On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 11:41:08 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 20:33:45 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 7:43:50 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 21:20:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/7/2019 8:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:28:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Your portrayal of me accepting bombs is far less accurate and WAY less
witty than Jim Jeffries bit on gun nuts.

But in an effort to seek agreement, here's what I propose: Let's make
U.S. gun laws exactly as strict as U.S. bomb laws. Will that satisfy you?


You mean that fertilizer and diesel fuel have strict laws to control
them in the U.S. ? Amazing! I had not known that..

You're really not very knowledgeable on these issues, John.

"Under federal explosives law, it is illegal to engage in the business
of manufacturing explosives without a license; to improperly store
explosives; to sell or distribute explosives to any person who does not
hold an ATF license or permit." You may want to read this information:
https://www.atf.gov/explosives

Yes, I'm sure that you are correct, but the manufacture of an
explosive from fertilizer and diesel fuel can be very much a home
project. It is also, I discovered when working at a major copper mine
in Irian Jaya a commonly used explosive in open pit mining and is
mixed "on the spot" by the explosive guys. And, I might add,
instructions for making fertilizer/diesel fuel bombs is all over the
Internet. It is not, as they say, rocket science.


Sure, you can make up any snide little saying that you wish. But do
you really feel that it is more horrifying to shoot 22 people than to
kill outright 160 people and injure another 600?

No, and I didn't say that. Again, when someone sinks exclusively into
straw man arguments, they must have no really logical argument remaining.

But it isn't a straw man argument. You bemoan the so called "mass
shootings" and argue for stringent gun laws while at the same time
accepting the facts that about 100 die daily on the Nation's roads.

But than, I guess the road deaths are all accidents, just
happenstance, one might say.

There is no equivalency between mass shootings and traffic accidents. Traffic accidents are an unfortunate consequence of an activity with high utility. Mass shootings are simply murder. You know that. Everybody knows that.

-- Jay Beattie.

I see. You are implying that if everyone actually complied with the
traffic code that "accidents" would remain the same as today?
--

Cheers,

John B.

I'm not implying anything. I am saying that a traffic ACCIDENT is an accident and in no way equivalent to an intentional mass shooting -- or intentional killing of any sort. Why even waste the bandwidth arguing about something so obvious?

Can one intentionally kill with a car? Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack That, however, is not the method of choice for the 251 mass-shooters this year. https://tinyurl.com/yxlb7j4r

-- Jay Beattie.