Myspace to blame for colorado shooting

rebornFixer

dunkman1974 wrote:

because life is so valuable...

Of course it is ... But I don't appreciate your intimation that people who don't think guns should be banned don't value life.

floyd1975

reborncareerist wrote:

Maybe so, but you can make that sort of argument about any kind of accidental or intentional death. I don't want to be 100% safe if it means living in a police state where there are no freedoms.

Exactly. In the town where I went to college, there was a kid who got in his car (fully licensed) and drove wildly down a busy street with the intention of killing as many people as possible. He got 9.

rebornFixer

Ahnimus wrote:

Why are threads like this so popular?

The brain kills.

Good question ...

floyd1975

reborncareerist wrote:

don't value life.

This makes me think an abortion thread is coming on here.

dunkman

reborncareerist wrote:

Of course it is ... But I don't appreciate your intimation that people who don't think guns should be banned don't value life.

it was meant from both sides... i want handguns banned as i value life too much to see it wasted

i presume and i'm guessing, but i believe most pro-gun people wants guns to defend their own life

both sides of the fence, i believe, value life...

soulsinging

zstillings wrote:

Give the kid a spoon and he could kill one or two on his way to being subdued. Nobody ever talks about banning spoons though. Except airlines but they will probably ban air soon since you can't kill if you can't breathe.

find me one example in all of american history where somebody has killed somebody else.

likewise, find me any example where a computer has literally been used as an instrument to murder.

DarkStar

reborncareerist wrote:

Yep, ban it.
Banning solves all the world's problems ...

the ultimate answer is to ban people. i think people should be banned altogether. we've proven that we can't live peacefully and in a manner becoming a sentient species.

ds

FinsburyParkCarrots

soulsinging wrote:

find me one example in all of american history where somebody has killed somebody else.

likewise, find me any example where a computer has literally been used as an instrument to murder.

The (1982) case of Dufus County vs. Bilge Ates, who beat his opponent Steve Jobless around the face and testicles with a Sinclair ZX Spectrum keyboard, in a dispute over whose turn it was to take the next serve at Grandstand Tennis. Ates was acquitted, and now allegedly fronts Irish rock combo Manboob O' Hair and the Milkmen.

Ah, the persistence of a legal mind.

DarkStar

soulsinging wrote:

likewise, find me any example where a computer has literally been used as an instrument to murder.

1. Main Entry: com·put·er
   Pronunciation: k&m-'pyü-t&r
   Function: noun
   Usage: often attributive
   : one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data
2. Smart weapon
3. Smart weapons in forward role
4. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

ds

FinsburyParkCarrots

DarkStar wrote:

1. Main Entry: com·put·er
   Pronunciation: k&m-'pyü-t&r
   Function: noun
   Usage: often attributive
   : one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data
2. Smart weapon
3. Smart weapons in forward role
4. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

ds

Ah, so that explains their lack of accuracy. Myspace Tom is designing the software.

dunkman

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

The (1982) case of Dufus County vs. Bilge Ates, who beat his opponent Steve Jobless around the face and testicles with a Sinclair ZX Spectrum keyboard, in a dispute over whose turn it was to take the next serve at Grandstand Tennis. Ates was acquitted, and now allegedly fronts Irish rock combo Manboob O' Hair and the Milkmen.

Ah, the persistence of a legal mind.

cant have been a ZX Spectrum as the murder weapon... those rubber keys would act as small crash barriers.... until they all got stuck under the plastic fascia... zx sepctrum... horace goes skiig... ahhhhh i feel old now... do you? are you happy with that?... you've made me feel old.... i'm so depressed now...


myspace it is

miller8966

Why do people want the government overly involved in their lives? No you cant fucking have my gun...its mine not yours..

miller8966

dunkman1974 wrote:

cant have been a ZX Spectrum as the murder weapon... those rubber keys would act as small crash barriers.... until they all got stuck under the plastic fascia... zx sepctrum... horace goes skiig... ahhhhh i feel old now... do you? are you happy with that?... you've made me feel old.... i'm so depressed now...


myspace it is

well if you dont like americas gun laws than stay in scotland..cause we aint changing baby...NRA all the way!

69charger

miller8966 wrote:

I agree...But cars do kill alot of people also..maybe even more than guns

They do.

Twice as many as guns EVERY YEAR!

Ahnimus

69charger wrote:

They do.

Twice as many as guns EVERY YEAR!

And your chances of dying in a car accident are more than twice as great as dying from a gunshot wound.

soulsinging

miller8966 wrote:

I agree...But cars do kill alot of people also..maybe even more than guns

and to drive a car you are required to take several classes, practice driving sessions with a qualified instructor, maneuverability/parallel parking. you have to maintain insurance. you have to register any car you buy and make sure it is tracked from owner to owner. you have to renew your license on a regular basis. you are required to maintain your car in certain working order. you are subject to fines if you are found to misuse your car (speeding, etc).

is all of this unreasonable? therefore, is it really so unreasonable to ask that we keep a bit more control over who can buy guns and what they can do with them in this country?

the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that our citizens could form militias to defend the country from its government in a pinch. im sorry, but your pistol is not going to stop the US army if our leader decides to make this a dictatorship. furthermore, it says NOTHING about guns. it says "keep and bear arms." considering this and the purpose it was intended for, using your logic that the 2nd amendment guarantees you absolute freedom from any accountability for any "arms" you possess... we should not just be able to buy guns. we should also be able to own landmines, rocket launchers, grenades, cruise missiles, nuclear warheads, and any other "arms" we feel are necessary for maintaining a well ordered militia. is that, in fact, what you are suggesting? because if it is not, then you are already placing restrictions on the 2nd amendment "for the greater good" and you have no ground to stand upon when you claim that advocates of tighter gun laws are violating the 2nd amendment. so are you.

harmless_little_f***

It's all Stone's fault. Not Marilyn Manson's.

69charger

soulsinging wrote:

and to drive a car you are required to take several classes, practice driving sessions with a qualified instructor, maneuverability/parallel parking. you have to maintain insurance. you have to register any car you buy and make sure it is tracked from owner to owner. you have to renew your license on a regular basis. you are required to maintain your car in certain working order. you are subject to fines if you are found to misuse your car (speeding, etc).

is all of this unreasonable? therefore, is it really so unreasonable to ask that we keep a bit more control over who can buy guns and what they can do with them in this country?

By your logic, Cars are far, far, FAR, more dangerous than guns. Afterall, drving a car requires all sorts of intensive training, licensing, and registration, and still manages to kill twice as many Americans a year as something that requires no training or licensing?!?

BTW, you are subject to fines and jail time for misuse of a firearm.

the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that our citizens could form militias to defend the country from its government in a pinch. im sorry, but your pistol is not going to stop the US army if our leader decides to make this a dictatorship. furthermore, it says NOTHING about guns. it says "keep and bear arms." considering this and the purpose it was intended for, using your logic that the 2nd amendment guarantees you absolute freedom from any accountability for any "arms" you possess... we should not just be able to buy guns. we should also be able to own landmines, rocket launchers, grenades, cruise missiles, nuclear warheads, and any other "arms" we feel are necessary for maintaining a well ordered militia. is that, in fact, what you are suggesting? because if it is not, then you are already placing restrictions on the 2nd amendment "for the greater good" and you have no ground to stand upon when you claim that advocates of tighter gun laws are violating the 2nd amendment. so are you.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Not the right of the Militia or that of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE.

Ladies and Gents, these men knew exactly what they were talking about when they wrote this amendment. It is one of the most important rights we have. All the other rights given to us by the constitution mean nothing if you lack a means to defend those rights from those who wish to take them from you.

As for the argument of a person going up against the government with a pistol. If enough people are willing to fight a tyrannical goverment they could take over in a heartbeat. Look at what the insurgency is doing to us in Iraq. Now think of the millions of gun owners in this country that actually know how to shoot, most better than privates in the army. We have access to a lot of the same gear and technology as our army. It could be done.

Collin

miller8966 wrote:

well if you dont like americas gun laws than stay in scotland..cause we aint changing baby...NRA all the way!

Well there's a serious problem in the States but I guess with an attitude like yours we'll be seeing a lot of threads about shool shootings.

Thank god, there are people who do want change in America.

Collin

69charger wrote:

As for the argument of a person going up against the government with a pistol. If enough people are willing to fight a tyrannical goverment they could take over in a heartbeat. Look at what the insurgency is doing to us in Iraq. Now think of the millions of gun owners in this country that actually know how to shoot, most better than privates in the army. We have access to a lot of the same gear and technology as our army. It could be done.

I very much doubt it.