The Cellar - Guns don't kill people ....

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Home Base (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - Guns don't kill people .... (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=24412)

Gun nuts are SOOOOO touchy about hurting guns' feelings. :lol:

Guns don't hurt people's feelings...PEOPLE hurt people's feelings.

Like they think we think guns are alive or something. "Oooooh, that gun is a mean one. He once shot a guy just to watch him die. Then he went to Starbucks. Ooooohhh." :lol2:

It's almost as if that's the only argument they can fall back on. :rolleyes:

Still, it's a step up from court jester. :p:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 803182)

OK Stormie, you may consider me an anti-gun fanatic,
but first please consider one of my previous postings.

I really don't intend my question to be rhetorical.
If it helps, use your words above to address the real question:
How do you propose shootings might be brought to zero ?

Otherwise, such are only debating tactics to divert from my issue of people being killed by guns.
.

Oops. I didn't say the above. Maybe you meant Sexobon?

Hey, Stormie, I do apologize... my bad... no idea how that came about.

Now that Stormie has responded, Lamp gets to put his post in the "Awesome Pick Up Lines....." thread. :cool:

Quote:

You still can't bring yourself to say something like "people killing others with guns."
You repeatedly use language that portrays people as victims and guns as perpetrators.
That's diagnostic for an antigun fanatic and why I've written you off for meaningful exchange on this subject.
Thanks for the entertainment.

Oh, sure I can: "People are killing others with guns"
I can also say people are unintentionally killing others with guns
I can also say people are unintentionally killing themselves with guns
And yes, I do portray people as victims... they are the victims.

Once again, it's down to name-calling and quibbling over my wording.
It's OK to write me off --- that matters little, and I'm sorry to lose the conversation.
But what does matter is to be aware of a problem, but find a pretext to avoid it.

Take care.

If there's a stand your ground law and someone is trying to commit suicide, is it acceptable for them to kill themself to prevent themself from killing themself?

Does this change if there is also an assisted suicide law?

and if you do it in a public place will they ticket you for littering and go after your estate?

Here's something I think we can all agree on: Geraldo is stoopid.

He says the hoodie was at fault for the shooting. He urged african-american and hispanic parents to not let their babies grow up to wear hoodies.

So hoodies don't get shot, people WEARING hoodies get shot.

What a maroon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus (Post 803255)

Somewhere there is a think tank with an empty chair...

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 803272)

I think you mean Jorge.

What we have here is a Fatal Fashion Faux Pas.

Quit making me guffaw out loud.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus (Post 803255)

[Grammar alert!] The funny thing is that Mozilla spell check doesn't like the word "themself." Neither does it like "themselves." So I got all flustered and re-edited several times to please spell-check.

According to this site (warning: Canadian!):

Quote:

... the plural pronoun "they" can be used to represent a singular antecedent that is gender-neutral and indefinite, for example, "someone", "no one", "anyone" or "a person". ... the other grammatical forms of the "singular they" are "them", "their" and "themselves", and these are used in a sentence to relate to a "singular they" subject, along with a plural verb. The question addressed in this article is whether "themself" can be used in some cases instead of "themselves" with reference to a singular "they" or a singular indefinite antecedent.

and concludes

Quote:

Although some current dictionaries, for example, The New Oxford Dictionary of English, state that themself has re-emerged in recent years when used to refer to a singular gender-neutral noun or pronoun ("themselves" remains the normal third person plural reflexive form), they label it as "rare" or "disputed" or "not widely accepted in standard English". Other dictionaries such as Webster's Third New International Dictionary do not mention it at all. In short, although there is some acknowledgement that this form is occasionally used today, informally, and that it may perhaps be a trend to watch, its use does not seem widespread enough to justify advocating it in legislative texts for the time being.

What do you think?

I've always heard it as 'themselves' but that doesn't really agree in number, does it?

You could say himself, or herself, or 'him or her self.'

It's an awkward word. Avoid it. ;)