Re: "Accidental" Day-Care Shooting
- From: FerdinandAkin <FerdinandAkin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 03:58:24 -0600
Phil Smythe wrote:
FerdinandAkin wrote:I see that your only focus is on the gun and not on the theme of my first post. I was pointing out that this situation could have been avoided had the young man received education about guns comparable to that of other dangerous items found in society and received education in responsibility of one's actions in society. It leads me to wonder just who is blinded.
Phil Smythe wrote:
FerdinandAkin wrote:Let me simplify this.
Sadly you join a long line of TPG posters whose only way of making aYou say "An eight year old has no business having a gun in a day care"Your insistence that this incident is totally dependent on the
and I totally agree. This argument supports my comment which was
critical of your claim that "It
has nothing to do with the gun itself." Thanks for backing up my claim
and detroying your own.
presence of the gun is incorrect. I have done nothing to back up your
claim, and far from ignoring the fact that it was a gun that the eight
year old had, it was the focus of my comments which you over look in
your rush to condemn guns. My point about education still stands and is
far from being destroyed.
point is to INVENT the claims of others. I DID NOT say "that this
incident is totally dependent on the presence of the gun" which you
falsely claim, I disputed your statement that "It has nothing to do
with the gun itself.". Even you have subsequently conceded that an 8
year old has no business with a, wait for it, "gun" in a day care
centre. The gun was a vital part of the incident, not the only thing,
but NOT "nothing to do with" the incident which you belatedly
If you are going to discuss what another claims, do what I do and
debate what is written, not what you concoct as the other's claim.
There's NOTHING that needs simplification. You stated "It has nothing
to do with the gun itself." but later conceded " "An eight year old has
no business having a gun in a day care center". If it has "nothing to
do with the gun itself", which you claim, then your follow up statement
could have read "An eight year old has no business having a pencil case
in a day care center" or An eight year old has no business having a
cassette tape in a day care center", both of which are nonsense, as was
your original claim. The gun was an integral part of what occurred,
only someone whose ideology has blinded them from the facts could deny
The father had a stay with the criminal justice system where he
failed to learn from the inadequate education provided that he was
legally restricted from owning a gun. It had nothing to do with the gun
The father made the decision to illegally buy a gun and takes it
home. The gun had no input in this decision; it had nothing to do with
the gun itself.
The father does not provide his son with gun safety education. The
father does not provide his son with education about right and wrong
particularly when guns are involved. The father does not take measures
to prevent the eight-year-old boy from gaining access to the gun. The
gun did not make itself available to the boy; it had nothing to do with
the gun itself.
On the day of the incident, the gun did not say, "Take me! Forget
about those other implements of destruction about the house, Take me in
your backpack!" The gun is an inanimate object and is unable to
communicate with a human. The boy made the decision to take the gun to
the day care; it had nothing to do with the gun itself.
The eight-year-old boy made the decision to use a gun instead of
any other available item. The gun is cannot make a decision. At the
day care, the gun did not aim itself and then pull its own trigger. It
took a human to make the decision to shoot the gun; it had nothing to do
with the gun itself.
Rattling off a list of points showing "the gun itself" had no concious
input into various actions only paints you as a person who will sink to
any depths to try and sustain and unsustainable point.
You forgot (or more likely purposely left out) that "the gun itself"
was the weapon used in this incident, which CONTRADICTS your earlier
claim that the incident was nothing to do with the gun.
I must say though I'm impressed with your clarifying that this
particular gun cannot speak or indeed communicate with a human. By
specifying "human" am I to assume it may be able to commuincate with
some lesser being? And I'm glad to hear your thoughts that this gun
can't make decisions such as aiming or pulling its own trigger. I'm
tempted to say that you appear to spend too much time pulling your own
trigger, but that would be childish so I won't say it.
This news group is Talk.Politics.Guns and it has been refreshing to participate in an on topic thread for a change as opposed to the liberal drivel that draws up the bandwidth of this group. Since TPG is a GUN group, I will concede the argument to you Mr. Smythe. This sub thread has come to an end for me.
I am overjoyed that you would spend so much time arguing a supporting statement, rather than the main topic of a post. This shows me your efforts to restrict my gun ownership are impotent, and I will enjoy my guns for the rest of my life. Keep it up Mr. Smythe, you are doing everyone a service with your attention to the fine points.
You win Mr. Smythe. Take the last post, and leave me with something profound about how evil guns are. Have a nice gun free day.
- Prev by Date: Re: $1000 offer
- Next by Date: Re: $1000 offer
- Previous by thread: Re: "Accidental" Day-Care Shooting
- Next by thread: Re: "Accidental" Day-Care Shooting