Location: Gunnislake,Cornwall
Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with
That's not what I thought was scary though Jerry.
It's just the percentages, if you have people carry guns, then a percentile will be stupid, and a percentile evil, and heaven forbid, some may be female..... I think I have said it all there, scary.
It's just the percentages, if you have people carry guns, then a percentile will be stupid, and a percentile evil, and heaven forbid, some may be female..... I think I have said it all there, scary.
http://boboffs.blogspot.co.uk/Millymollymandy wrote:Bloody smilies, always being used. I hate them and they should be banned.
No I won't use a smiley because I've decided to turn into Boboff, as he's turned all nice all of a sudden. Grumble grumble.
-
- Living the good life
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 11:40 am
- Location: Central United States
Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with
boboff wrote:That's not what I thought was scary though Jerry.
It's just the percentages, if you have people carry guns, then a percentile will be stupid, and a percentile evil, and heaven forbid, some may be female..... I think I have said it all there, scary.
Considering that I am a much better shot than my husband I suppose it would be (teasing of course!!).
What if you're wrong? What if there's more? What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?
Nichole Nordeman----Brave
Nichole Nordeman----Brave
- 2ndRateMind
- Tom Good
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Bristol
Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with
Oh dear, need we revise 1651? Thomas Hobbes has it that life in the absence of a responsible state is a perpetual 'war of all against all', and that the best it's individuals can hope for is an existence that is 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'. So what is so strange about a state rescuing it's citizens from such a fate? No one is suggesting that we should not be responsible for ourselves and our families, just that the 'responsibility' of owning military grade weaponry should be removed from the general public. And that once that 'responsibility' has been relieved, life becomes, collectively, a little less onerous, a little less hobbesian.oldjerry wrote:What's so strange about taking responsibility for themselves and their family?(relying on some State to do it for you,now that's strange)
And no-one is suggesting that all those owning a gun are potential maniacs. It only takes one, though, who is a maniac, or becomes a maniac, to wreak tragedy on the rest.oldjerry wrote:There seems to be another assumption underlying all this 'scary' stuff,ie every one who owns a gun is a potential maniac
Cheers, 2RM.
Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with
Fortunately there's a fair bit more to political philosophy than Hobbes,even the most basic introductory course at the newest university might at least mention Locke (and some of us find him a bit Statist).
Anyhow,most good people here will be bored s------s with all this ,so best wishes and over and out. (they don't call me Dead Thread Fred for nothing!)
Anyhow,most good people here will be bored s------s with all this ,so best wishes and over and out. (they don't call me Dead Thread Fred for nothing!)
- 2ndRateMind
- Tom Good
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Bristol
Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with
Well, thanks for staying with me thus far, my friendly sparring partner. Best wishes to you, too. 2RM.