This was posted 7 years 2 months 17 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Adler A110 12 Gauge Lever Action Shotgun - Walnut 20" $599 @ Cleaver Firearms

20217
Adler A110 12 Gauge Lever Action Shotgun - Walnut 20" $599 @ Cleaver Firearms
Go to Deal
dhoneybun on 05/10/2017 - 09:43 cleaverfirearms.com (3782 clicks)
Last edited 05/10/2017 - 14:18 by 2 other users

Cheaper than previous deals for the Adler and this time with Walnut stock

Adler A110 12 Gauge walnut stock lever action shotgun.
20" barrel, timber stock and forend
3 chokes 5 shot

New $599

Previous deals with synthetic stock. See these for comments, etc:
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/318830
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/323510

Dealers Licence No: 50000073

Mod:

To hide deals from Cleaver Firearms (where most firearm deals come from), Click the Hide Button below, Select Hide deals from store Cleaverfirearms.com.

Sports & Outdoors Adler Firearms Guns Hunting

Related Stores

Cleaver Firearms
Cleaver Firearms

closed Comments

  • beigehornet on 05/10/2017 - 09:47
    +160

    In light of recent world events, this may not go down so well…

    • Jamesx on 05/10/2017 - 09:51
      +84

      If all the concert goers had one of this each, they can protect themselves and kill the killer instantly.
      God bless America!
      - Don Trump

      • edfoo on 05/10/2017 - 10:06
        +9

        I don't think the concert goers will be able to kill the killer with a shotgun with the distance between them. Shotgun range is a lot shorter than rifle.

        • kudoz on 05/10/2017 - 10:08
          +59

          I'm thinking Jamesx was being glib/sarcastic… there's not really many other ways to quote the great orange one..

        • edfoo on 05/10/2017 - 10:09
          +1

          @kudoz: I know. Just want to add some facts into his sarcasm.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/10/2017 - 10:24
          -2

          What's the difference? Rifle has proper bullets and shotgun has those cartridge things?

        • Caped Baldy on 05/10/2017 - 10:44
          +1

          @LoopyLou: I believe they're shells which fire pellets.

        • Shwayne on 05/10/2017 - 11:06
          +2

          Get some slug rounds in there.

        • stonkered on 05/10/2017 - 12:15
          +1

          And vice versa

        • ninetyNineCents on 05/10/2017 - 14:29

          Thats not the real problem, with that many people in the concert he didnt even have to aim, just fire.

          And even if everyone at the concert had a gun, whats the bet most for a long period of time had no idea where the firing was coming from. The first dozen or two unless they have 360 degree eyes would not have been the bullet that killed them.

        • heal on 05/10/2017 - 16:27

          @ninetyNineCents: Good points made there, but what is your justification for the negative vote?

        • heal on 05/10/2017 - 16:30
          +4

          @ninetyNineCents: You negged the deal. You need to justify it. Do you need a link to the rules?

        • ninetyNineCents on 05/10/2017 - 16:41
          -1

          @heal:

          Because more guns means more gun violence in Australia.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/10/2017 - 16:48
          +10

          @ninetyNineCents:

          That's twice you've misused 'too'. You're welcome. Two letter words can be tricky.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/10/2017 - 16:58
          +4

          @ninetyNineCents:

          "were referring too"
          "you are referring too."

          Right there. It's more a case of ignoramus et ignorabimus on your part.

        • ninetyNineCents on 05/10/2017 - 17:22
          -5

          @Frugal Rock:

          You still havent grasped the concept of a quote..

          Now try really hard to prove my main statement as wrong.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/10/2017 - 17:29

          @ninetyNineCents:
          You should get it tattooed for posterity. I'd prefer you found out in crestfallen instalments.

        • heal on 05/10/2017 - 17:37
          +7

          @ninetyNineCents:

          Reasons for a negative vote are;
          a) The deal is not the cheapest available
          b) Defective product
          c) Major issues with retailer

          The reason you gave is …

          Because more guns means more gun violence in Australia.

          Therefore you voted inappropriately. Reported!

        • ely on 05/10/2017 - 18:03
          +3

          @ninetyNineCents: I agree with you on the principal, but that's not a valid reason for negging the deal.

        • ninetyNineCents on 05/10/2017 - 18:07

          @elyobo:

          Where does it say in the rule deals that i cant mention the values that i mentioned ?

        • ely on 05/10/2017 - 18:08
          +1

          @ninetyNineCents: You can (and should) mention, you just can't downvote a deal with that as the justification.

        • ninetyNineCents on 05/10/2017 - 18:09

          @elyobo:

          So where in the rules does it say i cant downvote a deal for any of the items i mentioned. I want specifics that match exaxtly what ive said.

        • ely on 05/10/2017 - 18:16

          @ninetyNineCents: You probably don't meet the whitelist…

          Appropriate uses of negative vote

          • Cheaper price elsewhere
          • Defective product
          • Major issue with retailer

          Although on reflection I guess you could try to argue that ethical concerns are a valid "major issue with the retailer", YMMV.

        • ninetyNineCents on 05/10/2017 - 21:54
          -2

          @elyobo:

          Cheaper price elsewhere

          Increased gun violence is a price many people including myself arent willing to pay. The definition doesnt state that price must be measured exclusively in gold or dollars or anything else.

        • ely on 06/10/2017 - 07:18
          +1

          @ninetyNineCents: Even if you price it in lives, the same product will have the same lives lost price tag anywhere, so you can't find it cheaper elsewhere in that pricing system.

        • maddoglee on 06/10/2017 - 09:17
          -3

          @ninetyNineCents: speak English or die!!!!!!!

        • ninetyNineCents on 06/10/2017 - 14:32

          @maddoglee:

          Wow perhaps you should learn to write complete sentences and while you are at it, put something meaningful in them.

        • maddoglee on 06/10/2017 - 15:04

          @ninetyNineCents:

          That's a large leap to assume that I haven't learnt how to write complete sentences purely because I don't choose to use them on an online forum.

        • ninetyNineCents on 06/10/2017 - 15:18

          @maddoglee:

          That's a large leap to assume that I haven't learnt how to write complete sentences purely because I don't choose to use them on an online forum.

          Well you assumed a lot about me from what ive written here, so im paying back the same favour.

        • maddoglee on 06/10/2017 - 16:02

          @ninetyNineCents:
          One of the keen eyed ozbargainers did point out an incorrect usage of the English language on your part. Perhaps my choice in verb was at a stretch.

        • ninetyNineCents on 06/10/2017 - 19:39

          @maddoglee:

          Dont try too hard to contribute something meaningful to the conversation.

      • ruddiger7 on 05/10/2017 - 10:06

        I know the comment is in sarcasm but with the distance and spread on these, they probably still would have been sitting ducks.

        • ialam99 on 05/10/2017 - 12:13
          +1

          just wondering…what would have happened if they started randomly shooting their shotguns in the air? will the pellets eventually come back to the ground and hit some unsuspecting pedestrian?

        • ruddiger7 on 05/10/2017 - 12:27
          -1

          @ialam99: Yeah they fall back down to earth, not as fast as to which theyre fired but still fast enough to hurt or injure someone.

        • tomlut on 05/10/2017 - 13:45

          Yep.

      • garage sale on 05/10/2017 - 10:26
        +1

        no, the adler is a shot gun, wouldn't shoot from ground level upwards towards level 32 of a hotel.

        • AlienC on 05/10/2017 - 14:04

          Might even accidentally kill others.. collateral terrorists win p

      • kudoz on 05/10/2017 - 10:01
        +42

        Yeah, I mean who could forget all those mass killings conducted using JUST a surveillance camera… oh wait…

        • Raynes on 05/10/2017 - 10:34
          +6

          @Frugal Rock: what?

        • [Deactivated] on 05/10/2017 - 11:00
          -8

          Kudoz has achieved the hitherto impossible of ellipsis overunity. That's seventh dan rhetoric, and might cause self-injury without proper training.

        • D3m3ntia on 05/10/2017 - 11:47
          +6

          @Frugal Rock: what?

        • [Deactivated] on 05/10/2017 - 12:47
          -6

          @D3m3ntia:
          Well, raw unpopularity alone isn't a very useful metric. It needs to be seasonally adjusted for the proportion of gormless dullards incapable of abstract thought that you'd prefer to be in disagreement with, and a bell curve inbetween.

        • snynx on 05/10/2017 - 12:58
          +18

          @Frugal Rock:
          To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily fromNarodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick and Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existencial catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools… how I pity them. 😂 And yes by the way, I DO have a Rick and Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

        • OneMoreTune on 05/10/2017 - 15:35

          @Frugal Rock: And you're ego isn't letting you shut the hell up, you sound like an absolute ……
          No injury, cash me outside.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/10/2017 - 15:53
          +1

          @OneMoreTune:
          Case in point. You mean "your". I want 'your' illiterate downvote, as agreement with the intellectual struggle street would be embarrassing.

        • OneMoreTune on 05/10/2017 - 16:23
          +3

          @Frugal Rock: You're your yawn…. that's just a typo. Wah wah, frugal point CONSTable Grammer. Everyone makes them on occasions but you're a few cans short of six pack with fancy writing on it covering up the shite inside. A wide mouth can at that

        • OneMoreTune on 05/10/2017 - 16:27

          @OneMoreTune: Oh shiiieeeet. Grammer… left myself open now for Frugal to get their quota.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/10/2017 - 16:53
          +1

          @OneMoreTune:
          That one is getting framed.

        • OneMoreTune on 05/10/2017 - 18:11

          @Frugal Rock: You should, I believe framing is more socially acceptable than being Captain Obvious aboard the Annoying Sea-hunt I.
          Hey if you frame it, you'll finally get the picture.

        • Sxio on 05/10/2017 - 19:58
          +1

          @snynx:

          You… ARE joking right? You don't have to be smart at all to understand Rick and Morty.

          The sad thing is most ppl who think they are Ricks are actually Jerrys.

          If you are serious the shows creator has gone on record many times saying that he hates people with this elitist "you're not smart enough to understand this" attitude.

          So. Hope you're joking. Pretty hard for ppl to pick up sarcasm by txt though!

        • lxndev on 05/10/2017 - 22:42

          @Sxio: it's a meme haha

        • gummibear on 06/10/2017 - 10:59

          @snynx:

          I DO have a Rick and Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only-

          You have a Rick on your D!ck?

      • ntranced on 05/10/2017 - 10:02
        +22

        He also wore clothes

        • kudoz on 05/10/2017 - 10:06
          +2

          But if you took away the clothes (like the camera)… he still could have murdered 59 people…

          Albeit with some shrinkage…

        • ntranced on 05/10/2017 - 10:13
          +6

          @kudoz: Nope, they wouldn't have let him into the casino.

        • Kontiki on 05/10/2017 - 11:36
          +4

          @ntranced:

          You don't know that, it is Vegas after all.

        • kudoz on 05/10/2017 - 11:41
          +1

          @ntranced: Honestly, who wears clothes once they're inside their hotel room ;)

        • strangeloops66 on 05/10/2017 - 12:38
          +3

          @kudoz:

          Shrinkage? Dude might have been sporting a rifle scope of his own!

      • stonkered on 05/10/2017 - 12:25

        Not even the NRA would use argument.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/10/2017 - 12:28
          -1

          "Not even the NRA would use argument."

          Nice work. A four year-old would use your grammar, though.

        • stonkered on 05/10/2017 - 13:25
          +3

          @Frugal Rock:

          It was a typo and you know it.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/10/2017 - 13:42
          -1

          @stonkered:
          Sorry to interrupt your eminent, but carelessly fault ridden, logic. My apologies.

        • ely on 05/10/2017 - 18:11
          +1

          @Frugal Rock: I think people here are also conflating "typo" with "mistake"… A typo is mashing the wrong keys. Omitting an entire word is not a typo, it's a mistake. Putting in "you're" instead of "your" requires two typos that just happen to make a correctly spelled homonym, so it's extremely unlikely to be a typo and very likely to be a mistake.

        • buckster on 05/10/2017 - 19:44
          +1

          @elyobo: Technically typo is short for typographical error which can apply to omissions as well.

          Captain smarty pants OUT!

        • ely on 06/10/2017 - 07:21

          @buckster: Nobody is saying that it's not, Captain ;) "Mashing the wrong keys" also permits omissions as well. However coming up with those particular mistakes via typos is very unlikely (it requires multiple omissions, or multiple additions, in just the right order) as opposed to the simple explanation of the author just making a mistake and attempting to claim that it's "just a typo".

        • buckster on 06/10/2017 - 07:24

          @elyobo: But you said omitting a word is not a typo, but a mistake.

          As someone who has dedicated his life to typographical studies I just can't let that falsehood slide

        • maddoglee on 06/10/2017 - 09:19

          @elyobo: he's obviously lying and can't speak English

        • ely on 06/10/2017 - 16:37

          @buckster: Omitting a word requires more than one typo, even for a single letter word as you have to add punctuation, so it would have to be typos plural. So yeah, definitely not a typo, but possibly a series of typos. Which starts to look pretty unlikely if you have to make just the right series of typos in order to turn one word into another word that sounds the same. So unlikely that it's almost certainly not a typo ;)

      • ninetyNineCents on 05/10/2017 - 14:30
        +7

        Absolute nonsense, a gun has only one purpose, if you are carrying a gun in a public place you are making a statement that you might just use it and without warning kill someone.

        • entropysbane on 05/10/2017 - 14:48
          +3

          Yes but in Vegas you might be worried about finding a tiger in your bathroom?

        • Tuba on 05/10/2017 - 14:51
          +8

          Absolute nonsense, a gun has only one purpose, if you are carrying a gun in a public place you are making a statement that you might just use it and without warning kill someone.

          Or taking it to the gunshop for servicing.

          The only single purpose you can impose on a gun is to shoot bullets, kill is a choice some might make. The point of difference is at what do you shoot. Like paper targets or clay in this case. So the idea a guns only purpose is to kill is arguable transferable to a car, a truck, a plane, a knife, or a pair of pantyhose used as a garrotte. I can use so many chemicals found in homes, and buildings have been brought down with fertiliser. I can chose to use any of the above to kill, and recently large numbers have been killed with objects we do not associate with killing because, we like them, or ignore them.

          This one you dont like, so its fair game to you. That is the epitome of why government need to act for a minority, and not the tyranny of the majority.

        • ninetyNineCents on 05/10/2017 - 15:03

          @Tuba:

          The world isnt perfect, but there are a lot of morons with violent tendencies and the last thing we need in Australia is any reason to make it easier for them to get guns. So too make it safer for all, do the honourable and selfless thing and forget about clay target shooting, at least all the kids out there can walk around in peace unlike shitholes like America where you just never know if some duckhead might have a gun and decide to shoot.

          Is it really worth it that you enjoy your hobby so some sick individual can get guns more easily and shoot up a school ? Your actions might not prevent that person from their acts, but at least you can know to yourself that less guns means less chance for such individuals to get a gun.

        • Tuba on 05/10/2017 - 15:11
          +4

          @ninetyNineCents: There was a series of mass murders in Aus, roughly within a decade. 2 in the same year, one 9 years later. How does your argument hold up when you consider that in the many decades before the big three (Port Arthur, Hoddle St, Queen St), there were not mass murders of innocent citizens, and there was no registration let alone a licence for gun ownership, and semi autos were legal and not uncommon? The existence of guns does not cause gun crime.

          You keep harping on about guns> But that same sicko was going to go off, hes sick. So if not a gun, it could be a truck and a crowd, as demonstrated recently.

          What Im not prepared to do, is blame people who obey the law for acts of nutters, and a system that does not do enough to deal with them.

          Let me ask you, if the law against rape was taken away, are you about to start raping? See I dont need a law to stop me doing that, I need a law to remove the people that will do it from society. It does not protect women from rape, it hopefully gives them justice.

          If you think the law is about protecting, and taking away opportunity for sickos, then you cant argue for chemicals we use, cars, trucks, knives or anything that can be used to kill. But you selectively chose the things youre not interested in, or benefit from.
          Y

          You are a spokesman for tyranny of the majority. Ill cite some more examples of your company.
          Anti marriage equality.
          F*&K off were full
          and the list goes on, so much seems to be popular, but if taken on board would be tyranny of the majority.

        • Steven Reece Lewis on 05/10/2017 - 15:21
          +1

          @Tuba:
          Can a rapist rape 59 people from a balcony while injuring hundreds?

        • Tuba on 05/10/2017 - 15:28
          +1

          @FunbagsOfSatan: Like the no campaign, logic seems to escape you but Ill give it a crack.

          The point wasnt the crimes are the same. The point was the law does not prevent crime. Its not meant to. Its not designed to. The law is about punishment, and removal of the person from society. If a thing is not illegal, we cant charge and find guilty a person for committing such acts. The second point that is related, was that the law does not alter behaviour of decent human beings, and conversely, sickos. Most folks dont rape, because its rape. Not because its illegal. Those who rape, well they dont care its illegal do they?

          In order to stop someone paranoia effecting their childish thoughts, you have punish people who do not commit crimes.

        • Steven Reece Lewis on 05/10/2017 - 15:44

          @Tuba: "In order to stop someone paranoia effecting their childish thoughts, you have punish people who do not commit crimes"

          So everyone wants to rape but sickos keep screwing up for the other people by taking it too far?

          Seriously, using rape law analogy for gun laws and gun crime?

        • ninetyNineCents on 05/10/2017 - 16:35
          +2

          @Tuba:

          You keep harping on about guns> But that same sicko was going to go off, hes sick. So if not a gun, it could be a truck and a crowd, as demonstrated recently.

          And with fewer guns about thats one less instrument they can use. Less makes things more safe, thats a fact.

          If guns dont kill why dont we jsut give guns to all school kids, after all it will stop bullying…because everyone has a gun right ?

        • ninetyNineCents on 05/10/2017 - 16:37

          @Tuba:

          The point wasnt the crimes are the same. The point was the law does not prevent crime.

          Dont lie Australia laws after the Howard reforms means less gun shops and less guns are available to the public. Funny how you forget to mention that and continue your lies.

          We can see by looking up stats on wiki that more guns in the community results in more violence, thats a fact, so do us all a favour and stop lying.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r…

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 05/10/2017 - 17:18
          +2

          @ninetyNineCents: This x 1000000

        • skrep on 05/10/2017 - 17:44
          +2

          @JohnHowardsEyebrows: it's Johnny again… picking up from our previous chats.. you never commented on these stats pulled together by a farmer/firearm's owner here in Australia about our gun laws. My opinion doesn't necessarily agree with what he is putting forward but facts do not lie.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4F9sOJ1mxA

          I'm curious to hear your opinions in a civilised way and not a comment that goes along the lines of 'A gun nut makes a video about gun laws…gee, I wonder what the conclusion will be…" because why would someone who doesn't care about this topic do the research?

        • Tuba on 05/10/2017 - 18:11
          +3

          @FunbagsOfSatan:
          No, thats you trying hard to shoot the messenger because you have no argument for the message.

          Rape, is against the law. People rape. Laws do not protect you. This is the analogy, not what youre trying to make it.

          How about drugs then? Theyre banned. How have drug laws saved the community from drug use?

          @ninetyNineCents:

          Dont lie Australia laws after the Howard reforms means less gun shops and less guns are available to the public. Funny how you forget to mention that and continue your lies.

          What lie? And I did address it, but you missed that as you cant connect thought, you need it spoonfed. How did the Howard laws stop the massacres before the laws? This country didnt pop into existence the year of John Howards laws. How is it the massacres didnt happen then if it takes laws and gun bans to prevent them?

          Address that. There was 2 in 1987, and one in 1996. Where are the list from say 1940, and yes, semi autos have been around a long long time.

          Youre saying thats proof they stopped, and Im saying there was none before it so its not proof of anything.

          That and guns are still plentiful in the wrong hands. Like drugs, that are banned but everywhere. Even drugs that arent grown or made here. Funny, bans dont seem to stop committed law breakers.

          They stop law abiding citizens, who do not need to be stopped.

          By the way mobile phones kill and injure far more Australians than guns. Wheres your moral outrage and calls to ban phones? Tools? Not according to yoru argument, put in the wrong hands they kill and injure.

        • me3 on 05/10/2017 - 19:36
          +3

          @ninetyNineCents:

          Actually, your statements are closer to a lie than anything Tuba has mentioned using broad reaching statements like "more guns in the community results in more violence". As I have already pointed out in one of your other posts, firearms related deaths were already on the demise well before the NFA, and reduced post NFA at exactly the same rate. These facts can be independently checked quite easily, and are summed up here:

          http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/2016-04-28/fact-check-g…

        • ninetyNineCents on 05/10/2017 - 22:08

          @me3:

          me3: "more guns in the community results in more violence

          99: that s untrue, i refer you to the wiki article on gun violence and gun counts for most world countries.

          me3: As I have already pointed out in one of your other posts, firearms related deaths were already on the demise well before the NFA, and reduced post NFA at exactly the same rate.

          99: they may have and reducing guns in the community guarantees less guns violence. The day australia has no guns guess what there will be no gun violence, but until that day happens, the less guns in the community means theres one less option for a depressed or monster to kill themselves or others.

          Its about opportunities, the less guns the harder for anyone to use one for any violence.

        • ozbjunkie on 06/10/2017 - 16:27

          Yeah… But tools used in rape are restricted eg rohipnol. I don't think many people would argue for unregulated rohipnol, despite the recreational benefits.

          Also, punishing crimes is part of deterrence. Might not deter everybody, but it helps, cf drink driving, shoplifting, having a cheeky wank on the train.

        • Tuba on 06/10/2017 - 21:32
          +1

          @ozbjunkie: But Rohypnol (sp?_) exists right? Its available for its primary functions? Genuine users can obtain and use it? This conversation isnt about a free for all access to any firearm ever invented. This isnt about a madman in Nevada, that had known mental issues, using his modified firearms. Its about the right to own, and use a lever action shotgun.

          No one who wants to commit crimes, chooses never to commit that crime due to illegality. They dont think they will get caught, and some dont care if they are. As we slide down the scale to the less serious, more moral laws sure there is guidance from the law regarding societys expectations, for those who need it. Myself, I dont need to be told a cheeky wank on a train is anti social. The law as a deterrent is a side effect of its guidance, its not the purpose.

          Laws were designed to make it clear what happens when a breach occurs. You can not jail someone for robbery if robbery is not against the law. The laws purpose is to provide the justification for removing said person from society.

          As someone said, is there a law against shooting people yet?
          Is there a re law against heroin? Ice etc? Seems to me these are epidemics. Deterrent my ass.

        • Tuba on 06/10/2017 - 21:37
          +1

          @ninetyNineCents: The man gives you evidence, and you ignore it and instead swap in Henny Penny paranoid rationale.

          And removing phones and social media will save more lives than removal of firearms. Do some research, find out how many are injured by guns in Aus, compare with phone and social media related injuries. Bullying and suicide, distracted drivers, pedestrians etc.

          Ah but you like those tools so its part of life.

        • ozbjunkie on 07/10/2017 - 19:23

          @Tuba:

          Seems like you are for regulating that drug, and say that the situation is similar with firearms, so you're pro firearm regulation. I agree with that.

          Seems you also agree that recreational use is not sufficient as a reason for some drugs, or firearms, can we agree on that too?

        • Tuba on 07/10/2017 - 22:15
          +1

          @ozbjunkie: The last, no. Recreational use is a primary function of a firearm. Its just not its only one.

          Even if recreational use of Rohypnol was permitted, it wouldnt be acceptable to spike a drink. ie: If we must try to drag out the analogy, recreational gun use is fine, shooting someone is not.

        • ninetyNineCents on 09/10/2017 - 10:33

          @Tuba:

          The man gives you evidence, and you ignore it and instead swap in Henny Penny paranoid rationale.

          Wrong again, you ignore the fact that measure fails to measure the fact that guns are 100x more present in American society than in Australia.

          You can go years and never see a gun in a typical city or town in Australia while that simply is not true in America. That means when somebody smaps in Australia theres less chance that a gun is present and they will be unable to have a shootout. Its a basic numbers game, life is more complicated than just thinking we need to count guns and thats it.

        • ninetyNineCents on 09/10/2017 - 10:34

          @ninetyNineCents:

          If you really believe more guns doesnt lead to violence, then why dont we give guns to all school kids ?

        • Tuba on 09/10/2017 - 15:40

          @ninetyNineCents: LOL wut?

          https://frinkiac.com/meme/S07E23/361176.jpg?b64lines=T2gsIHd…

          His link, did not count guns. It seeks to look for CAUSATION, not that misused statistic, correlation. But I site the picture, and you will never grasp such things.

          Again I ask, how about mobile phones? They kill people every day. Surely using your fear based 'argument' they should be banned given people cant be trusted to use them sensibly. Wonder how many fines are issued each day for people on the phone, texting, facebooking, or browsing while driving… every one of those endangering lives. Where is your moral outrage?

          No, you dont like guns so thats fair game to you. But phones you like so the dangers are part of life and we need to implement more reasonable measures, while the risk goes on, but thats unavoidable.

        • BadGiraffe on 10/10/2017 - 18:53

          @ninetyNineCents: Because kids are inherently violent little turds.

    • inamberclad on 05/10/2017 - 10:02

      should get rid of cars too

      • Caped Baldy on 05/10/2017 - 10:49
        +5

        Have they made it illegal to shoot people yet? That should stop it.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join