More School Incidents
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» regimental911 replied on Thu Oct 12, 2006 @ 1:08pm |
 Coolness: 134310 | what about poison back in teh day,,you could slip that shit to someone and boom dead,,shoot an arrow with a poison tip,boom dead.
come to think of it neo i can think of 100 midevil ways to murder alot of people. |
| I'm feeling hardsteppers right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Thu Oct 12, 2006 @ 1:15pm |
 Coolness: 339705 | *blink*
did you not see my anthrax example? murder is still murder, but guns have no purpose other than to kill people. machine guns just make it that much easier. |
| I'm feeling thespread.org right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Thu Oct 12, 2006 @ 1:19pm |
 Coolness: 685630 | Superman can. |
| I'm feeling fat and sassy right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Thu Oct 12, 2006 @ 2:08pm |
 Coolness: 92305 | If someone's charging at you with a sword you won't have time to pick up a rock and throw it at them and even if you do you're fucked if you miss. The probability of someone having a firehose next to them is not even a whole number. You don't even have to be able to aim to chop someones head off, there are no misses. True you can run but by the time you realise what's happening they'll probably be too close already. Anywho.. my point is just that people are defenseless from other weapons besides just guns. He could have just built a bomb with kitchen supplies, maybe even some little grenades, now those are fun. I'm wouldn't say that he would have done this without a gun necessarily but if he had chosen a different method he probably would have been more successful at killing people seeing as his aim must have sucked. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Thu Oct 12, 2006 @ 3:12pm |
| Coolness: 339705 | A) i'd see someone running at me with a sword way before they got close to me
B) nobody has a real sword, at least not one that's capable of "chop[ping] someone's head off" C) if someone went into a school with a sword, all it would take is a group of people to grab some chairs and attack to stop the person with a sword. once again, this would not work if the person had a gun or anything that makes use of explosives. |
| I'm feeling thespread.org right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Phoenix replied on Thu Oct 12, 2006 @ 3:14pm |
 Coolness: 81730 | "You beat him with a knife, he comes back with a gun. And you beat him with a gun, you better kill him, because he'll keep comin' back and back until one of you is dead..."
-Ace "The Golden Jew" Rothstein |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» regimental911 replied on Fri Oct 13, 2006 @ 10:12am |
| Coolness: 134310 | neo ,you aint invicible homie,your performance changes in a real fight scenario.and we got liek 20 blades in the house that can cut limbs off.20 ,not one ,but twenty.you can sharpen any steep to a razor point.
what if you were being atttacked by a trained person who could sneak up on you. |
| I'm feeling hardsteppers right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Fri Oct 13, 2006 @ 10:19am |
| Coolness: 685630 | From what I recall reading, an untrained person can reach a person who is drawing their gun/weapon if that person is within 15 feet. Obviously this is a person that's not 300lbs of lard, but any regular joe that can sprint, can close the 15 foot distance, and once you're within 2-3 feet aiming a gun becomes a lot harder if the person hasn't had time to point it at the target properly. And if a person is reaching for their gun, they aren't preparing themselves mentaly for close-quarter attack even if the person is running at them, they tend to get over-confident about their weapon, so a person within 15 feet of a person with an undrawn gun can very, VERY easily run up to them and do a fair bit of damage before they re-evaluate their battle-plan for the circumstances. |
| I'm feeling fat and sassy right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Fri Oct 13, 2006 @ 11:27am |
| Coolness: 92305 | Honestly even if you had special training I think you'd have about a 90% chnace of getting hurt or dying if somone attacked you like that, this throwing chairs shit is absolute non-sense. I could VERY easily kill you with a sword before you even had time to see it comming.. even easier than if I had a gun. If stones and chairs were a good defene against a sword I dont think they would have ever gone through the revolution of manufacturing them. Imagine that, the old English empire invading armed countries with stone and chair throwing tactics. |
| I'm feeling long gone right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Oct 13, 2006 @ 12:58pm |
| Coolness: 339705 | Originally Posted By REGIMENTAL911
neo ,you aint invicible homie,your performance changes in a real fight scenario.and we got liek 20 blades in the house that can cut limbs off.20 ,not one ,but twenty.you can sharpen any steep to a razor point. what if you were being atttacked by a trained person who could sneak up on you. what do you suppose the ratio of "highly trained swordsmen that want to kill random people vs. anyone with a gun" is? if there were no more guns in the hands of civilians i can bet you'd see murder rates slide to less than 20% of what they are now and school murders drop to something like 5% of what they are now. Update » neoform wrote on Fri Oct 13, 2006 @ 1:01pm fred, would you run up to someone drawing a gun with intention of shooting you? not to mention that school shooters for the most part, have their weapons already drawn with the safty off.
that 15 foot rule only really applies if you know the person has a gun and intends to use it as well as you being ready to rush him.. |
| I'm feeling thespread.org right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Fri Oct 13, 2006 @ 1:15pm |
| Coolness: 92305 | I agree with you that there'd be less school shootings and random acts of violence but it wouldn't affect homicide. Still though, reread that sentence °if there were no more guns in the hands of civilians°... that isn't gonna happen and no one can make it happen, not even if they were king of the world. |
| I'm feeling long gone right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Oct 13, 2006 @ 1:43pm |
| Coolness: 339705 | i disagree. i think we can get rid of guns. |
| I'm feeling thespread.org right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Phoenix replied on Fri Oct 13, 2006 @ 1:53pm |
| Coolness: 81730 | We should but it wouldn't happen cause there's too much money to be made... The weapons industry is the largest trade market worldwide, which is quite impressive considering that you'd think the drug trade would be higher but it actually comes in second place. |
| I'm feeling you up right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Fri Oct 13, 2006 @ 2:03pm |
| Coolness: 92305 | If we can than why hasn't it happened yet? And how do you propose we go about doing that? Update » moondancer wrote on Fri Oct 13, 2006 @ 2:07pm I think it's time for a new approach. If you ask me people like Stephen Harper pass all these gun laws just to make it look like they're doing something. |
| I'm feeling long gone right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Oct 13, 2006 @ 2:35pm |
| Coolness: 339705 | It hasn't happend because there are too many people that want guns in the world.
In Canada on the other hand, it's feasible, but the odds of complete gun ban is slim but still much higher than a complete smoking ban. |
| I'm feeling thespread.org right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Fri Oct 13, 2006 @ 3:08pm |
| Coolness: 92305 | thats the problem, there will always be SOMEONE. We can control the majority but we can't get rid of every someone. Getting rid of things doesn't work. Suppose that we did get rid of all the guns, put them on an island and nuked them, do you think nobody's gonna decide to make more? SOMEONE will. Oh so we get rid of the text books on how to make them... people figure it out quickly cause it's obvious wiht all the technology we already have so we get rid of all technology, burn all the books but of course there will be SOMEONE who believes they're doing the right thing by preservign it all and burying it in a deep dark cave for historical purposes. At this point Man is back to using mideival technology, SOMEONE diggs out these texts, they read em, they freak out having all kinds of fun with this new toy they aren't prepared for and repeat. Humans find mystery irresistable. They find money and power irresistable too. That's why no one can depend on humans and humans shouldn't depend on humans not to have guns. |
| I'm feeling long gone right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Oct 13, 2006 @ 3:45pm |
| Coolness: 339705 | The difference between guns and things like drugs is clear.
Guns cannot be made in your garage. To make guns you need manufacturing and skilled workers making them. Same goes for bullets. If you declare guns to be illegal in Canada, there will very simply be a shitload less guns. I'm not saying they'll all be gone, but for your average dickhead on the street who wants to show off the size of his dick, it'll be a lot harder to get one, and therefore be a lot less likely to be able to shoot someone dead. Even if they did have a gun, they'd end up being too afraid to pull it out and use it since simply pulling it out would be an offense worthy of arrest. Just face the fact that if guns were outlawed there would be a drastic drop in gun violence. Why are you so dense about this? It's so obvious that you can't seem to see it. |
| I'm feeling thespread.org right now.. | |
More School Incidents
[ Cumbre de Página ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Cumbre de Página ] |
