Driver's License or Gun?

I would post the speaker, but my guess is he is too conservative for your tastes;

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar,
but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater,
but you do not murder hate.
In fact, violence merely increases hate.
So it goes.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,
adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

 

This is what happens when the myopic liberal thinks he has found a truth worth pushing on others, but is looking only at another Marxist mirage.

 

Unlike a car, a gun doesn't get damaged when it's used to kill someone.

 

How profound . . .

I'm not sure how germane this is to the present thread, but do you recall a woman deliberately mowing down multiple innocent bystanders on the sidewalk in Vegas last year?

Often the car still runs after the accident, and even when not, it still usually finds its way back onto the road, thanks to the insurance companies.

 

Just what does that have to do with tea in China?

BTW, look up Adacia and OSU. 4 dead and 42 injured. That is even better than Micah did with his training, multiple weapons, lots of time etc.

 

Yeah, that one was even worse than the Vegas incident . . . how could I forget about that?

 

Neither of you mentioned that a car can be repaired in order for it to be used again to kill people. You're both slipping.

Meanwhile, a gun doesn't typically need repairing after it's used to kill someone.

Again though, I'm not against guns, or cars.

 

Actually, I did . . . "Often the car still runs after the accident, and even when not, it still usually finds its way back onto the road, thanks to the insurance companies."

 

Again, a gun doesn't typically need to be repaired before killing again.

 

If you are implying that guns are more dangerous threats to society than cars because of the number of times they can be used, then by your reasoning, if a bomb can be exploded only once, cars are more dangerous than than bombs, right?

 

Again, I'm not against guns.

However, republicans continue to assume that I, and non-republicans are.

Clembo stated that his vision has deteriorated to a degree that he can no longer obtain a license to drive a vehicle. That doesn't prevent him from buying one.

He further states that his impairment doesn't prevent him from buying a gun. Neither does it prevent him from using one.

Again, neither clembo or myself are against guns. More so, he's a republican, where I am not, yet we both agree to his point: He is legally allowed to use his gun, despite a visual impairment that prevents him from being allowed to drive.

It's too bad that their aren't that many republicans like clembo around. He's sound of mind....and downright reasonable. I don't want him driving anywhere near me, or others...and I hope he doesn't pull a gun on me with a visual impairment either.

Though, come to think of it, that would kinda make up for the time I told him I capped mines for a reason, then had him meet me at a mine. Quid pro quo, in a demented sense. He is republican, after all.

 

Something no one has mentioned is that, generally, the visual requirements for driving and shooting (of most types) are very different.

Shooting mostly requires the ability to focus on distant objects in order to hit them. Typically, they don't hit back.

Driving requires that one not only focus on distant objects, but have depth perception, allowing one to estimate time to convergence . . . A skill not required of shooters. This requires that the eyes change focal distance at a speed sufficient to avoid collisions.

Therefore, I would not be surprised to someday learn that the requirements to pass the visual portion for a driver's license are more stringent than for a firearms license.

 

Most republicans, specifically the so-called "2nd Amendment defenders" are neither rational nor reasonable. Any slightest hint that someone may be threatening in any way the right to bear arms, as with clembo's opening statement in this thread when he mentioned that the visual impairment that is preventing from being allowed to drive doesn't prevent him from using a gun, is met with counter-arguments that are decided irrational to an unbiased observer.

"Guns are harder to get than cars." was the immediate response to clembo's OP. The point raised in the counter-argument is irrelevant, if not irrational, but not to a supposed 2nd Amendment defender.

"Cars kill many more people than guns do." is another example, one that occurred immediately after the above quote. A more rational person would realize that guns have been around a lot longer than cars have, and would have given that due consideration before posting such a point. In any case, the merits of his statement were put in doubt by the next comment.

Continuing on....

"Actually, cars don't kill. Drivers do." The quintessential reply from a die-hard 2nd Amendment defender. It's not the car (or gun) that kills, it's the person. Yet, if that person doesn't have a car (or a gun) that person is unable to kill so easily.

Someone intent on killing uses guns to do their killing much more often that they do using cars as the weapon. The reason is obvious, guns are far more easy to use as a means to kill. A rational, reasonable person understands that. A 2nd Amendment "defender" will always disagree with such comments.

 

Bombs are more effective than either. Ask Micah. And my guess is that even you have the bomb making materials available to kill several hundred people.

 

... and the mental instability to actually do it.

 

The guy driving this truck killed a lot more people than my gun ever has. In fact, he killed more people with his truck than anyone I know has ever killed, by far! So, really, what is all this nonsense about gun licenses anyway? If the point was that people can kill with guns (or vehicles), yes, that's certainly true. They don't really NEED a license, do they?

At least 77 dead, 50 injured after truck drives into Bastille Day crowd in France

July 14, 2016

DEVELOPING: A large truck loaded with guns and hand grenades drove into a crowd of people who had gathered for a Bastille Day fireworks show Thursday in the southern French city of Nice, killing at least 77 people and injuring 50 more in an apparent terror attack.

Regional president Christian Estrosi confirmed the death toll in a post on Twitter. Earlier, he had called the attack "the worst tragedy in the history of Nice" and asked residents to stay indoors.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/0...drives-into-bastille-day-crowd-in-france.html

 

Great, now try driving that truck up a stairwell on onto an elevator.

 

No need. These terrorists just drive them into crowds of people. Or load them with explosives. These vehicles are more deadly than assault weapons. Look at Oklahoma City; that was a Ryder truck. McVeigh took out all the stairways and elevators in one fell swoop. Look at what just happened in Nice, France.

 

Well, that must make you happy, knowing there are other ways to kill people besides guns.

Meanwhile, guns are used in War specifically for their utility, they're easy to manufacture in bulk quantities at an economical cost and they are easy to use, which is why armies use them to kill people much more often than they use trucks. Soldiers going into buildings find it difficult to carry a truck, for instance. True, a truck can be used to carry weapons and soldiers, but the weapon of choice for the average soldier is still a gun. Same thing with police officers. They are more likely going to carry a gun than they are a truck.

 

But, enough about your hero worshiping of McVeigh and his infamous truck.