Kids attacked again, sent to hospital for their injuries.

[TemplarKormac]

If I can say it more plainly, there are some people out there that want to ban anything that has even the remotest possibility of being used to kill another human being. It's fear. Not reason.

"It's fear, not reason". Good phase.
Certainly applies to the whole gun culture, donut?

DONUT!

WHERE?!

 

[TemplarKormac]

If I can say it more plainly, there are some people out there that want to ban anything that has even the remotest possibility of being used to kill another human being. It's fear. Not reason.

"It's fear, not reason". Good phase.
Certainly applies to the whole gun culture, donut?

It applies to both sides, if you want me to be honest.

 

[Wry Catcher]

On topic, school bus drivers need to be well trained on the rules of the road and the management of people, and monitored electronically to notify supervisor staff if they violate rules related to safety and the vehicle code.

School buses need to have seat belts, and the safety features which are now part of many 2018 vehicles.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You can kill someone with literally anything if you do it right. Drop a TV on someone's head and you can crush their skull.

I'd like to go on record as being completely on board with banning TV.

But not for that reason.

My, my, you're sounding more like a libertarian all the time, Pogo! Have we won you over to the dark side?

 

[Pogo]

You can kill someone with literally anything if you do it right. Drop a TV on someone's head and you can crush their skull.

I'd like to go on record as being completely on board with banning TV.

But not for that reason.

My, my, you're sounding more like a libertarian all the time, Pogo! Have we won you over to the dark side?

Please. I'm a Liberal, not an anarchist.

 

[Pogo]

If I can say it more plainly, there are some people out there that want to ban anything that has even the remotest possibility of being used to kill another human being. It's fear. Not reason.

"It's fear, not reason". Good phase.
Certainly applies to the whole gun culture, donut?

DONUT!

WHERE?!

I *knew* that would distract you. Had it all planned out.

 

[Political Junky]

Cons would go back to horse and buggy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You can kill someone with literally anything if you do it right. Drop a TV on someone's head and you can crush their skull.

I'd like to go on record as being completely on board with banning TV.

But not for that reason.

My, my, you're sounding more like a libertarian all the time, Pogo! Have we won you over to the dark side?

Please. I'm a Liberal, not an anarchist.

Ha, if you think libertarianism is about pure anarchy, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Cons would go back to horse and buggy.

Huh, so you've never heard of the Amish, have you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

If I can say it more plainly, there are some people out there that want to ban anything that has even the remotest possibility of being used to kill another human being. It's fear. Not reason.

"It's fear, not reason". Good phase.
Certainly applies to the whole gun culture, donut?

DONUT!

WHERE?!

I *knew* that would distract you. Had it all planned out.

I will forgive your treachery...

This time.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So here we are more kids being attacked and harmed, just trying to get educated in schools. Maybe we should ban this dastardly item, because of how many kids get hurt?

Why do you people keep bringing up these stupid arguments trying to make a comparison to gun ownership? Do you not realize how stupid you guys sound every time you create one of these asinine threads sarcastically claiming we need to ban vans or ban school buses? I don't supporting banning "assault" rifles either, but these constant comparisons you guys keep making don't even have an elementary level of intellect involved.

Every. Single. Time.

 

[August West]

So here we are more kids being attacked and harmed, just trying to get educated in schools. Maybe we should ban this dastardly item, because of how many kids get hurt?

Why do you people keep bringing up these stupid arguments trying to make a comparison to gun ownership? Do you not realize how stupid you guys sound every time you create one of these asinine threads sarcastically claiming we need to ban vans or ban school buses? I don't supporting banning "assault" rifles either, but these constant comparisons you guys keep making don't even have an elementary level of intellect involved.

Consider where the comparisons came from in the first place.

And then ask anyone in London what is happening right now.

What does London have to do with what I said?

It seems to be that he`s hearing voices in his head and one of the voices said "let`s ban knives". Those that hear voices should not be allowed to play with guns of any sort.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If I can say it more plainly, there are some people out there that want to ban anything that has even the remotest possibility of being used to kill another human being. It's fear. Not reason.

No, There aren't.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why do you people keep bringing up these stupid arguments trying to make a comparison to gun ownership? Do you not realize how stupid you guys sound every time you create one of these asinine threads sarcastically claiming we need to ban vans or ban school buses? I don't supporting banning "assault" rifles either, but these constant comparisons you guys keep making don't even have an elementary level of intellect involved.

Consider where the comparisons came from in the first place.

And then ask anyone in London what is happening right now.

What does London have to do with what I said?

Let's put it this way. First they wanted to ban guns for the spate of gun violence going on there. Now they want to ban knives for spate of stabbings going on there. If suddenly people started murdering people with empty soda cans, we would be moving to ban soda cans. You can't sit there and accuse the OP of employing subpar intellect when the logic behind this reasoning has existed for decades all around the world. Laws are made due to this reasoning, some stupid laws at that.

Has London talked about banning vans?

Admittedly nobody has. It would cripple efficiency for people who utilize them for other things rather than mowing people down on a sidewalk. People forget that guns, like vans, serve a practical purpose, and aren't meant solely for the purpose of killing.

That is false. The sole purpose of guns is to kill.

 

[Pogo]

You can kill someone with literally anything if you do it right. Drop a TV on someone's head and you can crush their skull.

I'd like to go on record as being completely on board with banning TV.

But not for that reason.

My, my, you're sounding more like a libertarian all the time, Pogo! Have we won you over to the dark side?

Please. I'm a Liberal, not an anarchist.

Ha, if you think libertarianism is about pure anarchy, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Cool. You take PayPal?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Consider where the comparisons came from in the first place.

And then ask anyone in London what is happening right now.

What does London have to do with what I said?

Let's put it this way. First they wanted to ban guns for the spate of gun violence going on there. Now they want to ban knives for spate of stabbings going on there. If suddenly people started murdering people with empty soda cans, we would be moving to ban soda cans. You can't sit there and accuse the OP of employing subpar intellect when the logic behind this reasoning has existed for decades all around the world. Laws are made due to this reasoning, some stupid laws at that.

Has London talked about banning vans?

Admittedly nobody has. It would cripple efficiency for people who utilize them for other things rather than mowing people down on a sidewalk. People forget that guns, like vans, serve a practical purpose, and aren't meant solely for the purpose of killing.

That is false. The sole purpose of guns is to kill.

Perhaps you have forgotten how easily they can be used as a deterrent. Better to have one and not need it, than to need one and not have it. Nukes are meant to kill millions, but the threat of their use sees that they aren't.

You are so narrow minded you can't understand guns have multiple purposes other than killing.

Curious, I could kill someone with my bare hands. But does that mean human hands were evolved by our species solely for that purpose?

Seriously?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You can kill someone with literally anything if you do it right. Drop a TV on someone's head and you can crush their skull.

I'd like to go on record as being completely on board with banning TV.

But not for that reason.

My, my, you're sounding more like a libertarian all the time, Pogo! Have we won you over to the dark side?

Please. I'm a Liberal, not an anarchist.

Ha, if you think libertarianism is about pure anarchy, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Cool. You take PayPal?

Cash only. We'll meet in Trump Tower. Be ready with the briefcase.

 

[Pogo]

I'd like to go on record as being completely on board with banning TV.

But not for that reason.

My, my, you're sounding more like a libertarian all the time, Pogo! Have we won you over to the dark side?

Please. I'm a Liberal, not an anarchist.

Ha, if you think libertarianism is about pure anarchy, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Cool. You take PayPal?

Cash only. We'll meet in Trump tower. Be ready with the briefcase.

Sorry I ain't going in that place. Smells like pee in there. Also the elevator floor numbers are all covfeffed.

 

[Pogo]

What does London have to do with what I said?

Let's put it this way. First they wanted to ban guns for the spate of gun violence going on there. Now they want to ban knives for spate of stabbings going on there. If suddenly people started murdering people with empty soda cans, we would be moving to ban soda cans. You can't sit there and accuse the OP of employing subpar intellect when the logic behind this reasoning has existed for decades all around the world. Laws are made due to this reasoning, some stupid laws at that.

Has London talked about banning vans?

Admittedly nobody has. It would cripple efficiency for people who utilize them for other things rather than mowing people down on a sidewalk. People forget that guns, like vans, serve a practical purpose, and aren't meant solely for the purpose of killing.

That is false. The sole purpose of guns is to kill.

Perhaps you have forgotten how easily they can be used as a deterrent. Better to have one and not need it, than to need one and not have it. Nukes are meant to kill millions, but the threat of their use sees that they aren't.

You are so narrow minded you can't understand guns have multiple purposes other than killing.

Curious, I could kill someone with my bare hands. But does that mean human hands were evolved by our species solely for that purpose?

Seriously?

Both firearms, and nukes (or other type bombs) are made for war, i.e. killing.

If that were NOT the case --- there would be no "threat".

Ask your friendly neighborhood criminal when he accosts you on the skreet and demands your wallet but doesn't shoot you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's put it this way. First they wanted to ban guns for the spate of gun violence going on there. Now they want to ban knives for spate of stabbings going on there. If suddenly people started murdering people with empty soda cans, we would be moving to ban soda cans. You can't sit there and accuse the OP of employing subpar intellect when the logic behind this reasoning has existed for decades all around the world. Laws are made due to this reasoning, some stupid laws at that.

Has London talked about banning vans?

Admittedly nobody has. It would cripple efficiency for people who utilize them for other things rather than mowing people down on a sidewalk. People forget that guns, like vans, serve a practical purpose, and aren't meant solely for the purpose of killing.

That is false. The sole purpose of guns is to kill.

Perhaps you have forgotten how easily they can be used as a deterrent. Better to have one and not need it, than to need one and not have it. Nukes are meant to kill millions, but the threat of their use sees that they aren't.

You are so narrow minded you can't understand guns have multiple purposes other than killing.

Curious, I could kill someone with my bare hands. But does that mean human hands were evolved by our species solely for that purpose?

Seriously?

Both firearms, and nukes (or other type bombs) are made for war, i.e. killing.

If that were NOT the case --- there would be no "threat".

Ask your friendly neighborhood criminal when he accosts you on the skreet and demands your wallet but doesn't shoot you.

If I pulled my own gun, he would be less prone to shoot me. Much less rob me. You can use a gun to kill, yes, but they can also be used as a form of intimidation. Just the mere sight of a gun (or a nuke) being pointed at you invokes an almost primal fear. Fear is a greater weapon than any weapon man has ever conceived of.

Anything else?