US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[colubridae]

For ces ok Posting’s fine by me.
I was concerned that people found it boring, but fuck ‘em they don’t have to read it.


I will try to keep my temper in check, please forbear If I don’t. I come from a race of fiery (but short) people.

First let me deal with the ‘cars’ only point.

I am perfectly entitled to target cars for my objection. You are perfectly entitled to target the “internal combustion engine” if you so wish. I will not take part in that discussion because my view is in line with yours, i.e. that the modern world relies on the IC engine by necessity.

If you wish to target swimming pools as an objection to the gun ban, please do so. I will again not take part in the discussion.

Banning cars does not require banning the IC engine or trucks/buses.
Banning the IC engine mandates a car ban.
Banning trucks/buses does not mandate an IC ban, or a car ban.
There is a logical hierarchy involved, which allows me to target cars, without including any or all other forms of transport, to support my objection.


Remember there is an illogical gun ban in place in the UK. You can own a shotgun but not a revolver. You can take a shotgun out of your home even. Since their objection is based on a selective ban I am entitled to be selective. Though I reserve the right even if they widen their selective ban. Even with a blanket gun ban I’m still entitled to target cars.


The next point concerns necessity. You simply haven’t made a case.
Your rebuttal still ignores the fact that I target cars specifically. Cars are not a necessity. They are a convenience. I will say it again “I know several people who live their lives perfectly well without a car.” Do they ‘need’ the IC engine, rail and road freight transport, and public transport? Most certainly. But they don’t need cars. And whether you like it or not, it’s cars I’m targeting.

And I didn’t say ‘Now, today’. I distinctly denied an “immediate ban”. Certainly a ‘phased’ ban. Over several years, 50 years, whatever. But your claim that it’s not possible is false. It’s perfectly possible. It would be difficult and unpleasant I don’t deny, so what. I never said it would be easy. But claiming cars as a necessity is false, so you still haven’t made the case.

Trying to say that “it’s not the point” is untrue. It’s precisely to the point. Phased Banning of cars only, over a long period is perfectly feasible without widespread death and destruction. Unpleasant yes, restrictive certainly.

Now you also claimed that people made a reasonable decision based on risk/benefit. You asserted that it’s reasonable. I assert that it’s not. (aside from the fact that I don’t know anyone who thinks to himself “I may kill someone now, but fuck it! this trip is important to me” every time, or even occasionally, when they drive a car. The thought never enters their head or is conveniently brushed under the carpet).

You first used the word ‘reasonable’ describing how people made the choice.
Then you downgraded your ‘reasonable’ word to ‘perceived’ risk/benefit. Fine
But what this boils down to, is that since many people do have this perception, it’s valid.
This is simply the argument from popularity. Most of the planet ‘perceive’ that there is some form of god and pray to it. That doesn’t make it reasonable or even valid. So I can discount that evidence for your 'perception’, which makes your assertion of a ‘reasonable decision’ simply that an assertion without evidence and “an assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

But in fact I do have evidence that it’s not reasonable, driving cars kills innocent victims (and culpable victims). Killing innocent victims is reasonably wrong. So it is perfectly acceptable to claim that car driving is unreasonable.


In short my argument still stands. (I may not have covered everything you posted, but I think I covered everything relevant to my point.)



“in short different things may be treated differently” Of course they may so what?

I said in an earlier part of the thread (before you joined it, I think), that the purpose of the machines, whose miss-use causes the deaths is immaterial to my point.
I stand by that statement. It’s the miss-use of guns that the gun lobby object to. That’s their whole point, that’s their sole reason for the ban.
They are not banning them because they don’t like the noise, or because people take pleasure in skeet shooting, nor because they were invented for killing. But because their miss-use kills.

Here’s the crucial point:-
Since this ban is enforced on me I am entitled to require that the anti-gun lobby apply the same criteria (viz. their miss-use kills) to any number of things I choose. If they don’t then they are arbitrarily abusing their power.
If there are strong mitigating reasons for not banning, fine – no ban should be enforced.


Now I could choose swimming pools, but I don’t.
If you choose to that’s your prerogative, I won’t stand in your way, nor argue you out of it.
If you wish to discuss car deaths compared to atomic-bomb deaths be my guest. It’s your prerogative, but I mean this without any disrespect, I won’t take part in it.

I chose cars very specifically. It is their miss-use through recklessness/carelessness that kills. And it’s a safe bet that many of the gun-ban supporters drive cars. And as I showed above there is no strong mitigating reason for not banning.


(BTW it’s their absurd ban. They are the ones who should apply the criteria to everything, not me. I simply chose cars to highlight the gun-ban absurdity.)

And everything I’ve said supports this view. You have done nothing to undermine it.
You’ve presented other scenarios.
Some interesting, some bizarre, for sure. Some that point out other irrationalities of modern life. Interesting but not relevant.

But none that undermine my point.

The closest you’ve come, is to say that cars are a necessary part of modern western life. This is simply false. The closest you can get is “highly convenient”. And measuring that against 1 million deaths worldwide per year is, certainly arguably unreasonable. You can disagree if you wish. But it’s certainly not wrong. It just means the value I put on lives against convenience are different. Since the anti-gun lobby stand on high moral principles I am entitled to the high road. (no pun intended).



The principle that I’m trying to nail is this:-

“Anyone who approves, endorses or actively promotes a gun ban, and then goes out and drives a car is a smug, self-righteous hypocrite”
I stand by it.





edit changed trucks to trucks/buses

[colubridae]

@CES

I’m really sorry. I almost forgot to mention. One of your repeated and strongest arguments was that whilst a ban on guns was valid because their purpose and invention was killing, a ban on cars was not, since their purpose is not to kill and they certainly weren’t invented for killing. True.

However, there is a smoking ban in the UK. Cigarettes are not used with the intention of killing, nor were they ‘invented’ for the purpose of killing.

[Seth]

@CES

I’m really sorry. I almost forgot to mention. One of your repeated and strongest arguments was that whilst a ban on guns was valid because their purpose and invention was killing, a ban on cars was not, since their purpose is not to kill and they certainly weren’t invented for killing. True.

However, there is a smoking ban in the UK. Cigarettes are not used with the intention of killing, nor were they ‘invented’ for the purpose of killing.

What on earth does the "purpose" for which an object was designed have to do with anything? The vast majority of firearms are never actually used to kill, not even animals. Most of them are used to put hole in paper and tin cans. People use knives for killing, and they are purpose-designed for that use, but they don't actually kill people unless wielded by another human being.

How does anyone make a rational argument that just because guns were 'designed to kill' that justifies banning them? This falsely presumes that all killing with guns is inherently bad and that the object is somehow tainted by it's design purpose. But killing may be good or bad, lawful or criminal, it depends entirely on how each individual weapon is used. Since they are inanimate lumps of metal, they have no "intent" or "purpose" at all, any such intent or purpose is entirely the responsibility of the person using the weapon.

[Wumbologist]

But killing may be good or bad, lawful or criminal, it depends entirely on how each individual weapon is used.

My firearms were "designed" to stop an attacker intent on hurting myself or my family. If that means killing said intruder, it is greatly preferable to the alternative of the intruder getting their way. That's not a bad reason to design such a thing.

[Seth]

But killing may be good or bad, lawful or criminal, it depends entirely on how each individual weapon is used.

My firearms were "designed" to stop an attacker intent on hurting myself or my family. If that means killing said intruder, it is greatly preferable to the alternative of the intruder getting their way. That's not a bad reason to design such a thing.

My firearms were designed to expel a copper-clad lead-filled projectile at high velocity in a closely specified direction at high efficiency and with great accuracy and nothing more.

Now, some of the ammunition I use is specifically designed to render an attacker incapable of continuing the conduct that prompted me to shoot him in the first place, but that has little to do with the design of the weapon itself.

[JimC]

But killing may be good or bad, lawful or criminal, it depends entirely on how each individual weapon is used.

My firearms were "designed" to stop an attacker intent on hurting myself or my family. If that means killing said intruder, it is greatly preferable to the alternative of the intruder getting their way. That's not a bad reason to design such a thing.

My firearms were designed to expel a copper-clad lead-filled projectile at high velocity in a closely specified direction at high efficiency and with great accuracy and nothing more.

Now, some of the ammunition I use is specifically designed to render an attacker incapable of continuing the conduct that prompted me to shoot him in the first place, but that has little to do with the design of the weapon itself.

Pure sophistry. The design purpose behind most hand guns (other than a few specialised target weapons) is for shooting other humans. Not that that is automatically a bad thing, of course; it all depends on context. Rifles have a broader range of purposes which also include hunting.

Otherwise, you might say that the purpose of a car is to make the wheels turn around...

[Seth]

But killing may be good or bad, lawful or criminal, it depends entirely on how each individual weapon is used.

My firearms were "designed" to stop an attacker intent on hurting myself or my family. If that means killing said intruder, it is greatly preferable to the alternative of the intruder getting their way. That's not a bad reason to design such a thing.

My firearms were designed to expel a copper-clad lead-filled projectile at high velocity in a closely specified direction at high efficiency and with great accuracy and nothing more.

Now, some of the ammunition I use is specifically designed to render an attacker incapable of continuing the conduct that prompted me to shoot him in the first place, but that has little to do with the design of the weapon itself.

Pure sophistry. The design purpose behind most hand guns (other than a few specialised target weapons) is for shooting other humans.

Sez you. Those who actually design handguns design them to expel bullets efficiently and accurately and appeal to those who like to shoot. Those who actually use handguns to kill people constitute an infinitesimal percentage of all handgun owners, the vast, overwhelming majority of whom buy them because they are beautiful, functional pieces of engineering design that put holes in paper very accurately.

Not that that is automatically a bad thing, of course; it all depends on context.

Indeed. Context. And the context of 99.999% of handguns is sitting in drawers and safes or being used at a firing range for shooting targets. Therefore, the "context" of handgun design is for sporting purposes.

Rifles have a broader range of purposes which also include hunting.

Handguns are also used for hunting.

Otherwise, you might say that the purpose of a car is to make the wheels turn around...

Well, the design of a car is intended to induce the customer into buying it to serve either a need or a desire, which is why we have so many, many different designs of cars that have many, many different uses. Cars are designed to travel at high velocity in a specified direction, so by your logic, they are designed to kill human beings because they are capable of either running into them or killing them while the humans are inside of them.

This of course, is ridiculous.

Handguns are designed to induce the customer into buying them to serve either a need or a desire, which is why we have so many, many different designs of handguns that have many, many different uses. Therefore, it is fallacious to say that handguns are "designed for shooting other humans."

But, even if this were true, so what? Some humans need killing and it's perfectly appropriate to have well-designed tools specifically suited to that task.

[Coito ergo sum]

I am perfectly entitled to target cars for my objection. You are perfectly entitled to target the “internal combustion engine” if you so wish. I will not take part in that discussion because my view is in line with yours, i.e. that the modern world relies on the IC engine by necessity

If you wish to target swimming pools as an objection to the gun ban, please do so. I will again not take part in the discussion.

You are perfectly entitled to do whatever you want to do. Whatever - the same argument applies to those other things.

What's unique about "cars" that we can't also say that "if you ban guns, you have to ban swimming pools?"

Banning cars does not require banning the IC engine or trucks/buses.

True, but there is no material difference in terms of this argument between "cars" and "SUVs," etc. Your choice of the car as the one dangerous implement that you wish to use as an example is arbitrary.

Banning the IC engine mandates a car ban.
Banning trucks/buses does not mandate an IC ban, or a car ban.
There is a logical hierarchy involved, which allows me to target cars, without including any or all other forms of transport, to support my objection.

I've addressed your cars issue directly. I used the other items as examples to illustrate how ludicrous your car example is.

Remember there is an illogical gun ban in place in the UK. You can own a shotgun but not a revolver. You can take a shotgun out of your home even. Since their objection is based on a selective ban I am entitled to be selective. Though I reserve the right even if they widen their selective ban. Even with a blanket gun ban I’m still entitled to target cars.

And, I've addressed cars qua cars.

The next point concerns necessity. You simply haven’t made a case.

Your rebuttal still ignores the fact that I target cars specifically. Cars are not a necessity.

They are a necessity for the maintenance of our current modern society. I have already clarified that they are not a necessity for the survival of humanity as a species. However, without cars, if they were eliminated tomorrow, our entire western economy would collapse, and millions of people would die, because they would not be able to get to work.

You also keep fucking ignoring everything I say and focus on one word "necessity." It is not just fucking "necessity" that matters - now get this into your brain - let it sink in, because I'm not going to keep repeating myself. They are fucking BENEFICIAL, and it is not just necessity but the perceived "benefit" of cars that that distinguishes them from guns. Everybody thinks they need a car, just about everybody anyway. People who can walk to work, and people who live in concentrated cities like NYC or London can take subways and walk, but the vast majority of people see cars as needed or extremely important for everyday life. That same vast majority of people don't perceive the same level of need or importance for guns.

I've said that a couple of times before, so you can keep harping about how humanity survived without cars for hundreds of thousands of years, but it's not about what we did before, it's about what we're doing now. And, the reason cars and guns are treated differently is because most people view them as different things, with different uses, purposes, benefits to our current way of life.

Just ask someone who needs to drive to work tomorrow what he needs more - a gun or a car - and what do you think the answer will be? I gotta fuckin' get to work. That's the kind of "need" and "benefit" that people perceive in cars.

Now, you either get that, or you don't. I'll leave it to the others posting here whether I've made any sense.

They are a convenience. I will say it again “I know several people who live their lives perfectly well without a car.” Do they ‘need’ the IC engine, rail and road freight transport, and public transport? Most certainly. But they don’t need cars. And whether you like it or not, it’s cars I’m targeting.

And, I've addressed "cars" without reference to anything else. Just dealing with cars, and, again, I'll stress this again - it's not now and never was solely about "need," as in "I need a car to survive, like I need food to survive." It's about the fact that the automobile props up our entire modern economy, and that eliminating them from the equation would mean that people could not live like they do now. People see a tremendous benefit to having a car in that sense, and they perceive they need them to maintain their way of life. Most people, on the other hand, don't even own a gun, so if you take them away, their life wouldn't change much.

Get it yet?

And I didn’t say ‘Now, today’. I distinctly denied an “immediate ban”. Certainly a ‘phased’ ban. Over several years, 50 years, whatever. But your claim that it’s not possible is false. It’s perfectly possible. It would be difficult and unpleasant I don’t deny, so what. I never said it would be easy. But claiming cars as a necessity is false, so you still haven’t made the case.

I never said it's not possible. I was explaining why cars are different than guns. Cars have a different set of perceived benefits, and are perceived as necessary for people in their daily lives - to get to work, to provide for their families, to get food, to get anyplace. The same doesn't apply to guns. They're different things.

Now you also claimed that people made a reasonable decision based on risk/benefit. You asserted that it’s reasonable. I assert that it’s not. (aside from the fact that I don’t know anyone who thinks to himself “I may kill someone now, but fuck it! this trip is important to me” every time, or even occasionally, when they drive a car. The thought never enters their head or is conveniently brushed under the carpet).

You can stop recasting my arguments into straw men anytime now...

Everyone knows that every time they drive their car down the street, there is a chance they will be in an accident and die, just as surely as they know that every time they get into an airplane there is a chance they will die in a fiery crash. They go anyway, because the perceived risk isn't high enough to get people to change their behavior. If the numbers changed, and suddenly 1 in 10 people who went out on the road died in a fiery crash, then you better believe people would change their behavior.

Do you really not fucking get this? I'm not talking about people studying actuarial tables. Christ on bicycle, man.

You first used the word ‘reasonable’ describing how people made the choice.
Then you downgraded your ‘reasonable’ word to ‘perceived’ risk/benefit. Fine
But what this boils down to, is that since many people do have this perception, it’s valid.
This is simply the argument from popularity. Most of the planet ‘perceive’ that there is some form of god and pray to it. That doesn’t make it reasonable or even valid. So I can discount that evidence for your 'perception’, which makes your assertion of a ‘reasonable decision’ simply that an assertion without evidence and “an assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

White noise. Static.

But in fact I do have evidence that it’s not reasonable, driving cars kills innocent victims (and culpable victims). Killing innocent victims is reasonably wrong. So it is perfectly acceptable to claim that car driving is unreasonable.

You can claim anything you want. Are you really not getting that the risk associated with cars is deemed acceptable by people because they think cars are so important to their daily lives that the risk is something they have to live with? People think they have to get to work. So, despite knowing that there is a risk they may be in a fiery crash, they go anyway. People won't vote for a car ban because of the fact that they think they need cars to survive and to live their lifestyles. People are more likely to vote for gun bans in places where guns are either scene as not beneficial to their daily lives, or perhaps, as some folks on this website have said, they believe guns are overtly detrimental to their daily existences. They are willing to live with the small risk of being in a car accident, but they aren't willing to live with the small risk of being in a gun incident, because they see far more need/benefit/value in cars than guns.

Is that REALLY so fucking hard to understand?

In short my argument still stands. (I may not have covered everything you posted, but I think I covered everything relevant to my point.)

Your argument is nonsense. It doesn't stand to reason. It doesn't stand to reason for the same reason as "swimming pools kill people, therefore they should be banned if you ban guns." You don't want to talk about swimming pools because you know darn well that the same logic you are applying to cars can be applied to swimming pools. And, you know darn well that the reason people won't vote for swimming pool bans is because swimming pools are different than guns, and have different purposes, uses, and benefits, etc.

That's what I'm saying about cars -- different things can be treated differently under the law.

“in short different things may be treated differently” Of course they may so what?

That should be obvious. Since cars are different than guns in that cars have different uses and benefits than guns, and differ in importance to the maintenance of our modern society/lifestyles than guns, it stands to reason that the law would treat them differently.

I said in an earlier part of the thread (before you joined it, I think), that the purpose of the machines, whose miss-use causes the deaths is immaterial to my point.

Difference in purposes and uses of the things are what justifies different types of regulations. Of course you want to exclude that from your arguments, because it skewers your argument.

I stand by that statement. It’s the miss-use of guns that the gun lobby object to. That’s their whole point, that’s their sole reason for the ban.
They are not banning them because they don’t like the noise, or because people take pleasure in skeet shooting, nor because they were invented for killing. But because their miss-use kills.

Yes, and if we were an agrarian society where guns were needed for most people to live their daily lives - shooting predator animals who are after the chickens and sheep and whatnot - then there wouldn't be a gun ban. The purposes and the needs have everything to do with what things are banned and what things aren't. That's why in England there are exceptions to the gun ban for certain needs and uses....

Christ, man... I've never seen someone work so hard to build a house of cards....

Here’s the crucial point:-
Since this ban is enforced on me I am entitled to require that the anti-gun lobby apply the same criteria (viz. their miss-use kills) to any number of things I choose.

You are entitled to assert anything you want. But, the fact remains, banning one thing that is considered dangerous doesn't logically require the banning of all dangerous things. That's why a lot of places ban fireworks, but not motorcycles.

If they don’t then they are arbitrarily abusing their power.

No, not necessarily. If they are treating different things differently, according the needs of and benefits to society, then they are rationally regulating, like when private ownership of hydrogen filled Zeppelins are banned, but hot air balloons are not banned, despite the fact that they are both dangerous and people die in them both. They are different things, with different purposes, effects, dangers, risk levels, needs, benefits, etc. Different things may be treated differently and the fact that one dangerous thing is banned does not now, and never has meant - in the mind of anyone with an ounce of rational sense - that we have to ban every other dangerous thing too, lest we be "arbitrary."

If there are strong mitigating reasons for not banning, fine – no ban should be enforced.

There are strong mitigating reasons for not banning cars. People need cars in their daily lives, to get to work, to shop, to do a host of other things - and people derive tremendous benefits from owning cars. Most people do see nearly as much need/benefit from guns.

Now I could choose swimming pools, but I don’t.
If you choose to that’s your prerogative, I won’t stand in your way, nor argue you out of it.
If you wish to discuss car deaths compared to atomic-bomb deaths be my guest. It’s your prerogative, but I mean this without any disrespect, I won’t take part in it.

Those examples skewer your argument. The fact is that one can pick any number of dangerous products and compare them to guns and say "if you ban guns, you have to ban X because people die needlessly because of X." The examples of swimming pools, etc., that I gave demonstrate the folly in your argument. It's not surprising that you seek to avoid those examples - it's because they illustrate the absurdity of saying "if we ban guns, well, we have to ban cars because cars kill people." Your argument in that regard is AS ABSURD as saying "if we ban guns, we have to ban swimming pools because swimming pools kill innocent people..." or, "if we ban guns, we have to ban hot air balloons because hot air balloons kill innocent people.

Your "car ban" argument sophistry and casuistry.

I chose cars very specifically. It is their miss-use through recklessness/carelessness that kills. And it’s a safe bet that many of the gun-ban supporters drive cars. And as I showed above there is no strong mitigating reason for not banning.

I showed that there is a strong mitigating reason for not banning them.

(BTW it’s their absurd ban. They are the ones who should apply the criteria to everything, not me. I simply chose cars to highlight the gun-ban absurdity.)

And everything I’ve said supports this view. You have done nothing to undermine it.
You’ve presented other scenarios.
Some interesting, some bizarre, for sure. Some that point out other irrationalities of modern life. Interesting but not relevant.

But none that undermine my point.

See above - your point is completely undermined.

The closest you’ve come, is to say that cars are a necessary part of modern western life. This is simply false.

Not. I wouldn't have gotten to work today without cars, and if cars were not around, modern western life would have to change dramatically.

The closest you can get is “highly convenient”. And measuring that against 1 million deaths worldwide per year is, certainly arguably unreasonable. You can disagree if you wish. But it’s certainly not wrong. It just means the value I put on lives against convenience are different. Since the anti-gun lobby stand on high moral principles I am entitled to the high road. (no pun intended).

Already addressed this above.

The principle that I’m trying to nail is this:-

“Anyone who approves, endorses or actively promotes a gun ban, and then goes out and drives a car is a smug, self-righteous hypocrite”
I stand by it.

That principle is complete and utter bullshit. It's as absurd as saying "Anyone who approves, endorses or actively promotes a gun ban, and then goes out and jumps in a swimming pool, rides a motorcycle, floats in a hot air balloon, rides a roller coaster, skydives, hang glides, mountain climbs, or BASE jumps, is a smug, self-righteous hypocrite." That's what your car argument is, and that's why it fails. Your argument is fatuous sophistry.

[Coito ergo sum]

@CES

I’m really sorry. I almost forgot to mention. One of your repeated and strongest arguments was that whilst a ban on guns was valid because their purpose and invention was killing, a ban on cars was not, since their purpose is not to kill and they certainly weren’t invented for killing. True.

However, there is a smoking ban in the UK. Cigarettes are not used with the intention of killing, nor were they ‘invented’ for the purpose of killing.

My strongest argument is an argument I never made?

I've never made the argument you recount here.

A smoking ban is supported by so many people because smoking is seen as a pointless activity, of no utility and little benefit, that causes a great deal of harm to individuals and to society in general. My argument remains the same - just because there is a smoking ban, doesn't mean there has to be an alcohol ban, or a ban on every other harmful product.

But, anyway, there isn't a smoking ban in the UK. You can buy and smoke cigarettes in the UK.

[MrJonno]

A smoking ban is supported by so many people because smoking is seen as a pointless activity, of no utility and little benefit, that causes a great deal of harm to individuals and to society in general. My argument remains the same - just because there is a smoking ban, doesn't mean there has to be an alcohol ban, or a ban on every other harmful product.

But, anyway, there isn't a smoking ban in the UK. You can buy and smoke cigarettes in the UK.

Just waiting for a case where a kid who gets asthma or ther condition sues their parents for smoking near them gets brought, rightly it will then become a crime to smoke anywhere near children including your own home. Private member smoking clubs are already banned so I can see it being in a park at least 50 metres from children being about the only place you can smoke

[Clinton Huxley]

A smoking ban is supported by so many people because smoking is seen as a pointless activity, of no utility and little benefit, that causes a great deal of harm to individuals and to society in general. My argument remains the same - just because there is a smoking ban, doesn't mean there has to be an alcohol ban, or a ban on every other harmful product.

But, anyway, there isn't a smoking ban in the UK. You can buy and smoke cigarettes in the UK.

Just waiting for a case where a kid who gets asthma or ther condition sues their parents for smoking near them gets brought, rightly it will then become a crime to smoke anywhere near children including your own home. Private member smoking clubs are already banned so I can see it being in a park at least 50 metres from children being about the only place you can smoke

The ban on smoking in bars and pubs was one of the bestest things ever.

[Coito ergo sum]

For those on this thread calling people who use and carry guns "psychos" and "paranoid," is President Obama a psycho paranoid?



He does this "all the time," doesn't he?

Psychotic and paranoid, that.

[MrJonno]

For those on this thread calling people who use and carry guns "psychos" and "paranoid," is President Obama a psycho paranoid?



He does this "all the time," doesn't he?

Psychotic and paranoid, that.

People who carry around weapons for self defence unless they are a genuine target ( in fact people who even think about self defence) are psychotic and paranoid. People who want to use firearms for sport don't really have a problem with. I did rifle shooting at school (yes I went to a British school with a firing range) mainly to avoid having to play rugby

[Coito ergo sum]

....and, now the waffling begins....lol

[Jason]

So he's pretending he shoots skeet. Big deal.