My Photo

« Another neat invention | Main | Cleaning out the spam filter »

December 20, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e2017ee67524dd970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Guns and Contamination:

Comments

amen

This should help: Today some formerly law-abiding gun owner shot at least four firefighters responding to a fire, killing two of them and causing the fire to destroy more property.

Probably the fault of Jay Z and Call of Duty, though.

Phil, since the solution to school shootings is armed guards at all schools (the Columbine experience notwithstanding), obviously the solution to this kind of event is to have a SWAT team attached to every engine company to go to fires them. Obviously.

I'm thinking more Sugar Hill Gang and Battlezone. It takes a while for these things to take effect.

Incidentally, I lived in Webster, NY for about 8 months when I worked at Ginna Nuclear Generating Station in '98. Useless fact of the day.

Those firefighters were killed because of their culture of femininity and the absence of football-playing men in firehouses across the country. Also, because they didn't have any buckets. So says Charlotte Allen.

All this recording bias. Nobody talks about the more than 300 million American citizens that did not get shot yesterday (but clearly would have been without the protection of the 2nd A.).

The "contamination effect" does not apply to guns because Moloch* is incapable of being a source of contamination, or even of being contaminated. Rather, Moloch is the source and wellspring of purity.

* http://jfxgillis.newsvine.com/_news/2012/12/15/15936256-our-moloch-by-garry-wills

"From what I hear another reason for the increased sales is good ol' fashioned capitalism. It's an investment. banned weapons and accessories like high capacity magazines can be sold for a huge profit once a ban goes into place."

So,this means you gunzloonz are perfectly fine with breaking the law? IOW, criminal behavior is not a problem if the law is one you don't approve of?

"Turned out the membership thought we could keep them, and didn't like having the organization run by sell-outs."

Citation needed.

"You're blaming me, because you fundamentally don't believe in individual guilt or innocence, you're a collectivist to the core. And I'm an individualist.

We're never going to agree with each other."

Typical Libertarian bullshit copout.

"You'd think people would have learned there lesson from Prohibition, but the War on Drugs proved they didn't, and now you're proposing a War on Guns."

I know you're going to find this hard to believe, but the law'n'order types most interested in pursuing the war on drugs are not LIBERALS; they are reactionary morons like you.

"Accurate terminology is essential to reasoned discussions. Generally if somebody rejects using accurate terminology, its because they're rejecting reason."

"Accurate Terminology" is essential to people whose only argument is that ""Accurate Terminology" is essential"

Most of us actually DO know the difference between semi and fully automatic weapons. We also know that the dead people don't give a fuck what killed them.

Brent Bellmore is so off the mark that "wrong" would be a considerable advance in his thinking.

"Citation needed."

Geeze. One of those members, clown. Life member. That's my cite: I was one of them.

Ladies and Gents, we are sitting down to Christmas dinner here, so, after dropping into the superuser account, I'll take the opportunity to close the comments of this post. I encourage everyone to review the posting rules, which I think have gotten a bit of a beating here. Still a few more days before the end of the year, so we'll try and have a few more posts up. Merry Christmas to all.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast