If Guns Kill People, Then Why Does Obama Take Credit For Killing Bin Laden?

Ok folks, help me try to understand the twisted logic here.

Is it the gun, or the person?
 
All we keep hearing from Piers, his MSM pals, Hollywood, certain sportscasters and almost all of Obama's minions is,
GUNS KILL PEOPLE

Yet, for the last 2 or so years, these same people have constantly reminded us about how
OBAMA KILLED OSAMA.

Of course, Obama was nowhere near any trigger when Osama got "killed", but with all the sensationalism, many have allowed themselves to believe that he was the one that did the pulling.

So I ask again, if someone dies as a result of gunfire, what/who is responsible for the killing? 

Is it the gun itself, or the person that pulled the trigger?

You can't have it both ways folks. You can't cherry pick certain events, tragedies and items of interest, nor can you twist, tweak and try to make certain situations work in your favor just to help push your agenda. 

It doesn't work that way. 
You can't aggressively attack the Second Amendment and condemn those that, as someone said recently, "cling to guns and religion", while continuing to worship the same Nobel Peace Prize recipient that maintains a kill list.
Doing so only reveals  your lack of objectivity and the ultimate hypocrisy.

It's either the gun or the shooter that gets the blame or the credit!  
So make up your mind, which is it?
Make your decision once and for all and stick with it.

reply to post by Alxandro

LOVE the point made.

Wish it were that simple.

I would assume it's the same way of thinking as, "Charles Manson is a killer" when he never actually killed anyone personally, but supposedly told idiot kids to do so. Yet, he was charged as if he did the crime himself.

Why wasn't this same principle applied to G.W. Bush or Cheney in regard to Iraq?
Or Obama for the Mexican civilian deaths in Fast&Furious as well as the drone attacks?
He got a Nobel Peace Prize instead.

It seems that whatever the "courts" determine to be "criminal" ends up being criminal, which is on an individual selective basis. This rule doesn't seem to apply to "all" of mankind.

I am not an anti gun control advocate but here is the point :-

Osama was an Islamic terrorist who was responsible for sending 3000 innocent souls to Allah.
And you wanted US to keep quite just because it can enforce gun restrictions?

Cheney shot a guy in the face and got an apology from the guy...

You think he is getting charged with something in Iraq?

If a civilian kills someone, it's murder...

If an official kills someone, he gets rewarded.

It's that simple. It goes the whole way down too.

If I go out and shoot someone, I get locked up and lose money from lost wages, and court costs... Even if I'm innocent.

If a cop shoots an innocent person, he gets suspended with pay pending an investigation.

Makes sense I guess...

Good one haha, I am going to have to go with people kill people Alx.
It appears the tool, method, or motive are the variables.

reply to post by Alxandro


Yeah but I don't think they are saying to take away the guns.

They are saying to check the people.

People blame guns for a very good reason that is always misunderstood. Suppose you had to do something that required a lot of time and effort, you have the option to do it that way or use a tool that will get the job done quickly and effortlessly. Which would you choose? Suppose this job is killing someone. Now on top of time and effort imagine mess, the risk of you getting injured or killed, the risk of getting caught, the risk of being seen and so on. A tool, a gun, can eradicate or drastically reduce these downsides. That acts as a motivator, and that's why so many people choose to use a gun, a lot of people wouldn't bother with the first way.

This is what people mean when they say guns are to blame, and that's why "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a stupid argument.

My point is to explain what is misunderstood, I'm not necessarily expressing my opinion.

No one claims that guns get up and kill people. Also, assassinations like this are completely different.

reply to post by Alxandro


Obama didnt kill anyone, je just gave the order, the seal team done the awesome killing, hitman style.

People use guns to kill people and animals efficiently. That's what they were made for. Guns are killing machines.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
People use guns to kill people and animals efficiently. That's what they were made for. Guns are killing machines.

edit on 1-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

The key word in that phrase is that they are machines. Nothing more.
Just machines.

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


And chemical weapons are just chemicals.

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme

Originally posted by WaterBottle
People use guns to kill people and animals efficiently. That's what they were made for. Guns are killing machines.

edit on 1-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

The key word in that phrase is that they are machines. Nothing more.
Just machines.

Machines, whose purpose is to do what?

reply to post by ElijahWan


To fire a projectile. Nothing more.

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


To fire a projectile to kill things......

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

 

To fire a projectile to kill things......

Or, drive a nail into concrete, or target shoot (just as you would with a bow), or practice hand/ eye coordination, or as a deterrent for hostile wildlife.

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


Let's check wikipedia.... en.wikipedia.org...

A gun is a weapon designed to discharge a projectile.

What's a weapon you ask? en.wikipedia.org...

A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool, device, equipment or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems.

Oh wow? It's a machine....you're right about that...that's used in order to inflict damage or harm. Using it to "scare away animals" or for "plinking" doesn't change the fact that it's a tool designed to kill. Why do people use these "machines" as protection? Oh that's right, because they severely injure/kill whoever is impacted by the projectile that is fired. Otherwise, they'd just use a nailgun for protection like you mentioned....or bash two metal trash-can lids together to make lots of sound.

Let's get serious....Guns are -designed- to kill and/or severely injure when fired. It just shows how you are if you can't even admit what the purpose of a gun is.

Well firstly the Administration has actually played down the death of Bin Laden, although some Obama supporters do like to remind us about it.

I think the point is that the killing of Osama is justified as they would argue it was the killing of a war criminal, I support the assassination of such men who kill innocents.

A professional solider killing a dangerous terrorist to me is not in any way the same as a guy with a gun killing a bunch of school kids.The guy with the gun killing the kids is a evil man killing innocents, the police man that shoots him dead before he can kill any more is just a normal guy killing a evil man and in my mind is justifiable.

So I guess it comes down to context.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
People use guns to kill people and animals efficiently. That's what they were made for. Guns are killing machines.

edit on 1-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

Did you even make it past the title before you decided to post?

Very good point OP. I had a definite "Why didnt I think of that" reaction.

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by WaterBottle
People use guns to kill people and animals efficiently. That's what they were made for. Guns are killing machines.

edit on 1-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

Did you even make it past the title before you decided to post?

Very good point OP. I had a definite "Why didnt I think of that" reaction.

What is the point again? Your avatar is beyond absurd.

CJ