[floatingslowly]

I love the smell of tac-nukes in the morning.

[gmku]

Hey, Sway, I attempted a PM to ya, but got a message that says you've "exceeded" your "stored private messages quota and can not accept further messages until [you] clear some space." Just wanted to let you know I appreciate the message, and same to you from me, etc.

[gmku]

Originally Posted by swa(y)

and how many people own guns in england? 20?

gimmie a fuckin' break.

They carry billy clubs and throw meat pies at one another.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Jeez you guys are still talking about this?

You know everyone is all "our prayers and thoughts are on VT," VT bla bla bla freaking bla. I just wish people were honest. Most of the people saying that shit don't even really care. They just pretend to care so that they can sleep at night. They are like those teenagers that will go to a funeral of a classmate they didn't even fucking know or were friends with.

Sure when I heard about it I was like "that's awful and really fucked up," but I'm not going to spend a week crying about it. But awful shit is going on everyday. There are wars going on right now- people are getting shot there. People are dying of AIDS, starvation, and malnutrition in africa and other parts of the 3rd world.

Death is a part of life that is upsetting that you've got to accept. People die every fucking day. Just because some people in your country died instead of in another country doesn't mean you have to get all upset about it. Your countrymen are not any closer to you.

And nothing is gonna stop this kind of stuff. People are sick fucks.

Maybe if guns were illegal he would have made a fertilizer bomb. When someone is going to commit themselves to that kind of crime, they will do it by any means necessary.

Illegalizing guns would prevent crimes of passion from occurring. But it wouldn't stop psychopaths.

[gmku]

I agree, Spectral. Right now I'm just pissed off at the media for sensationalizing the whole thing and all the alarmist over-reaction.

Nothing's going to change on campuses. Most of them are integrated with large cities. You can't put gates on them and guards. And you're not going to convince bleeding-heart liberal profs to go all Don Johnson with shoulder holsters and 45 magnums under their patch-sleeve tweed jackets. It's just not going to happen.

[gmku]

And if you locked up everyone who ever saw a doctor for a mental illness, that'd leave darned few us walking around on the streets. And who's to say they'd be any more sane just because they hadn't seen a doctor. They could be in worse shape!

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

so nuclear weapons, or daisy cutters, or mustard gas, or nerve gas, or napalm, or weapons-grade anthrax... they are innocent?

yep, nukes, poisin gas, anthrax weapons are TOOLS. they are amoral. they are neither guilty nor innocent. they just ARE.
those that choose to use them in a negative way are the guilty. in essence those that choose to USE THEM are the guilty.

[gmku]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

yep, nukes, poisin gas, anthrax weapons are TOOLS. they are amoral. they are neither guilty nor innocent. they just ARE.
those that choose to use them in a negative way are the guilty. in essence those that choose to USE THEM are the guilty.

And I would say that those who choose to allow easy and widespread access to them are the guilty.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by gmku

And I would say that those who choose to allow easy and widespread access to them are the guilty.

that is a very valid point, when it comes to assult rifles, nukes, poison gas, and nerve gas, but hunting weapona nd personal sidearms are, like any deadly weapon or possible deadly weapon (baseball bats, hammers, screwdrivers, ice picks, etc) only bad when used by a person to do bad things.
if some creep locks himself into a Lu by's cafeteria and decides to kill everyone with a baseball bat, will there be an uproar over baseball bats?

any discussion of gun control over this massacre detracts from the tragedy and the pain and the sickness and the BLAME that lies in that fucking ridiculous dead fucker.

[gmku]

Baseball bats don't fire solid-metal projectiles at many miles per hour to pierce life-taking holes through human flesh.

I see your point, but at the same time, even I could (possibly) stand even odds overtaking a bat-swinging maniac, but a gun in the hand of a maniac would put the odds well out of my favor.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by gmku

Baseball bats don't fire solid-metal projectiles at many miles per hour to pierce life-taking holes through human flesh.

one good swing can end any life. one good swing can KILL.

In texas, where I reside, it is perfectly legal to walk around with an unloaded asemiautomatic rifle, a shotgun, etc, and concealed handguns are allowed with a permit and a license. it does not amke the streets any less safe or any more safe. blame the human using the tool for evil, not the tool for warping a "normal" human.

[gmku]

One more reason I'm glad I don't live in Texas. Y'all are a bunch of cowboys. I mean, why do you need to walk around with guns in the first place? And seriously, where does that leave the enfeebled, or just those opposed to carrying a gun? They must feel a little intimidated.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

that is a very valid point, when it comes to assult rifles, nukes, poison gas, and nerve gas, but hunting weapona nd personal sidearms are, like any deadly weapon or possible deadly weapon (baseball bats, hammers, screwdrivers, ice picks, etc) only bad when used by a person to do bad things.
if some creep locks himself into a Lu by's cafeteria and decides to kill everyone with a baseball bat, will there be an uproar over baseball bats?

any discussion of gun control over this massacre detracts from the tragedy and the pain and the sickness and the BLAME that lies in that fucking ridiculous dead fucker.

see, it's not a matter of there being a line or not, but where do you draw the line. for you, assault rifles should have limited access, for others, they are a god-given right.

it's simply that some people have a lower threshold of tolerance for weapons of destruction. things that are made for killing. sure you can kill with anything, but there's the question of the intent in making that tool. you can kill with a baseball bat but the thing is not designed & perfected for that function. a gun is.

you know there's a line; where that line lies is a cultural debate, not a philosophical one.

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

it's simply that some people have a lower threshold of tolerance for weapons of destruction. things that are made for killing. sure you can kill with anything, but there's the question of the intent in making that tool. you can kill with a baseball bat but the thing is not designed & perfected for that function. a gun is..

True, but killing does not equal murder any more than a car is designed to murder. The deadly accident is an integral of the car, but no one suggests it is purposeful. But just like guns, cars kill. And they can murder.

It is a major error of judgement to think the US elites will in any way protect the masses unless its in their interest. Look at how they dealt with Katrina. and one of the first thing the Govt did there was start confiscating weapons - yet we hear how the cops stopped people at gun point on the bridges and made them return to New Orleans. We should be hearing about this every single day.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by tesla69

True, but killing does not equal murder any more than a car is designed to murder. The deadly accident is an integral of the car, but no one suggests it is purposeful. But just like guns, cars kill. And they can murder.

It is a major error of judgement to think the US elites will in any way protect the masses unless its in their interest. Look at how they dealt with Katrina. and one of the first thing the Govt did there was start confiscating weapons - yet we hear how the cops stopped people at gun point on the bridges and made them return to New Orleans. We should be hearing about this every single day.

sure you start from the premise that an armed populace is harder to control by tyrants. which i think is the basic idea behind the 2nd amendment:

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.

i think tyrants however are too well-armed these days for a .38 to put a dent in their plans. besides, where's the "well regulated militia" we're talking about?

in any case-- you can kill with anything-- sure. but about guns etc. *where do you draw the line*? is it with handguns? automatic weapons? how about hand grenades? high-power explosives? rocket launchers? is it ok for the people to keep an apache helicopter in their backyard?

since the word Arms doesnt' specify "handguns" "sabers" or "blowguns", do i have the constitutional right to make mustard gas in my kitchen? what about the right to keep weapons-grade uranium in my fridge?

these are obvious exaggerations. i reiterate my point-- there IS a line. where do you draw it?

[tesla69]

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, USA, on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in second to sixth grades attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history. The perpetrator was school board member Andrew Kehoe, who was upset by a property tax that had been levied to fund the construction of the school building. He blamed the additional tax for financial hardships which led to foreclosure proceedings against his farm. These events apparently provoked Kehoe to plan his attack.

[Rob Instigator]

all these things (and this has been a very good discussion so far, with minimal vitriol and namecalling) are all very true, which is why this whole topic is way too complex for the knee jerk reaction of "let's get rid of all guns"

[Rob Instigator]

"enfeebled" old ladies also own guns and use them to stop intruders and rapists and killers as well.
remember, when people say there are 250 million guns in the USA, that doe snot mean 250 million people with guns.
Like i stated before, most gun owners own more than one gun and in many cases many many guns. That would leave you with about 40% of the population owning a firearm.

Remmeber Katrina. Remmeber the lawlesness that occurred after that catastrophe. In a situation such as that, and think beforre you say that it is a rare ituation, for it can happen to anyone anywhere at any time, you want to b able to defend yourself with DEADLY FORCE if need be. what if a foreign power sends nukes and destroys the 10 largest metroplexes? what if a force 5 hurricane wipes out the eastern seaboard like it did the gulf coast a few years ago?
there is much more to be concerned with in our RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS than just accidental gun deaths.
there are more accidental deaths in the home each year from falling than from handguns. accidents happen. catatsrophes happen. tyrants HAPPEN. sure, one handgun against a tyrant army will do nothing, but a state like texas, with 25 million people, armed against a tyrant? come on. No army in the world would take that on. it is why we are so deadly afraid of china.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

"enfeebled" old ladies also own guns and use them to stop intruders and rapists and killers as well.
remember, when people say there are 250 million guns in the USA, that doe snot mean 250 million people with guns.
Like i stated before, most gun owners own more than one gun and in many cases many many guns. That would leave you with about 40% of the population owning a firearm.

the actual stats are over 44 milion gun owners

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Remmeber Katrina. Remmeber the lawlesness that occurred after that catastrophe. In a situation such as that, and think beforre you say that it is a rare ituation, for it can happen to anyone anywhere at any time, you want to b able to defend yourself with DEADLY FORCE if need be. what if a foreign power sends nukes and destroys the 10 largest metroplexes? what if a force 5 hurricane wipes out the eastern seaboard like it did the gulf coast a few years ago?
there is much more to be concerned with in our RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS than just accidental gun deaths.

the right to bear arms is not equivalent to the right to self-defense. the right to self-defense did not require a constitutional amendment.

the right to bear arms has to do with the ability of the state to organize a militia because in the earlier days the u.s. didn't have a proper army.

...

also because states wanted the option to raise their own militias against a federal army. the bill of rights limits the power of the federal govenment, which was enabled by the constitution to raise a standing army.

---

all that shit blew up during the civil war

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

there are more accidental deaths in the home each year from falling than from handguns. accidents happen. catatsrophes happen. tyrants HAPPEN. sure, one handgun against a tyrant army will do nothing, but a state like texas, with 25 million people, armed against a tyrant? come on. No army in the world would take that on. it is why we are so deadly afraid of china.

a hydrogen bomb can destroy 25 million handguns. sorry. you might as well fight with toothpicks.

oh, and then there's the neutron bomb. that one is priceless. leaves all the shit intact, only people die.

[atari 2600]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

if some creep locks himself into a Lu by's cafeteria and decides to kill everyone with a baseball bat, will there be an uproar over baseball bats?

That won't ever happen. It's a faulty analogy.
Refer to the ikara cult's posts.
Thanks for the ammo.