| BREAKING NEWS: V-TECH KILLER SENDS PACKAGE TO NBC | |
|
CuZzA - Student  |
NBC has just recieved a package from The V-Tech mass murderer (Cho Seung-Hui). The package was believed to have been sent during the 2 and a half hour time gap between the first 2 killings and the other 30+.
Click Here _______________ - Even if Carlsberg made "w*nkers", Christiano Ronaldo would still be the biggest "w*nker" in the world |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Xanatos, you have split up points I made and addressed them as separate issues or combined them with others they weren't meant to go with.
Quote: its a violation of civil rights to keep someone against their will. If a person doesn't want to be committed we can't force them into it. And they attempted to treat the killer. At what point will you finally say that the blame lies at the feet of the one who actually pulled the trigger.
That is a complete point and you broke it up. It addresses your belief that the government needs to treat mentally ill people. Its a violation of civil rights to commit a person to a mental institution against their will. Your wish for the government to do something about these people becomes hampered by that. It has nothing to do with the police as you chose to connect it. Quote: o you're saying the police can do nothing to stop you from harming society because it's treading on your civil rights... but their job is to protect society? So really they're protecting society by not protecting society.
If I'm harming society the police need to stop me. That different than if I'm mentally ill. Unless you're deciding that mental illness is now a crime. However, even though the police must stop someone from harming society, they are not required to protect me, as an individual. They are not personal bodyguards. The cops don't need to do a damn thing to protect me. http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html Quote: reat system you guys have there. What I wouldn't do for a constitution like yours... and here I was thinking that 'solving problems' would actually benefit the society you're so intent on protecting.
The problems of society, maybe. But the problems of the individual no. Nor should it be that way. I'm capable of handling myself and don't need the government to decide how best to fix a situation I am in. Quote: So you're saying that by unsuccessfully treating the patient you've done your part and now the blame obviously lies at the feet of the [still] insane one. Are you serious?
The doctors attempted to treat him and failed. They are blamed for not properly treating him. The blame for killing all those people though, that's at the sick bastard who did it. And if he hadn't committed suicide and was apprehended, I could not see any jury in the nation finding him not guilty on reason of insanity. So the blame for killing 32 people rests on him. Quote: I just don't see how parents and their children would feel comfortable going to school or work knowing that other people around them have the potential to break up that family unit in just a matter of seconds. We don't all have balls of steel you know. I mean, it's only our family we're worried about.
Hate to tell you this, but people around them alread have the potential to break up that family in seconds. A gun doesn't change that. All it takes is someone with a car and intent, or a knife and someone could die in a matter of seconds. That's life, guns don't change that risk. Quote: Your state has laws concerning the 'justified killing of a criminal'. I can't see at all how it would be justified in any circumstance. Just because they were going to take your wallet doesn't mean you can blow their head off. That's obviously an opinion and you can just as easily tell me that it's justified because you felt your life was in danger as they had the seemingly stronger position so you have the right to end theirs. Point made.
Here's a question for you. A crook holds me up at gunpoint or knifepoint, demanding my wallet. How do I know he won't kill me after I give him my wallet? Any thoughts? If I have a gun suddenly he's not going to be worried about getting my wallet, he'll be worried about dying. And I know you're saying its just my wallet, but how do I know that he won't kill me? And how about a woman. What if some men are chasing after her. What are their intentions? Robbery? Rape? Hey she's still alive after either of those right so she shouldn't need to defend herself. And for the justified killing of a criminal I would need to prove my life was in danger to justify killing him. Are you saying that in a kill or be killed situation you would rather die than live? Please. Quote: Same idea here. Theoretically, I'm fine with you making the choice to have a gun. I'm not fine with you having the power of life and death over someone. I like how you make the point that you don't want people deciding things for you, and yet you feel like you should have the power to decide someone else's very life - conveniently placed in the palm of your hand, waiting for you to pull the trigger. To think, all because the criminal wanted that *hopefully* small amount of cash in your wallet.
Hate to tell you again, but I do have the power of life and death in my hands with or without a gun. I can kill with multiple household objects. A knife, a hammer, a screwdriver, my own bare hands. And again, you don't know what the criminals intentions are, it might be your wallet, or it could be your life. Quote: If the gun was kept disassembled for safety purposes, I highly doubt you'd also keep it in a locked safe as well. Unless you're trying to keep it safe from yourself.
Or perhaps to keep it away from children, or because of laws about the keeping of guns, or for concern of someone breaking in to your home when you're not there. Quote: Be tempted by what? The gun they don't have? What I meant by there's even less chance you follow through on 'going for the gun' since that would take a bit more effort. Unless you're a crazy maniac. is that guns aren't around at your immediate disposal, even if you are tempted. You literally have to go out and find one yourself, which might be easy in America but not so much here.
If I'm tempted to kill someone I don't need to go out and get a gun. I can do it by other methods. You claimed they lock up a gun so if they want to kill someone they need to unlock and assemble it. I'm saying that if they don't have a gun, then they no longer have that time to think while going for the gun. They'll go for a closer object, like a knife. No assembly time on a knife. I feel safer in a society where the government isn't the only group in control of guns. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Guns should be banned. It would definitely reduce the number of guns in possession by people such as Cho Seung-Hui simply out of fear of being arrested.
Do you realize what you just said? You are saying that by making guns illegal it will keep them out of the hands of people already intent on committing an illegal act, because if they have a gun they might get arrested. THEY ALREADY AREN'T AFRAID OF GOING TO JAIL. If the threat of going to jail for committing robbery or murder isn't enough to stop them from doing that then adding on that the tool they use to commit the crime is also illegal won't do a damn thing to stop them. And guns are already banned at VT. Yeah that fear of being arrested really put stop to bringing guns on campus didn't it? Making guns illegal just keeps them out of the hands of law abiding citizens like this: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070420/NEWS01/704200369 Yes I do realize what I typed. Making guns illegal will CERTAINLY deter potential offenders/reduce the number of guns in circulation. I'm not talking about guns stopping people like the VT killer out of fear of being arrested, that was an extreme case. I'm talking about keeping guns out of hands of "law abiding citizens" and criminals. Yes there is almost no way to stop people from acquiring a gun if they are focussed on getting one, but banning guns will deter "law abiding citizens" from becoming criminals themselves, and reduce the number of gun crimes. If a person is a law abiding citizen then they are already deterred from committing crimes. You don't need to deter them anymore. If having posession of a gun is what causes people to become criminals then almost 1/3 of the US population would be criminals, because there are 80 million gun owners. You're declaring all people guilty before they've even comitted a crime. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Ventrel - Student 
|
Quote:
Quote:
Guns should be banned. It would definitely reduce the number of guns in possession by people such as Cho Seung-Hui simply out of fear of being arrested.
Do you realize what you just said? You are saying that by making guns illegal it will keep them out of the hands of people already intent on committing an illegal act, because if they have a gun they might get arrested. THEY ALREADY AREN'T AFRAID OF GOING TO JAIL. If the threat of going to jail for committing robbery or murder isn't enough to stop them from doing that then adding on that the tool they use to commit the crime is also illegal won't do a damn thing to stop them. And guns are already banned at VT. Yeah that fear of being arrested really put stop to bringing guns on campus didn't it? Making guns illegal just keeps them out of the hands of law abiding citizens like this: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070420/NEWS01/704200369 Yes I do realize what I typed. Making guns illegal will CERTAINLY deter potential offenders/reduce the number of guns in circulation. I'm not talking about guns stopping people like the VT killer out of fear of being arrested, that was an extreme case. I'm talking about keeping guns out of hands of "law abiding citizens" and criminals. Yes there is almost no way to stop people from acquiring a gun if they are focussed on getting one, but banning guns will deter "law abiding citizens" from becoming criminals themselves, and reduce the number of gun crimes. |
|
xAnAtOs - Student |
Quote: Its a violation of civil rights to keep someone against their will.
Quote: The police legally are not required to do anything to protect you. Their job is the protection of society.
So you're saying the police can do nothing to stop you from harming society because it's treading on your civil rights... but their job is to protect society? So really they're protecting society by not protecting society. Quote: Also, "solve" and "problems" are nowhere in the constitution.
Great system you guys have there. What I wouldn't do for a constitution like yours... and here I was thinking that 'solving problems' would actually benefit the society you're so intent on protecting. Quote: If a person doesn't want to be committed we can't force them into it. And they attempted to treat the killer. At what point will you finally say that the blame lies at the feet of the one who actually pulled the trigger.
So you're saying that by unsuccessfully treating the patient you've done your part and now the blame obviously lies at the feet of the [still] insane one. Are you serious? Btw, I never said you should be in a constant state of terror. In fact, I'm glad you're so fearless. I just don't see how parents and their children would feel comfortable going to school or work knowing that other people around them have the potential to break up that family unit in just a matter of seconds. We don't all have balls of steel you know. I mean, it's only our family we're worried about. Your state has laws concerning the 'justified killing of a criminal'. I can't see at all how it would be justified in any circumstance. Just because they were going to take your wallet doesn't mean you can blow their head off. That's obviously an opinion and you can just as easily tell me that it's justified because you felt your life was in danger as they had the seemingly stronger position so you have the right to end theirs. Point made. Quote: That choice to have a gun should be mine to make, and not have someone else decide what is best for me.
Same idea here. Theoretically, I'm fine with you making the choice to have a gun. I'm not fine with you having the power of life and death over someone. I like how you make the point that you don't want people deciding things for you, and yet you feel like you should have the power to decide someone else's very life - conveniently placed in the palm of your hand, waiting for you to pull the trigger. To think, all because the criminal wanted that *hopefully* small amount of cash in your wallet. If the gun was kept disassembled for safety purposes, I highly doubt you'd also keep it in a locked safe as well. Unless you're trying to keep it safe from yourself. Quote: And your reasoning breaks down at not having a gun means they won't even be tempted by it.
Be tempted by what? The gun they don't have? What I meant by there's even less chance you follow through on 'going for the gun' since that would take a bit more effort. Unless you're a crazy maniac. is that guns aren't around at your immediate disposal, even if you are tempted. You literally have to go out and find one yourself, which might be easy in America but not so much here. Quote: Have you ever wondered why mass murders occur in gun-free zones?
Quite frankly, no. I haven't seen too many of those around here... and look at that, we're a gun free zone. America on the other hand seems to have regular Columbine-like events. Imagine that. I think I'm going to call America 'Daisies and Daffodils Land' from now on. I'm well aware that if they don't have a gun they can go for a knife etc, which has no 'calm-down period', if you will. Obviously you're trading in that calm down period for, let's call it, 'chance at survival'. Usually bullets to the head are unstoppable and completely lethal, whereas a knife/blunt objects/hands I can somewhat defend myself against. Even if I had 10 guys jump me with knives there's an [unlikely] chance that I can survive. Whatever, I prefer the tiniest chance at survival than no chance at all. As for guns for protection from animals. If you live in a place where it is not uncommon for a grizzly bear to regularly invite itself to your house, you're an idiot. As far as I'm concerned you're a moron, plain and simple. You're definitely right about a persistent criminal being able to kill you if they so wished. I'd just rather not make it easy for them. No, not by blowing their head off. Also, I can't be arsed looking up that Nagasaki mayor thing. _______________ Brother to Luke Skywalker and (SKX) Dark Blade 
Lag Brother to Acey Spadey 
Jools is my best friend. 
<Henkes> nebody feeling like abusing me with a lightsaber?|+Smilykrazy grabs Gradius, beats the living CRAP out of him, then throws him into a huge vat of ACID |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: The problem clearly lies with the individuals themselves and it's up to the gov/society to treat these people. I think it was Menaxia who said it was the health systems fault and I agree. So that treats the patient when the system is aware of it. What about preventing the individual's decline into that mental state in the first place? Then you have to start looking at education, upbringing, environment, social groups, poverty, etc.
Its a violation of civil rights to keep someone against their will. If a person doesn't want to be committed we can't force them into it. And they attempted to treat the killer. At what point will you finally say that the blame lies at the feet of the one who actually pulled the trigger. Also, "solve" and "problems" are nowhere in the constitution. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help," should be a frightening statement. The police legally are not required to do anything to protect you. Their job is the protection of society. I don't fear anyone around me. I live in a state with concealed carry laws. By your belief I should be in some constant state of terror for my safey and life, because I could be in a society surrounded by guns, yet I am not. Anyone I see could potentially have a gun. My state also has laws where your life actually needs to be in danger for the justified killing of a criminal. Its been called "shoot to live." I would fear criminals with a gun, but I would fear criminals anyways. I'd much rather have them wondering if I had a gun, and would I end up being the last thing they ever saw. You are a target because they believe they are in a stronger position than you, they believe they can get away with whatever it is they want to do to you before they get caught. You cast doubt on if they are in the stronger position and now they're taking a bigger gamble, but they don't want the gamble, they want the least resistance. That choice to have a gun should be mine to make, and not have someone else decide what is best for me. Quote: I'm obviously not a gun-owner but I know a couple of people who are. They tell me that the gun is always unloaded and dismantled while the bullets are kept in a safe. The idea is that if you do get pissed off and your initial reaction is 'go for the gun', those crucial moments it takes to unlock the safe and load the gun may be the time you needed to cool off and, y'know, not kill someone. This is assuming you have a gun in the first place. My feeling is that if you don't even have one, there's even less chance you follow through on 'going for the gun' since that would take a bit more effort. Unless you're a crazy maniac. So obviously this is directed towards people that aren't totally insane.
I would say that the gun it kept disassembled and unloaded more for safety reasons than their fears that one day they might "snap." There's a lot less chance of an accident with an unloaded gun not prepared for firing than a loaded gun. And your reasoning breaks down at not having a gun means they won't even be tempted by it. But you have now removed the simplest way to kill from their hands. If whatever set them off gave them the desire to kill, they will proceed to the next simplest method. That includes a knife, a blunt object, or even their own hands. Except now there is no assembly time. No longer a chance to calm down. People need or want guns for multiple reasons. Some want to hunt, some enjoy target shooting, some need it for protection. And not just protection from other people, but from animals, and there are animals where a handgun is more sensible for defense than a rifle. If someone wants to kill you they will. They don't need a gun. But if they want to kill you, they've already decided to break the law and a gun ban won't stop a persistent criminal from getting one. Check with the former mayor of Nagasaki, Japan. Have you ever wondered why mass murders occur in gun-free zones? _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
xAnAtOs - Student |
You keep mentioning that you feel sorry that we're afraid of our fellow man. Why shouldn't we be? I'm always wary and cautious around anything that's got a gun in it's hand. If I saw a squirrel with a squirrel-sized, fully loaded gun I'd still feel uncomfortable. You know why? It has the ability to take a life. I'm not comfortable handing over that kind of power to the general public. To the police, yea, but that's about it. There have been cases here where a burglar has broken into someone's house and the owner has shot them up. In the end, the owner gets the harsher sentence. Is that fair? Probably not. Then again, blowing someone's head off because they tried to steal your LCD tv isn't either.
See the thing is, even rational people aren't always rational. All it takes is a moment of stupidity or anger or insecurity and guns start blazing. I'm so glad guns are banned here. Back in high school I remember we had a lot of gangsters and hardasses strutting around the school. Look at them funny and they beat the shit out of you. Deliberately piss them off and you're as good as bed-ridden for a few weeks. Short tempers suck huh? Now if the same mob were able to get their hands on guns legally here, I'm sure we'd have had a few Columbines as well. I know what you're going to say though. If they'd really wanted to kill someone they'd have got their hands on a gun one way or another - but they didn't. Too much effort? Maybe they found someone else to unleash their cans of whoop-ass on. Or maybe they just had time to cool off and think about it, and sometimes that's what makes all the difference. I'm obviously not a gun-owner but I know a couple of people who are. They tell me that the gun is always unloaded and dismantled while the bullets are kept in a safe. The idea is that if you do get pissed off and your initial reaction is 'go for the gun', those crucial moments it takes to unlock the safe and load the gun may be the time you needed to cool off and, y'know, not kill someone. This is assuming you have a gun in the first place. My feeling is that if you don't even have one, there's even less chance you follow through on 'going for the gun' since that would take a bit more effort. Unless you're a crazy maniac. So obviously this is directed towards people that aren't totally insane. This had nothing to do with the Virginia Tech case, mentally ill people and so on, but Ken summed up my view on that for the most part. I guess you also have to take into account what part of the world you're dealing with. Maybe America is just a more fucked up place than Australia and therefore the *obviously* rational and sane public need guns to protect themselves from the people who are products of that same society. Oh bam, what a huge generalisation. The point is, these problems are, as Virtue put it: Quote: the way a person turns out is largely down to their upbringing (not just their parents, but the sorts of people involved in their lives as well, like friends and other family members) and their experiences as they grow up. My opinion is that no one is born with an "I must kill everyone in the world!" mentality
The problem clearly lies with the individuals themselves and it's up to the gov/society to treat these people. I think it was Menaxia who said it was the health systems fault and I agree. So that treats the patient when the system is aware of it. What about preventing the individual's decline into that mental state in the first place? Then you have to start looking at education, upbringing, environment, social groups, poverty, etc. As for what to do other than letting everyone have guns in situations like these - I have no idea. ...My head hurts. _______________ Brother to Luke Skywalker and (SKX) Dark Blade
Lag Brother to Acey Spadey
Jools is my best friend.
<Henkes> nebody feeling like abusing me with a lightsaber?|+Smilykrazy grabs Gradius, beats the living CRAP out of him, then throws him into a huge vat of ACID |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: And if you legalize weapons, people are going to want to kill eachother all the more.
There is a problem with that statement. There are already the tools available to kill people. They are in your house. Believing that a lack of guns in the hands of law abiding people is the reason the streets don't run red with blood is a bit silly. If I have a gun and someone gives me a dirty look walking down the street, is my life going to turn out well because I shoot him for a dirty look. Rational people aren't going to go around with guns blazing. And as for irrational people, well the lack of a gun isn't going to stop them anyways. The Golden Rule, I don't want to die so I don't kill you, you don't kill me. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Virtue - Jedi Council 
|
I don't really know why I'm posting here, I usually try to steer clear of debates such as this.
To my shame, I haven't even read the full story of just what happened, all I know right now is that some kid got hold of some weapons and proceeded to kill alot of people. Same as some of the stuff that has happened before, but this guy managed to kill alot more people. I would however, just like to comment on one or two things here and I do so without trying to step on anyone's toes or say "You're wrong!" or "You're an idiot!" to anyone. Quote: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Well, I think the gun helps. I mean, just standing there shouting "BANG!!"... that's not going to kill too many people unless you suffer from a really weak heart.
Quote: i say everyone must carry a sword from now on.
That would simply replace the minority of the population who are stupid enough to want to kill people for no reason, with a vast majority of people who are now armed with swords. It's all fair and well if a guy wants to kill people with a sword, and then gets owned by everyone else in the room who also have swords. But that would also mean that now everyone has a lethal weapon in their posession at all times. All it takes is for one person to get angry and they'd end up killing someone that they were having an argument with over something stupid like who's turn it is to do the washing up. Let alone have people sneaking up behind other people and DFAing the back of their heads. That's not to say I think you're stupid for suggesting it, I mean... look at what we have now: It is illegal for a civillian to carry a weapon in most places (England, for example). So what do people do instead? They hang around in groups and beat the crap out of people with their fists and feet. Sometimes at random. People are always, ALWAYS going to have weapons of some sort, a fist is also classed as a weapon (or it can be). It's depressing. The point of my post isn't suggesting that people using their fists are any good against even one guy with a gun or anything like that. I'm simply saying that if you ban all weapons, people will still have weapons. And if you legalize weapons, people are going to want to kill eachother all the more. In my opinion, the way a person turns out is largely down to their upbringing (not just their parents, but the sorts of people involved in their lives as well, like friends and other family members) and their experiences as they grow up. My opinion is that no one is born with an "I must kill everyone in the world!" mentality - of course this is just my opinion and I'm well aware that it's arguable. Anyways, there's probably a way out. A way where people don't want to kill eachother all the time, but I don't even pretend to know what it is. I may have ideas on certain aspects of it, but I'm just an ordinary guy who is just as vulnerable as everyone else. Anyways. Hurting people is bad! I'll go read up on that article now so I know exactly what happened. 
- Virtue. _______________ Academy Architect |
|
Buzz - Student
|
I think if he didn't have guns it would have resulted in an act of stabbings along with explosives. Kill as many as he could by hand, set off explosives and then kill himself.
Quote:
Quote:
Well because it would be awesome, that's one reason, haha. I would assume he was joking, but I'm going to try and explain it anyway. Well, if everyone could carry swords, and there were not guns (i'm not sure if that's a criteria in this fantasy world), then it would be much harder to kill 31 people, because it's not a long range weapon. You might get one person, down, but then you'd be gang beaten by a group of sword wielding college students. lol.
yeah thats pretty much what i meant... well in the end if i could blame something then i would blame technological progress and humans themselves. but on the other hand humans do not change much. in middle ages if there was 'sword free area' incident with guy wielding a sword would be quite likely possible. as this problem of humans being idiots one way or another is so general and unchangable, i think there is no one you can blame really. not even that retard, unless his state of mind wasnt anything close to that of normal a normal human. And all you have done is created the situation everyone here seems to be so terrified of. You've just replaced everyone has guns to everyone has swords, and I consider that to be a bigger danger. A sword is a weapon requiring some skill and training to be able to effectively utilize. Someone bent on killing would learn to use it to do this. He kills one person and you want everyone rushing him with the intent to stop him with their swords. They're liable to wind up injuring each other. Also you would leave the older population vulnerable. An 82 year old former miss america wouldn't be able to defend her home and property with a sword. And saying there is no one to blame is also wrong, and that's part of the problem today. "Its not my fault, its their fault." No willingness to take responsibility for your own actions, and when a heinous act is committed there is the refusal to blame the one that is responsible. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
SaZ - Student 
|
Quote: Well because it would be awesome, that's one reason, haha. I would assume he was joking, but I'm going to try and explain it anyway. Well, if everyone could carry swords, and there were not guns (i'm not sure if that's a criteria in this fantasy world), then it would be much harder to kill 31 people, because it's not a long range weapon. You might get one person, down, but then you'd be gang beaten by a group of sword wielding college students. lol.
yeah thats pretty much what i meant... well in the end if i could blame something then i would blame technological progress and humans themselves. but on the other hand humans do not change much. in middle ages if there was 'sword free area' incident with guy wielding a sword would be quite likely possible. as this problem of humans being idiots one way or another is so general and unchangable, i think there is no one you can blame really. not even that retard, unless his state of mind wasnt anything close to that of normal a normal human. _______________ playing jk3 since 30th of january (2005), member since 1st of february. [Unofficial Master to Vision and Z�diac ] If you can make a fool of yourself infront of 300 people you can do anything - Jaiko D'kana This comment was edited by SaZ on Apr 24 2007 07:30pm. |
|
Menaxia - Student 
|
an explosive device wouldn't have been his method of choice. He wanted to make it personal.
But yr bottom dollar he would have used a knife. _______________ This is not the place to look for me |
|
El Vee For - Student 
|
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
If someone gets killed by a drunk driver I don't hear anyone trying to ban cars or alcohol for that matter. Cho would have killed in anyway he could, thank god he didn't know a damn thing about explosives or this body count could have tripled with ease. _______________ “Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded.” |
|
House - Student 
|
Well because it would be awesome, that's one reason, haha. I would assume he was joking, but I'm going to try and explain it anyway. Well, if everyone could carry swords, and there were not guns (i'm not sure if that's a criteria in this fantasy world), then it would be much harder to kill 31 people, because it's not a long range weapon. You might get one person, down, but then you'd be gang beaten by a group of sword wielding college students. lol. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: i say everyone must carry a sword from now on.
just like in middle ages >.> For what reason. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Quote: Guns should be banned. It would definitely reduce the number of guns in possession by people such as Cho Seung-Hui simply out of fear of being arrested.
Do you realize what you just said? You are saying that by making guns illegal it will keep them out of the hands of people already intent on committing an illegal act, because if they have a gun they might get arrested. THEY ALREADY AREN'T AFRAID OF GOING TO JAIL. If the threat of going to jail for committing robbery or murder isn't enough to stop them from doing that then adding on that the tool they use to commit the crime is also illegal won't do a damn thing to stop them. And guns are already banned at VT. Yeah that fear of being arrested really put stop to bringing guns on campus didn't it? Making guns illegal just keeps them out of the hands of law abiding citizens like this: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070420/NEWS01/704200369 _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Ventrel - Student 
|
Guns should be banned. It would definitely reduce the number of guns in possession by people such as Cho Seung-Hui simply out of fear of being arrested. |
|
planK - Jedi Council 
|
I'd bring a LONGER sword omg! |
|
Menaxia - Student 
|
That's what those red lines are for on the floor of the House of Comons. Keeps them all just over a sword's length apart. _______________ This is not the place to look for me |
|
SaZ - Student 
|
i say everyone must carry a sword from now on.
just like in middle ages >.> _______________ playing jk3 since 30th of january (2005), member since 1st of february. [Unofficial Master to Vision and Z�diac ] If you can make a fool of yourself infront of 300 people you can do anything - Jaiko D'kana |
|
Raziel Anjelis - Student 
|
To be honest, like it or not, the human race (or part of it) seems so reliant on firearms that guns are here whether we like it or nay. _______________ Proud owner of El Vee For's 200th Comment, and Wicek's 2600th comment DaMi3N's 400th, Trad Redav's 666th.
|
|
CuZzA - Student 
|
It's a perfect example of Catch 22 _______________ - Even if Carlsberg made "w*nkers", Christiano Ronaldo would still be the biggest "w*nker" in the world |
|
DarthMike - Student 
|
Quote: Guns arent' a good choice for self-defence since they can easily kill the opponent. I'd suggest pepper spray or similar. Guns kill, and thou shall not kill. So what's really the point with them? Raising your frail egos? Right. Some psycho barges in, guns blazing. The situation looks dire. But not to fear, I brought my can of pepper spray. We're safe. Killing is sometimes the only way to prevent more killing. If someone wants to kill you, they can do it. There are things all around us that kill just as good as guns. You can't stop a killer by depriving him of supplies. The only way to stop a killer is to kill him. So why not have tools(guns) that are designed specifically for that? _______________ "You can't get Windows on a Mac because the drivers are not compatible." --- Some dude from the Geek Squad "So if you have quad-core, you have four times the RAM, right?" --- Some guy at Best Buy This comment was edited by DarthMike on Apr 23 2007 10:16pm. |
|
planK - Jedi Council
|
Everybody LOVES IT <3 |
|
Menaxia - Student
|
trust you  _______________ This is not the place to look for me |
|
planK - Jedi Council
|
It's hawt in heeeere!
*gets naked* |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |