Guns don’t kill people, people do…
but guns make it a lot easier for bad decisions to turn deadly.
Bombs don’t kill people. Explosions do
Booth said that shortly before the killing, Mary Winkler had shifted money between at least two banks in what he described as a “check kiting” scam. She deposited checks totaling $17,500 in family bank accounts from unidentified sources in Canada and Nigeria, he said.
…
“In certain scams, you may have to send money to somebody that’s holding money. You send them a good check. They send you a bad check,” Winkler’s lawyer, Steve Farese, said after the hearing. He declined to provide more details.
This is not the woman you want in charge of the family finances.
Natural selection is a beautiful thing.
I think relying on natural selection by widespread gun ownership to remove the genetic impulse to violent short-term irrationality in a human population of 6 billion plus is a little morally problematic.
Meh, works for me.
Penises don’t rape people, men do.
I don’t think that’s the gene it removes from the pool. It just fixes the gloriously defective people who lack self control, maturity, common sense, etc in the long run. You know, since millions and millions can own guns without escalating domestic disputes into Deadwood.
She deposited checks totaling $17,500 in family bank accounts from unidentified sources in Canada and Nigeria, he said.
OMG SHE WAS A 419 SCAMMERRR!!! What a bitch!
Huh? The guy is dead. The woman is the one who needs to be removed. How did that help natural selection? If anything, having guns makes it easier for weak, stupid people to kill their betters.
He chose her, in some form, first. He couldn’t have been all that (biologically) sound. In any case, she has removed herself from the gene pool just as surely, so the original meaning applies as well.
If anything, having guns makes it easier for weak, stupid people to kill their betters.
Easier for the [iphysicallyt[/i]weaker ones, sure, but I think you are deducing the stupid part from your own biases entirely. How is giving physically weaker people an edge or at least an equalizer a bad thing, you dirty eugenics advocate? Once again, in raw biological terms, the being that fails to adapt by possessing a gun has become unfit for reproduction. Evolutionary history is full of allegedly superior creatures that failed on some crucial detail…this could be your downfall(s), Messrs. Sharp and McCullough. Quit pumping iron and get thee to a range, posthaste.
In any case, I was just fucking around because I knew antigun zealots like yourselves would embrace this as an antigun argument. Just like people getting run over is automatically an anticar argument and people drowning is antipool. And, shush, I know the whole “but guns are specifically meant for killing” argument you’re about to give, and it’s stupid, because it is only produced by people that can’t appreciate how much 1) fun they are and 2) how useful they are for legitimate purposes, such as self defense. And all of those people will get run over by the NRA every time the issue comes up for vote, and I will cheer on the lesser evil.
Any way, we’ve had this discussion before. If you thought I was serious as to the biological ramifications, well, I think I have a good case there too, so there you go.
Wow, you accuse ME of biases? How did you infer I was anti-gun just because I questioned your logic? I’m not anti-guns. I own a gun. I never said anything claiming this woman should not have owned a gun. I was just questioning your particular natural selection joke (which I knew was only half serious…that was pretty clear. You aren’t that subtle ;) ). I just thought it was an odd approach to take, considering the sane person got killed. And are you seriously saying that people choose with whom they fall in love? And wouldn’t that also require them to know how that person will act for the rest of their lives? That’s asking a lot…just to carry your joke’s implications a bit further, since your last sentence suggest you might not actually think it is a joke.
Looks like she out-foxed evolution here, as she already has three daughters. I guess the moral of the story is we have to get more guns into people’s hands before they are old enough to have kids. I hear several african nations are way ahead of the curve on this.
He has admitted to trolling your most honorable Entity! Can we not simply end this with his execution now, without having to go throught the sad spectacle of a trial first?
And, shush, I know the whole “but guns are specifically meant for killing” argument you’re about to give
Shush you mothershusher!
and it’s stupid, because it is only produced by people that can’t appreciate how much 1) fun they are
Can we legalize drugs now Mr. “Stupid”?
and 2) how useful they are for legitimate purposes, such as self defense.
Against other people with, you know, GUNS!
Seriously dude, don’t drink and post. You can’t handle it.
What can we legalise that will kill Lizard King?
And you can’t say launching him out the airlock or sealing him inside a volcano because I’m not allowed to set up my own jokes but I’d be pissed if somebody stole the stuff I wanted to say. So anything apart from that stuff.
Not really applicable, since the people killed by guns are not usually the ones making the bad decision.
Curses! Foiled again. Maybe she wasn’t always bonkers but was led astray recently, by some monstrous entity like Dane Cook or Christianity.
Yes. That was easy. What else have you got?
Against other people with, you know, GUNS!
Or, physically stronger people. Or thugs with knives. Unless, of course, you think most women are not entitled to be able to protect themselves against most men, with which I can totally empathize…wait, no I can’t. Anyhow, who’s trolling now?
Seriously dude, don’t drink and post. You can’t handle it.
Nothing, then? I figured as much. Dude.
And that’s why you’re the most respected poster on this board, by far. I’m sure you can do better, maybe some nonlethal air to air weaponry gone horribly awry, or sharks with laser beams or some shit.
Welcome to the leading edge of the evolutionary spectrum. And I apologize for the incorrect inference. I was only half right, and not with respect to you.
I never said anything claiming this woman should not have owned a gun. I was just questioning your particular natural selection joke (which I knew was only half serious…that was pretty clear. You aren’t that subtle ;) ). I just thought it was an odd approach to take, considering the sane person got killed. And are you seriously saying that people choose with whom they fall in love? And wouldn’t that also require them to know how that person will act for the rest of their lives? That’s asking a lot…
I’m saying you are responsible for your decisions. So if you marry a crazy bitch, have that taser or whatever handy.
just to carry your joke’s implications a bit further, since your last sentence suggest you might not actually think it is a joke.
It’s not that I don’t think it’s ridiculous, it’s that I do think it’s somewhat semantically defensible.
That’s assuming that owning a gun is automatically a bad decision. A lot of bad people are also killed by guns, not just saints and movie star wives. It’s just a shame that so many nice people tend to be pussies about firearms, and sign their own death warrants in the coming apocalypse. I’m pretty sure Jesus said something about that…“Blessed are the meek that own AK47’s” or something to that effect.