Guns in home kills family of five.

[Luddly Neddite]

...So why do the gun grabbers target Law abiding citizens?...

Just like the dishonest phrase, "gun grabbers" is getting tiresome.

Who tells you people to use these lame excuses to hide behind? Fox? lushbo?

 

[jasonnfree]

GUNS IN HOME KILLS FAMILY OF FIVE.
15-year-old boy suspected of killing parents, 3 kids in New Mexico home
15-year-old boy suspected of killing parents, 3 kids in New Mexico home | Fox News

Again, guns in the home kills family instead of protecting family by a good kid. All law abiding citizens should under go an psychiatric evaluations before allowed to buy guns. Again a assault weapon involved.

All presidents should undergo psychiatric evaluations before becoming president. Bush caused the murder of hundreds of thousands. Way more than any gun murders here.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Again, guns in the home didn't kill anyone. A crazy kid in the home killed his family - AGAIN. And, the family was well aware that they had a crazy kid in the household. While there is a right to have a gun, anyone who keeps unlocked firearms in a home where there is a known crazy person is more culpable than the crazy person themselves.

Thought I would fix that one for ya.

 

[JimBowie1958]

GUNS IN HOME KILLS FAMILY OF FIVE.
15-year-old boy suspected of killing parents, 3 kids in New Mexico home
15-year-old boy suspected of killing parents, 3 kids in New Mexico home | Fox News

Again, guns in the home kills family instead of protecting family by a good kid. All law abiding citizens should under go an psychiatric evaluations before allowed to buy guns. Again a assault weapon involved.

All presidents should undergo psychiatric evaluations before becoming president. Bush caused the murder of hundreds of thousands. Way more than any gun murders here.

It was war, not murder, and a war that Hussein could have easily avoided, ya ******* commie!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Who said that?



Who said that?



Who said that?



Who said that?



Who said that?



Who said that?

Twist stories much?

Dude, did you read the ******* title of this thread?

Guns in home kills family of five.

******* actually I ******* did. Did you? Let's ******* see.

Guns in home kills family of five

-- "Guns" = plural. "Kills" = singular. Therefore the subject of the sentence is not the noun Guns but the phrase guns in home. The (singular) concept of a home with guns.
Ergo, "the condition of having guns in a home kills five".

Next week we'll do predicate adjectives. À la ******* prochaine.

Oh, bullshit, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to pretend that the moron in question used correct grammar.

Lol, its so funny to see libs trying to weasel their way out of stupid shit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Funny, this story is about some kid killing his family, not guns suddenly developing the ability to move and the will to kill people.

Who said that?



Who said that?



Who said that?



Who said that?



Who said that?

I didn't see a single place in this article where the GUNS killed anyone. If I missed the sentence that said, "And then the guns jumped up, loaded themselves, and shot everyone", please cite it.

Who said that?

Twist stories much?

Why not just canonize guns?

This excuse is getting tiresome because guns DO kill people.

No, they dont, and your delusions dont prove jack shit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

...So why do the gun grabbers target Law abiding citizens?...

Just like the dishonest phrase, "gun grabbers" is getting tiresome.

Is it getting tiresome for you, Nancy?

GOOD.

Who tells you people to use these lame excuses to hide behind? Fox? lushbo?

Only a ******* libtard would consider a plea for the rights of innocent and free men to be a 'lame excuse'.

**** you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

******* actually I ******* did. Did you? Let's ******* see.

Guns in home kills family of five

-- "Guns" = plural. "Kills" = singular. Therefore the subject of the sentence is not the noun Guns but the phrase guns in home. The (singular) concept of a home with guns.
Ergo, "the condition of having guns in a home kills five".

Next week we'll do predicate adjectives. À la ******* prochaine.

You might have a point if the OP was known for being a Grammar Nazi. Given the fact that she usually posts incoherent rants about illegal immigrants that are barely recognizable as being related to the English language, you just look like an idiot.

Uh-- I look like an idiot?

Yeah, pretty much all the time, but there are okazunal flashes of intelligence, but only breifly.

And yes, I know I mispelled okazunal. Its just that I dont give a shit about what some limpristic academe thinks about...well just about anything.

 

[Dreamy]

Funny, this story is about some kid killing his family, not guns suddenly developing the ability to move and the will to kill people.

Who said that?



Who said that?



Who said that?



Who said that?



Who said that?

I didn't see a single place in this article where the GUNS killed anyone. If I missed the sentence that said, "And then the guns jumped up, loaded themselves, and shot everyone", please cite it.

Who said that?

Twist stories much?

Why not just canonize guns?

This excuse is getting tiresome because guns DO kill people.

People kill people. Guns are what they sometimes choose as their method.

 

[Pogo]

Dude, did you read the ******* title of this thread?

Guns in home kills family of five.

******* actually I ******* did. Did you? Let's ******* see.

Guns in home kills family of five

-- "Guns" = plural. "Kills" = singular. Therefore the subject of the sentence is not the noun Guns but the phrase guns in home. The (singular) concept of a home with guns.
Ergo, "the condition of having guns in a home kills five".

Next week we'll do predicate adjectives. À la ******* prochaine.

Oh, bullshit, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to pretend that the moron in question used correct grammar.

Lol, its so funny to see libs trying to weasel their way out of stupid shit.

I made no mention of anyone's "grammar". That was the guy with the gun-to-the-head avatar. I just explained how to read.

Guns is plural; kills is singular. Is that not the case? Speak we not English?
Therefore Guns cannot be the subject, as it does not agree with the verb. The subject is guns in home, another way of saying a home with guns. It can't work any other way. And it's a headline.

Right away several wags tried to dodge the story itself by pretending to take the title semi-literally, ignoring the mismatch. But the story makes no such claim of anthropomorphized guns, therefore these lame jokes are the nervous laughter of diversion.

All of which is prolly way over the head of one whose idea of a deeply reasoned intellectual counterpoint is "**** you".

 

[Zoom]

Why was the gun and ammunition in reach of the child in the first place?

because sometimes legal gun owners are ******* idiots.

 

[Dreamy]

Why was the gun and ammunition in reach of the child in the first place?

This child was 16 and the weapons were reportedly in the parent's bedroom closet.

If this same child had used some kitchen butcher knives to massacre his family what would you say?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It isn't guns or people, it's statistics that kill people. Those darn statistics, we gotta outlaw them in America, they make us look bad.

Myth: A gun in the home increases personal safety.
Fact: A gun in the home make homicide 2.7 times more likely.

"Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts." A gun in the home increases personal safety

All the more reason to make sure they are locked up, no one allows poisons around children why are guns an exception?
.

Myth: the entire premise of your idiotic attempt to repeat a lie that has been throoughly debunked.

Fact: You wouldn't understand the truth if Obama himself declared it.

Well, if it has been debunked so thoroughly, I think you could post a link to that debunking. Don't you think???

I could, but you might learn if you are forced to find it yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

After reading the title to this thread I can help but envision guns jumping off of the shelves, tying up and shooting a family of five....but, it doesn't really work that way does it? It generally requires human intervention.

And mental illness... So why do the gun grabbers target Law abiding citizens? The question so few progressives want to answer...

Wanting background checks, mental health assessments, a 7 day waiting period, registration, and a ban on the purchase of guns at a gun show by non registered Americans is not 'targeting' you. Its a compromise, which you refuse to even consider.

Your version of compromise is you getting what you want and everyone else getting fucked.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

******* actually I ******* did. Did you? Let's ******* see.

Guns in home kills family of five

-- "Guns" = plural. "Kills" = singular. Therefore the subject of the sentence is not the noun Guns but the phrase guns in home. The (singular) concept of a home with guns.
Ergo, "the condition of having guns in a home kills five".

Next week we'll do predicate adjectives. À la ******* prochaine.

You might have a point if the OP was known for being a Grammar Nazi. Given the fact that she usually posts incoherent rants about illegal immigrants that are barely recognizable as being related to the English language, you just look like an idiot.

Uh-- I look like an idiot? Look at your next post; you don't even know the difference between fact and opinion.

No, actually I just know how the English language works. I use it every day. Properly. That's why I know what the title actually means. Granted the syntax construction isn't the best but only an idiot or a non-English speaker wouldn't get the meaning. I mean it's a cute lame joke to take it literally and pretend these guns just jumped up like cartoon characters. For those who live in the world of fantasy, I guess that's even plausible.

Good luck with ESL.

This from the guy trying to base his defense on assuming that the OP actually understands grammar.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

******* actually I ******* did. Did you? Let's ******* see.

Guns in home kills family of five

-- "Guns" = plural. "Kills" = singular. Therefore the subject of the sentence is not the noun Guns but the phrase guns in home. The (singular) concept of a home with guns.
Ergo, "the condition of having guns in a home kills five".

Next week we'll do predicate adjectives. À la ******* prochaine.

Oh, bullshit, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to pretend that the moron in question used correct grammar.

Lol, its so funny to see libs trying to weasel their way out of stupid shit.

I made no mention of anyone's "grammar". That was the guy with the gun-to-the-head avatar. I just explained how to read.

Guns is plural; kills is singular. Is that not the case? Speak we not English?
Therefore Guns cannot be the subject, as it does not agree with the verb. The subject is guns in home, another way of saying a home with guns. It can't work any other way. And it's a headline.

Right away several wags tried to dodge the story itself by pretending to take the title semi-literally, ignoring the mismatch. But the story makes no such claim of anthropomorphized guns, therefore these lame jokes are the nervous laughter of diversion.

All of which is prolly way over the head of one whose idea of a deeply reasoned intellectual counterpoint is "**** you".

You first have to explain to the idiot that wrote the sentence how to write.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Myth: the entire premise of your idiotic attempt to repeat a lie that has been throoughly debunked.

Fact: You wouldn't understand the truth if Obama himself declared it.

Well, if it has been debunked so thoroughly, I think you could post a link to that debunking. Don't you think???

I could, but you might learn if you are forced to find it yourself.

I hope you wouldnt bet the house on that proposition. Never underestimate the willful ignorance of a libtard.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why was the gun and ammunition in reach of the child in the first place?

because sometimes legal gun owners are ******* idiots.

Unlike libtards who are idiots and fools 100% of the time day in and day out.

 

[JimBowie1958]

After reading the title to this thread I can help but envision guns jumping off of the shelves, tying up and shooting a family of five....but, it doesn't really work that way does it? It generally requires human intervention.

And mental illness... So why do the gun grabbers target Law abiding citizens? The question so few progressives want to answer...

I am actually much more interested in what has made you so paranoid. So, again, 20 elementry school kids, and you worry about not having access to a 30 round magazine. Or being able to buy guns without background checks. Seems obvious enough that your priorities are really fucked up.

And since there is no proof that the shooter did use such a weapon or a magazine, the effort is irrelevant to the attempts to make schools safer.

Its all just libtards standing on the bodies of their victims to argue for more control given to them.

Gun Control isnt about guns; it is about control.

 

[JimBowie1958]

******* actually I ******* did. Did you? Let's ******* see.

Guns in home kills family of five

-- "Guns" = plural. "Kills" = singular. Therefore the subject of the sentence is not the noun Guns but the phrase guns in home. The (singular) concept of a home with guns.
Ergo, "the condition of having guns in a home kills five".

Next week we'll do predicate adjectives. À la ******* prochaine.

Oh, bullshit, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to pretend that the moron in question used correct grammar.

Lol, its so funny to see libs trying to weasel their way out of stupid shit.

I made no mention of anyone's "grammar". That was the guy with the gun-to-the-head avatar. I just explained how to read.

And did so poorly.

Guns is plural; kills is singular. Is that not the case?

And 'Guns in home' is singular if interpreted to mean 'a home in a status of having multiple guns.' ******* idjit.

Speak we not English?

Look, dont start getting all racist and everything.

All of which is prolly way over the head of one whose idea of a deeply reasoned intellectual counterpoint is "**** you".

I cant reason with you since you never engage in it. I and others here have given reasons, but you ignore them. Your demads for such are merely attempts to send conservative gun owners on wild goose chases while you laugh at them for doing so.

BTW, '**** you' is not an attempt at a rebutal or counterpoint.

It is merely a derisive expression of contempt and low regard by me for assholes like you.