Or rather, “can’t”.
Would anyone argue if the original said “Sculpture owners happier, wealthier” or “Watch collectors happier, wealthier”
Sculptures don’t kill people, people kill people.
And you must not be a Doctor Who fan.
Are my eyes deceiving me or does that statue have a foot where her hand should be?
Don’t forget that Really Unhappy people who own guns don’t end up getting to respond to surveys often on account of shooting themselves.
I don’t see how eleanorigby was saying anything different; heck, she mentions “psychos” right there in her short post.
I think she was saying that given the options of
a) there are bad people and good people, and none of them have guns
b) there are bad people and good people, and all of them have guns
…that she’d rather go with option (a). The problem now is that while we can’t remove the badness from human beings, we also can’t remove the guns, so the point is only an exercise in wishful thinking.
Correlation is not causation. You’re using the same argumentative fallacy that convinces racists that blacks are more inherently violent and stupid because they are incarcerated more and score worse on tests.
Oh, Clint Eastwood can’t, but Chuck Norris can. In fact, he doesn’t even feel warm; the sun feels Norris.
Your eyes are deceiving you. I believe that you are interpreting the point of her chin, visible under her forearm, as a heel.
[sub](obligatory lowercase text to stop allcaps destroyer breaking allcaps smiley)[/sub]
Now I see it.
Isn’t perception a wonderfully weird thing when it goes wrong.
Edit: And I love how a thread about guns leads to posts about perceiving feet where hands should be.
I bet being able to shoot anyone who brings me down would totally brighten my day too.
Am I the only one wondering why **Bricker ** is dreaming of pink ponies in pink parks?
When the happy gun owners shoot off their fingers, they are wealthy enough to afford transplanting their toes.
Because the ponies are camouflaged against the background, they make for more challenging target practice?
I hope you’re correct, because there’ll be no one around to help if you’re not.
Being a thoroughly cautious - even cowardly - sort, I’d rather be armed and not need it than be not armed and need it.
If there are armed psychos around, he’ll wish there was another armed psycho around to defend him?
Being the quick-to-anger sort, I’d rather there not be a convenient tool around for me to kill someone with when I get angry. Or to kill myself with when I get sad.
Indeed, but in America, you have the choice; in the Isle of Man and the rest of the U.K., you don’t. If a group of drunk bikers break down Lobsang’s door with the intent of murdering him, do you really think the police will get there in time?
I take it you’re assuming that the drunk bikers are not themselves the police?
What’s the difference? The police in the U.K. don’t carry guns.
Here’s another question: If a group of drunk bikers break down Lobsang’s door with the intent of murdering him, do I really think he’ll get to his gun, get to his ammo, successfully load his gun, and successfully gun them all down or shoot just one and scare the rest off, or some combination of that?
No.