Okay, I'm a big second amendment guy, but the dumbest argument ever used in favor of guns keeps being used here.

I'll say this once.

Automobiles were invented for the purpose of transporting people from one place to another.

Guns were invented for the explicit purpose of killing human beings. They weren't invented to hunt animals. They weren't invented for shooting pop cans and targets. They were invented for a very specific purpose... killing people in war.

While I support the 2nd amendment, I don't support stupidity like comparing Cars and guns. One is not like the other.

Good for them, but if I am the GM or owner I would keep a close eye on those guys. They must have had a close call to scare them that much.

I mean at least sell it. Its their property, but it seems strange.

Well now, if any more of these guys, or anyone else feels like giving away guns, you drop your pal Bwana a PM and you can send them on up here. I'll take good care of them.

I agree. I think the commonality is when those items are abused. It is impossible for a gun to kill by itself. It's impossible for a car to have an accident by itself. The argument is not so much comparing guns to cars as it is an illustration of lack of personal responsibility. Blame the gun not the person animating it is as stupid as blaming the car not the driver. See what I mean?

i thought Cassel owned a slingshot? :D

It's Peter King so I'll proceed with that in mind but kudos to them for making a decision that is bigger than turning in a gun. It is the decision to acknowledge they have some serious issues and that having a gun around them is not a responsible choice at this time. Maybe these guys are going to leave it at just turning in the gun and feeling better. Hopefully that will only be a first step in getting the help they need for whatever issues they are facing.

On a side note, this warms my heart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...b4e_story.html

Congrats Tim

WOO HOO

http://www.townvibe.com/Blogs/Bedfor.../fireworks.jpg

So here's one flaw with your argument, jet aircraft were invented by the Germans in WWII for the explicit purpose of establishing air superiority and taking out as many US bombers as possible. Almost all modern rocketry in the western world can trace it's origin directly to the V-2 rocket program established by Germany in WWII.

Should both jet aircraft and all modern space/satellite programs be 'tainted' as bad because their origins were as weapons of war? Why something was created should be irrelevant, how it is used should be how we judge it.

The problem is you missed the point of the original argument. The argument wasn't about cars or guns. It was about being unbiased and about uniform standards. We like to be discriminatory, it's a survival instinct and it's in the DNA of all life. What we have to actively work at doing is trying to be as unbaised as we can. Treating firearms more harshly than other objects that also have the potential to cause harm is discriminatory. If you want to restrict something fine, set a uniform unbiased standard to measure harm and then restrict EVERYTHING that meets that standard.

The reality is the vast majority of all firearms are used perfectly legally and without harm to their fellow human beings and yet many people want to prohibit them for everyone based upon the bad actions of a minority just because they personally do not like them.

Then there is the proverbial lunacy that is the push for an 'assault' weapon ban. Under 3% of all murders are caused by rifles of all types(included those that would not be classified as 'assault' weapons). By prohibiting ALL rifles the absolute most impact you can have is a 3% reduction in the murder rate.....

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...-data-table-11

I am assuming that people aren't suggesting that 'assault' weapons are chosen for suicides because they believe them more effective killing machines.

Hell the rate of people killed by hands, fists, etc is 2X those killed with rifles. If we are using the standard of banning things that are perceived to make killing more effective, why do we not then ban all forms of martial arts, wrestling and boxing. Since they clearly make someone a better hand to hand combatant and the problem is 2X as severe as all rifle murders.

Guns have NEVER killed people on their own.

They can not pull their own trigger.

Well that's not strictly true.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/A9l9wxGFl4k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I completely agree.

Was Rolondo McClain one of the players that relinquished his gun? He sucks on the field, but he's probably leading the NFL in most trunks popped/fools put on notice.