Post by: Dragonium on April 16, 2007, 06:31:59 PM
Something is fundamentally wrong with the world.
Post by: Shady Ultima on April 16, 2007, 06:40:36 PM
Post by: aboutasoandthis on April 16, 2007, 08:38:16 PM
Um...I don't know what to say to this.
Post by: FFL2and3rocks on April 16, 2007, 08:49:16 PM
Post by: Meiscool-2 on April 16, 2007, 08:50:16 PM
Also, I expected Drenin or someone to post this, but not you Draggy.
Post by: Dragonium on April 16, 2007, 09:09:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Meiscool
The final statement contradicts the first sentence... unless they're talking about two different guys.
Also, I expected Drenin or someone to post this, but not you Draggy.
What, am I too boring for you Meis?
Am I too predictable?
Is that all I am to you?!
Naw, just kidding. I saw it on the news and noticed nobody had made a thread for it, and I felt like being the one to post the news-story thread for once. :D
But back to matters.
*Puts on serious face*
America is a sad place if anybody can get a gun and go out aiming to kill anybody. I mean what, Americans are allowed to have guns to keep themselves safe? Over here in Britain there's like a shooting every month or so. The only guns we have are like illegal imports or something. We're nice 'n' safe, folks. ^_^
I'd like to get some Americans' view on the whole gun control thing.
EDIT: I also notice there's been nothing said regarding Columbine. Would have thought there might have been a passing reference or something. Odd.
EDIT2: Also, this is Sky. It's liable to be wrong.
Post by: Cosmos on April 16, 2007, 09:09:23 PM
Schools have never been safe before this, and they wont be afterwards. I don't think anything will really be done about this.. I mean, unless they add metal detectors... but even tho my old school had them, people were still shot or stabbed. _sweat_
Post by: Revolution911 on April 16, 2007, 10:16:20 PM
Yeah er...he got shot..
NAW IM FUKING WICHU LOL
I dont like guns. I say we should all just go back to using swords. Except the french. Yeah man, **** the french.
Post by: Fortet on April 16, 2007, 10:24:35 PM
Post by: Almeidaboo on April 16, 2007, 10:32:05 PM
Post by: Daetyrnis on April 16, 2007, 10:32:30 PM
The thing is, I really don't even want to bother reading the article. The title says one person was killed, the first statement says 32 were killed, and the last statement says 15 (including people not on campus) were killed.
Like, consistency please?
Post by: DarkFlood2 on April 16, 2007, 10:35:06 PM
Post by: Daetyrnis on April 16, 2007, 10:35:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Almeidaboo
Americans like to kill
Fixed.
Post by: aboutasoandthis on April 16, 2007, 10:37:55 PM
33 are dead. That's it. The 15 are wounded. Mid was right, some other guy killed his parents and 13 others.
Post by: Cosmos on April 16, 2007, 10:52:12 PM
And that's a horrible stereotype.. not all americans like "KILL OURSELVES!!! YEAH!!!" I mean.. people are people.. we all can kill, it's in our nature. I mean the only thing that prevents us from doing it is the fact that society says it's wrong. Not just americans go off killing themselves, people in other countries do it too..
Guns... eh.. I have mixed feelings on them.. I think they're good to have, but I also think that they're extremely dangerous if put in the wrong hands.. The thing is, they do save civilian lives.. but of course, they also take civilian lives.. It really depends on whose using the gun.
People think that only the army, or police force should use guns but honestly, even they can do wrong with them. Also, if you take away guns.. there are OTHER weapons to be used. I mean, someone's gonna get hurt reguardless.. and
Quote
The only guns we have are like illegal imports or something.
see... even if you take out guns, they're still gonna find a way into the place.. whether it be in america or some other country.
Post by: Razor on April 16, 2007, 10:58:37 PM
Instead, let it be an anti-Virginia thread.
Post by: Daetyrnis on April 16, 2007, 10:59:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Midnight
They were comparing today's shooting with another one that happened some years ago.
And that's a horrible stereotype.. not all americans like "KILL OURSELVES!!! YEAH!!!" I mean.. people are people.. we all can kill, it's in our nature. I mean the only thing that prevents us from doing it is the fact that society says it's wrong. Not just americans go off killing themselves, people in other countries do it too..
Sure, not each and every individual American, but compare America to some other leading countries. America has the more aggresive foreign relations and a very high amount of shootings and such.
Post by: Cosmos on April 16, 2007, 11:04:18 PM
Post by: Meiscool-2 on April 16, 2007, 11:20:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DragoniumQuoteOriginally posted by Meiscool
The final statement contradicts the first sentence... unless they're talking about two different guys.
Also, I expected Drenin or someone to post this, but not you Draggy.
What, am I too boring for you Meis?
Am I too predictable?
Is that all I am to you?!
*super ghey pause thing*
Naw, just kidding. I saw it on the news and noticed nobody had made a thread for it, and I felt like being the one to post the news-story thread for once. :D[/B]
Just remember Slimey Mac Slime. No matter how hard you try, you'll never achieve a topic the size of the "Meiscool's Penis" topic.
On a topic related note: Yeah, shooting people is terrible. Someone should do something about it.
Post by: HackersTotalMassLaser on April 17, 2007, 03:44:45 AM
There were two shootings; two hours from each other. The police did nothing after the first one. That was the grave mistake.
This information is taken from news sources.
Post by: ZeroKirbyX on April 17, 2007, 04:08:51 AM
Quote
guys, all these threads regarding VaTech aren't funny. it was a senseless tragedy performed by a careless individual. I wish he hadn't killed himself so he could pay for the pain and suffering he inflicted on everybody. i was in Norris Hall when it happened, and it was the most disturbing thing i've ever lived through.
you guys must not know what it's like having to call your friends and family to tell them you're alive. all of my friends were literally on the brink of tears when I called them. i called my mom, and she got scared and said I was moving with my auntie and uncle in bel-air. I whistled for a cab and when it came near, the license plate said "fresh" and it had dice in the mirror. if anything I could say was "this cab was rare" but i thought "nah forget it, yo homes to bel-air!"
Post by: HackersTotalMassLaser on April 17, 2007, 04:40:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by ZeroKirbyXQuoteguys, all these threads regarding VaTech aren't funny. it was a senseless tragedy performed by a careless individual. I wish he hadn't killed himself so he could pay for the pain and suffering he inflicted on everybody. i was in Norris Hall when it happened, and it was the most disturbing thing i've ever lived through.[/B]
you guys must not know what it's like having to call your friends and family to tell them you're alive. all of my friends were literally on the brink of tears when I called them. i called my mom, and she got scared and said I was moving with my auntie and uncle in bel-air. I whistled for a cab and when it came near, the license plate said "fresh" and it had dice in the mirror. if anything I could say was "this cab was rare" but i thought "nah forget it, yo homes to bel-air!"
I lol'd. Damn you.
Fresh Prince ftw. Though his from phili, but its funny either way.
However this situation is not.
Whoever did that though is sadly a genious.
Post by: Vidian on April 17, 2007, 05:00:47 AM
They didn't close down the school after a Shooting?
If people who I go to school with died A few yards from me, I know I'd like to be told about it.
Post by: HackersTotalMassLaser on April 17, 2007, 05:06:04 AM
Post by: neb87 on April 17, 2007, 05:16:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Razor
Let us try and not make this an anti-America thread.
Instead, let it be an anti-Virginia thread.
So long have i waited for a anti-Virginia thread
ponders..
A asain guy tho, there goes the whole stereotype of white kids only going krazy at schools
Post by: Cosmos on April 17, 2007, 10:34:18 AM
Post by: Drace on April 17, 2007, 11:05:19 AM
Quote
My bf goes to a school in virginia, and I was thankful it wasn't her school that was hit. <<
My bf
her
Mid, you lesbian.
Post by: Dragonium on April 17, 2007, 02:37:53 PM
Oh, and Middeth, in response, there ain't any gun dealerships or anything over here, and any imports are checked incredibly strictly. As a result it's very difficult to actually get ammunition even if you do manage to get hold of a gun.
Post by: Cosmos on April 17, 2007, 03:29:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Drace
QuoteMy bf goes to a school in virginia, and I was thankful it wasn't her school that was hit. <<
My bf
her
Mid, you lesbian.[/B]
*shanks* BESTEST friend. Gawd, you guys are like so immatures. Like oh my god.
Quote
Oh, and Middeth, in response, there ain't any gun dealerships or anything over here, and any imports are checked incredibly strictly. As a result it's very difficult to actually get ammunition even if you do manage to get hold of a gun.
But soon... very soon.. bwahaha.. I mean there are always cracks in the wall after all <<
Post by: Moosetroop11 on April 17, 2007, 06:05:22 PM
Post by: WarxePB on April 17, 2007, 06:32:51 PM
Post by: WarxePB on April 17, 2007, 06:37:47 PM
Post by: Dragonium on April 17, 2007, 06:41:17 PM
Need I remind you of the "Manhunt" incident, where one guy killed another with a cricket bat and a claw hammer?
That's real imagination.
That's British thinkin'.
Post by: Daetyrnis on April 17, 2007, 07:16:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Warxe_PhoenixBlade
On a more serious note, it's quite sad that school shootings in America get more attention than religious massacres in the Middle East.
Religion has always resulted in extremists either killing others or telling other people to kill others. It's nothing new.
Places of learning, however, have not always resulted in death.
However, you and I live in Canada so we here more about American news compared to the news of the Middle East. In all likelyhood over there, they haven't even heard of the shooting in Virginia.
Post by: HackersTotalMassLaser on April 17, 2007, 07:59:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DaetyrnisQuoteOriginally posted by Warxe_PhoenixBlade
On a more serious note, it's quite sad that school shootings in America get more attention than religious massacres in the Middle East.
Religion has always resulted in extremists either killing others or telling other people to kill others. It's nothing new.
Places of learning, however, have not always resulted in death.
However, you and I live in Canada so we here more about American news compared to the news of the Middle East. In all likelyhood over there, they haven't even heard of the shooting in Virginia.[/B]
Exactly.
Though that doesn't mean that one is of less magnitude than the other, things that happen closer to you will mostly be more emphisized than things that happen somewhere far away.
Post by: Grandy on April 17, 2007, 11:23:22 PM
Post by: SaiKar on April 18, 2007, 12:33:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Warxe_PhoenixBlade
On a more serious note, it's quite sad that school shootings in America get more attention than religious massacres in the Middle East.
First, I think this is a little distasteful. A tragety is a tragety. If you're going to be sad about something, be sad they're happening at all, not that more people are talking about one than another.
That said, college incidents with double-digit deathtools are quite rare. In post-9/11 America, I can see the obvious thing to do being adding more security everywhere and streading the corners of the constitution a little more. THAT is what has me upset about this: those unfortunate victims are not only dead, but their deaths will probably change this country, and not for the better. Sigh.
Post by: Oi on April 18, 2007, 01:11:19 AM
Edit: The shootings were awful, too. My math teacher started crying because her son was wounded. I felt bad for her, even though I don't like her.
Post by: Meiscool-2 on April 18, 2007, 03:13:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Warxe_PhoenixBlade
On a more serious note, it's quite sad that school shootings in America get more attention than religious massacres in the Middle East.
Stupidest post of the month.
Bravo. :jumpin:
Post by: Razor on April 18, 2007, 04:11:32 AM
Aforementioned religious killings surely result in more deaths of innocent people and children than the 32 that were lost in Virginia.
Not that I'm trivialising the Uni thing as "just another 32".
Post by: HackersTotalMassLaser on April 18, 2007, 04:51:39 AM
Ah the teenage mind.
Post by: Omega Weapon on April 18, 2007, 05:01:14 AM
Quote
On a more serious note, it's quite sad that school shootings in America get more attention than religious massacres in the Middle East.Unfortunately, that's the way the world turns. They get more attention because Americans care more about Americans than Middle Easterners. There's nothing shocking or especially malicious about it. It's about ratings, and it's completely understandable.
Only if someone where to say "OMG, these DEATHS are so horrible, things need to *******, would there be room for criticism. It's just a tragedy and nothing more.
Quote
Originally posted by MeiscoolStupidiest response of the month.QuoteOriginally posted by Warxe_PhoenixBlade
On a more serious note, it's quite sad that school shootings in America get more attention than religious massacres in the Middle East.
Stupidest post of the month.
Bravo. :jumpin: [/B]
Bravo. :jumpin:
Post by: ZeroKirbyX on April 18, 2007, 05:10:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Omega WeaponQuoteOn a more serious note, it's quite sad that school shootings in America get more attention than religious massacres in the Middle East.Unfortunately, that's the way the world turns. They get more attention because Americans care more about Americans than Middle Easterners. There's nothing shocking or especially malicious about it. It's about ratings, and it's completely understandable.
Only if someone where to say "OMG, these DEATHS are so horrible, things need to *******, would there be room for criticism. It's just a tragedy and nothing more.QuoteOriginally posted by MeiscoolStupidiest response of the month.QuoteOriginally posted by Warxe_PhoenixBlade
On a more serious note, it's quite sad that school shootings in America get more attention than religious massacres in the Middle East.
Stupidest post of the month.
Bravo. :jumpin: [/B]
Bravo. :jumpin:[/B]
Stupidiest response of the month.
Bravo. :jumpin:
...What, all the cool kids were doin it.
Post by: Cosmos on April 18, 2007, 01:58:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Moosetroop11
Mid, you can't dispute the fact that people are more likely to think "I want to end life in a bang, screw this world" take their gun which was lying in a drawer and shoot people, than go "I want to end life in a bang, screw this world" find out how to illegally obtain guns and ammo, go through the long, difficult and risky process of getting the gun, and then still act on emotional impulse. There's still shooting here, yes, but we're talking about saving a few lives. Anything that makes it more difficult to kill innocent people has got to be a good thing.
Course ya can't.. but I wasn't exactly talking about emo teens with the whole smuggling thing. I'm just being a wittle opened minded :p
We kinda went over something like this in one of my classes a few months back, on how the media shows us what they or the government wants us to see. It's like we're so consumed with what's going on here in the states that we don't notice other countries. Because if we did there would be riots and some whole other crap.
The teacher showed us this video called "Control room" *ya'll should check it out when ya have a chance* and a lot of the students were shocked too see how bad things really were. They didn't know about children being blown up, or any of that crap. And these are the kind of people who watch the news faithfully.
But honestly.. I don't see how one tragedy is different from another.. To me a death is a death, whether it be one or 100..
Post by: Grandy on April 18, 2007, 03:17:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DaetyrnisQuoteOriginally posted by Warxe_PhoenixBlade
On a more serious note, it's quite sad that school shootings in America get more attention than religious massacres in the Middle East.
Religion has always resulted in extremists either killing others or telling other people to kill others. It's nothing new.
Places of learning, however, have not always resulted in death.[/B]
You have obviously never been to Brasil. Shooting in schools is something we hear almost daily over here. (Not in my school, mind you, but a really ****ing big number of schools.) It's so usual nobody even cares anymore, or at least not as much as they should.
As for religion, yeah, right, it has been there for long, okay. But, surprise and shick, it being more common doesn't make it any better. "Extremists are killing each other again? Whatever, we seen this before. It's not like it's something important anymore, just a few dozens of people."
I know you probally didn't mean it, but that's what I understood. Frankly, in majority, americans remind me of Weird Al's 'Why does this Always Happen to Me':
I was watching my TV one night when they broke in with a special report
About some devistating earthquake in Peru
There were thirty thousand crushed to death, even more were buried alive
On the Richter scale it measured 8.2
And I said, "God, please answer me one question?"
"Why'd they have to interrupt 'The Simpsons' just for this?"
What a drag, 'cause I was taping it and everything
And now I'll have to wait for the rerun to see the part of the show I missed
There are exceptions, of course, but still...
Post by: Dragonium on April 18, 2007, 04:03:35 PM
I have to say, though I'm biased, that from what I can see there is a lot of Xenophobia in America from a lot of people. Like Mid said, the media plays a big part in it. People have come to associate foreigners with shocking or tragic events.
Post by: Meiscool-2 on April 18, 2007, 06:56:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by ZeroKirbyXQuoteOriginally posted by Omega WeaponQuoteOn a more serious note, it's quite sad that school shootings in America get more attention than religious massacres in the Middle East.Unfortunately, that's the way the world turns. They get more attention because Americans care more about Americans than Middle Easterners. There's nothing shocking or especially malicious about it. It's about ratings, and it's completely understandable.
Only if someone where to say "OMG, these DEATHS are so horrible, things need to *******, would there be room for criticism. It's just a tragedy and nothing more.QuoteOriginally posted by MeiscoolStupidiest response of the month.QuoteOriginally posted by Warxe_PhoenixBlade
On a more serious note, it's quite sad that school shootings in America get more attention than religious massacres in the Middle East.
Stupidest post of the month.
Bravo. :jumpin: [/B]
Bravo. :jumpin:[/B]
Stupidiest response of the month.
Bravo. :jumpin:
...What, all the cool kids were doin it.[/B]
XD!!
Post by: SaiKar on April 18, 2007, 08:56:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dragonium
Also to add to Moose's point, on average there are around 10,000 gun-related incidents in Britain per year, while in America there are around 30,000.
United States population: 301,750,000
Britian population: 60,209,500
(data from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population) )
Assuming your 10k/30k numbers are accurate, at five times the population, the US has only three times the gun-related incidents. Conclusion: we're not the violent ones, you are. :p
Post by: A Forgotten Legend on April 18, 2007, 09:06:35 PM
Homicides (non-firearm and firearm homicides) by country
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2000[3]
Country ↓ Non-firearm homicide rate
per 100,000 pop. ↓ Firearm homicide rate
per 100,000 pop. ↓ % homicides with firearms ↓ Overall homicide rate
per 100,000 pop. ↓
South Africa 51.3901 74.5748 59.2028 125.9650
Colombia 62.7400 51.7683 45.2092 114.5083
Thailand 8.4679 33.0016 79.5805 41.4695
Guatemala 25.4737 18.5000 42.0706 43.9737
Paraguay 12.0451 7.3508 37.8987 19.3959
Zimbabwe 7.2381 4.7460 39.6026 11.9841
Mexico 14.1112 3.6622 20.6051 17.7735
United States 5.5000 3.6000 39.5604 9.1000
Belarus 10.1300 3.3100 24.6280 13.4400
Barbados 7.4906 2.9963 28.5714 10.4869
Uruguay 4.6149 2.5172 35.2941 7.1321
Lithuania 10.0135 2.2463 18.3223 12.2598
Slovakia 2.6473 2.1659 45.0000 4.8132
Côte d'Ivoire 4.0688 2.0680 33.6982 6.1367
Estonia 10.4456 1.5340 12.8049 11.9795
Macedonia, FYR 2.3141 1.2802 35.6164 3.5943
Latvia 10.0337 1.2648 11.1940 11.2985
Portugal 2.4788 0.8488 25.3776 3.3100
Bulgaria 4.0652 0.7714 15.9494 4.8366
Slovenia 1.8109 0.6036 25.0000 2.4145
Germany 1.1679 0.4672 28.5714 1.6350
Moldova, Republic of 8.1270 0.4671 5.4348 8.5941
Hungary 2.0500 0.4400 17.6707 2.4900
Poland 5.6072 0.4289 7.1062 6.0362
Ukraine 8.9253 0.3495 3.7682 9.2747
Australia 1.5729 0.3073 16.3435 1.8802
Czech Republic 1.6893 0.2624 13.4432 1.9517
Spain 1.2506 0.2456 16.4129 1.4962
Azerbaijan 2.8078 0.2236 7.3770 3.0314
New Zealand 1.1747 0.1827 13.4615 1.3574
Chile 1.5461 0.1776 10.3053 1.7237
Singapore 0.9209 0.0249 2.6316 0.9457
hold on.. that didn't work... SCREENSHOT TIME!!!!!
Post by: A Forgotten Legend on April 18, 2007, 09:12:55 PM
Levels of gun violence vary greatly across the world, with very high rates in South Africa and Colombia, as well as high levels in Thailand, Guatemala, and some other developing countries. Levels of gun violence are low in Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, and many other countries.
EDIT: I just realized that Great Britain isn't on here, and that i messed up when taking the bottom half's screenshot. you see some countries twice, sorry... I'll try and find Great Britain's numbers...
I couldn't find the numbers, but here is something from an article here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21/205139.shtml)
"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes.
Another "common practice," according to one retired Scotland Yard senior officer, is "falsifying clear-up rates by gaining false confessions from criminals already in prison." (Britain has far fewer protections against abusive police interrogations than does the United States.) As a result, thousands of crimes in Great Britain have been "solved" by bribing or coercing prisoners to confess to crimes they never committed.
Post by: Razor on April 18, 2007, 10:03:04 PM
How many of you even heard about that?
Post by: Meiscool-2 on April 18, 2007, 10:46:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Razor
over 200 people died due to some carbombings in Baghdad today/last night.
How many of you even heard about that?
Yeah... you just made that up.
I googled it to make sure.
Post by: A Forgotten Legend on April 18, 2007, 10:47:47 PM
Post by: aboutasoandthis on April 18, 2007, 11:16:18 PM
Quote
over 200 people died due to some carbombings in Baghdad today/last night.
How many of you even heard about that?
178. I'm reading the story right now.
Make that 183...
Post by: Razor on April 19, 2007, 08:13:47 AM
Oh news, why do you lie?
Post by: HackersTotalMassLaser on April 19, 2007, 06:04:39 PM
They've lied to me too. Specially G4 TV. Fanking wankers.
Post by: Meiscool-2 on April 19, 2007, 06:44:43 PM
When the Trade Centers fell they instantly told us "Over 6000 deaths have been accounted for.." when the actually total was quite a bit less than that.
Post by: Dragonium on April 19, 2007, 06:53:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SaiKarQuoteOriginally posted by Dragonium
Also to add to Moose's point, on average there are around 10,000 gun-related incidents in Britain per year, while in America there are around 30,000.
United States population: 301,750,000
Britian population: 60,209,500
(data from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population) )
Assuming your 10k/30k numbers are accurate, at five times the population, the US has only three times the gun-related incidents. Conclusion: we're not the violent ones, you are. :p [/B]
Oh, damn, I can't compete with Wikipedia. :p
I dunno if my numbers are accurate, I just Googled and took information from random sites. You're probably right though. But still, if there ever is a gun crime here, the person who did it is usually arrested right away. People here aren't used to guns being around so a gun crime is a pretty big deal.
Also, AFL, that source looks odd to me. While I don't doubt it's genuine, I've just never heard anything like that. I'll do some research.
I also find it bizarre that if three men in Britain kill a woman, they get away because the main witness is dead, but if three men in America kill a woman, they are magically caught, found guilty despite the main witness being dead, and sent to prison, and it counts as a three-person homicide. How does that work?
EDIT: Actually, after reading that source properly, I do doubt it. Partially because it's an American source, and I've been unable to find a similar report on BBC News anywhere. If anything like that got out, the presses over here would be the first to jump all over it. Don't talk about screening, people over here'll print anything.
Post by: HackersTotalMassLaser on April 19, 2007, 07:22:34 PM
I "think" this is just ratio work.
Post by: Razor on April 20, 2007, 12:02:26 AM
Because I was thinking about posting a comment on how I'm not sure whether or not "more violent" should relate to percentages.
Post by: A Forgotten Legend on April 20, 2007, 12:12:53 AM
i have that all the time. sometimes the event doesn't happen a whole year maybe even two years later. *remembers one from 2nd grade*
Post by: sdm42393 on April 20, 2007, 12:13:15 AM
-Steve :yell:
Post by: Osmose on April 20, 2007, 12:55:24 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dragonium
But still, if there ever is a gun crime here, the person who did it is usually arrested right away. People here aren't used to guns being around so a gun crime is a pretty big deal.
I'm fairly sure if someone shoots someone else and we know who it is, we'll arrest them right away too.
Also, most Americans aren't used to guns either. You act as if you get a gun for graduating high school or something. :P
Post by: Dragonium on April 20, 2007, 02:56:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by OsmoseQuoteOriginally posted by Dragonium
But still, if there ever is a gun crime here, the person who did it is usually arrested right away. People here aren't used to guns being around so a gun crime is a pretty big deal.
I'm fairly sure if someone shoots someone else and we know who it is, we'll arrest them right away too.
Also, most Americans aren't used to guns either. You act as if you get a gun for graduating high school or something. :P[/B]
Yeah, but you're guns are legal (Providing you have a licence and stuff of course). Over here guns are a 100% no-no. :P
Also, if this situation is anything to go by, getting a gun for graduating high school is probably a good idea. :D
Post by: drenrin2120 on April 24, 2007, 02:06:31 PM
So yeah, there's some truth to the idea of local incidents affecting people more than incidents farther away, but that's not saying I wasn't affected at all by the VA incident. Just a personal observation.
Post by: Ben on April 24, 2007, 02:23:55 PM
But the whole "war victims getting killed while begging for handouts" gets overlooked, because its "justified"
Maybe if everyone wasn't so apathetic, things like this could be avoided.
Post by: drenrin2120 on April 24, 2007, 03:37:05 PM
Though I'm not saying that's how it is for everyone, just another observation/hypothesis. But if there's one thing that affects me that's far away, it's the war in Iraq. I can't stand the War in Iraq, it makes me sick because every goddamn day there's car bombs or some kid strapped with dynamite blowing himself up in a market place, soldiers shot and blown up, families torn up, civil war, the whole goddamn thing. And you always hear it on the news, there's always something about it on the news, every day.
And yeah, I know there's other situations going on throughout the world that are just as if not, more disturbing than the Iraq War, but that ones irks me bad.
Post by: Ben on April 24, 2007, 03:57:03 PM
The war on Iraq effects you because thats what the media wants you to be affected by. Spoon fed opinions.
But thats just my view. Dont take it to heart
Post by: Dragonium on April 24, 2007, 05:02:34 PM
Everything is sugar-coated and screened so that people get these opinions into their heads that the people our soldiers are killing are the spawn of Satan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse
I mean, who remembers this? Everyone was so horrified when this got out because they were so shocked that our "hero" soldiers could get up to such a thing.
Post by: Cosmos on April 24, 2007, 05:47:20 PM
Post by: Ben on April 24, 2007, 05:58:41 PM
Ive tattooed aloty of dudes that "just finished their training before heading to 9insert wartorn nation here0 and wanted a tattoo)
A tattooist is like a barber. I hear all kinds of stuff.
The young soldiers dont talk so much, but the old guys will tell you everything if you are friends with them.
'our' soldiers are not heroes. They follow orders, and the orders are some of the most vile, contemptuous stories Ive ever heard. Listening to a guy talk about having to shoot children short range for simply approaching a soldier at "the wrong time' whilst kkeeping a calm, cold face, and expressing "I would have gone to the brig if I didnt."
Makes you rethink the media.
Anyways....yeah I was told some really eye opening stuff.
Post by: HackersTotalMassLaser on April 24, 2007, 06:06:00 PM
Going back to the location thing; we are humans also; we are bound to care for things closer to us (physicly and emotionally) than further away. I do bet someone can care more for his/her dog that got shot that the shootout there was on a gas station across the city. We prioritize things.
On another different note, Thompson had already put this one under blame of video games hours later after the shootings, but as media has it, they did not find any video game's on the shooter's room. And his roomate says that he never saw the shooter play a single video game.
Post by: Revolution911 on April 24, 2007, 07:44:25 PM
Post by: Cosmos on April 24, 2007, 07:52:30 PM
Post by: aboutasoandthis on April 24, 2007, 08:57:04 PM
Quote
Dude needed help, mental help.. the signs were there, but noone did anything.
They actually did do something. His English teacher especially tried to send him to the police, counseling, and to a psychiatrist.
I'm wondering how this kid got into college. I've read this guy's plays. It's not that they were violent, it was that they did not have a point.
In both there was a punk kid, without a personality, who was 16-17. There was a fat guy who tried to help the kid. The kid kills the fat guy, or provokes the guy to kill him back.
His plays had no themes, no characterization, no nothin. They were pieces of ****.
I'm wondering how this guy had a girlfriend...
Post by: ZeroKirbyX on April 24, 2007, 10:44:13 PM
You guys best watch out. I'm a killaz.
Post by: HackersTotalMassLaser on April 24, 2007, 10:56:28 PM
That he made that girlfriend up (i mean the girl existed, but there was never a relationship), among other imaginary girlfriends. He revealed this when he was drunk in the dorms with the roomates.
Post by: Cosmos on April 25, 2007, 10:24:01 AM
Post by: j_master on April 25, 2007, 10:53:33 AM
End of story
Post by: Blue_Strife on April 25, 2007, 02:15:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by j_master
Guns are bad!
End of story
Guns are not all bad, though they all are made to cause physical/bodily harm, they can be used for self-protection.
Inherently, they're bad, but in the end, it depends on the person who uses them.
Then again, the same could be said for a weapon of any kind, possibly. Who knows.
Post by: Dragonium on April 25, 2007, 02:30:40 PM
I read somewhere that the guy had bought a different gun to the one he used, but didn't use it. And the gun shop owner said he was a "clean-cut college kid". I doubt that any gun shop owner would get suspicious of someone who seemed perfectly stable.
My view is that it could have been prevented, but only if people had been watching this guy's every move like a hawk from day one.
EDIT: Lol Gem, same time post and same subject matter.
We are totally telepathetic or something.
Post by: Ben on April 25, 2007, 02:30:52 PM
Like when you live on an acreage. And Coyotes are going to eat your Pet dog. And your First born child runs out to save the dog. And then the coyotes get the Idea to eat Man-Veal.
Then you'd best have a gun.
Guns are sortof a tool, really. A tool that happens to work quite effectivly as a weapon.
I use Nail and Bolt Guns all the time at work. Im sure I could kill somebody with one. I just dont. Because Im not an idiot.
And those guns keep your damned walls from slipping out of place over years of seasonal structure expansion and contraction.
Guns aren't bad. They keep your house standing up. Neat. :guns:
Post by: Kinslayer on April 25, 2007, 04:15:09 PM
Is that what you want?!
The King of England...?!
Post by: HackersTotalMassLaser on April 25, 2007, 08:18:56 PM
What are guns meant to be for? Shoot things. Not in all people, but well, people like shooting at people.
We are hazardous to ourselves. We need judgement. We need futuristic robots to come into our time and set us straight.
Or just better gun laws D:
Even then, we'll still shoot people.
Post by: Dragonium on April 25, 2007, 08:42:44 PM
The only reason people prefer guns is because of convenience. A sword requires effort to swing. Not so with a gun.
Guns are the result of mankind's laziness.
Quote
Originally posted by Kinslayer
Guns 'r good to keep the King of England out of our lands!
Is that what you want?!
The King of England...?!
You know, you'd be surprised how many people today actually whole-heartedly believe that there is still a King of England.
Post by: HackersTotalMassLaser on April 25, 2007, 10:54:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dragonium
Anyone can shoot someone. Swords are better, since they're about skill. If everyone had swords instead of guns, we'd be a lot safer. And wars would be more fun. :D
The only reason people prefer guns is because of convenience. A sword requires effort to swing. Not so with a gun.
Guns are the result of mankind's laziness.
Totally agree with you there. Every damn point.
Post by: ZeroKirbyX on April 25, 2007, 11:09:08 PM
Quote
Anyone can shoot someone. Swords are better, since they're about skill. If everyone had swords instead of guns, we'd be a lot safer. And wars would be more fun.
Bull. If I was to give you a Colt 1911 could you effectively hit a 3inch/cm/whateverthefuck target at 100 yds/decimeter/whateverthefuck? Doubt it. They both require skill, just different types of skills.
Post by: SaiKar on April 26, 2007, 12:24:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dragonium
If everyone had swords instead of guns, we'd be a lot safer. And wars would be more fun. :D
The only reason people prefer guns is because of convenience. A sword requires effort to swing. Not so with a gun.
Guns are the result of mankind's laziness.
It grates me on me a little bit when people romanticize medieval times. A sword may be a more flashy weapon than a gun, but that era was full of nonsenseical and meaningless violence. "Wars would be more fun?" Yeah, there's nothing fun about the guy who owns your land saying you need to go fight in his honor for years at a time. Medival wars were slow, in part because it DID take longer to fight with swords and the general level of technology they had back then.
And guns may be the result of manking's laziness, but so was the indstrial revolution. And electricity, not needing to rely on oil and lamps. And the internet, lightspeed communication anywhere in the world. Being able to do stuff faster is the driving force of almost all progress. Welcome to the future.
Me says, if you like medival weapons, that's cool. Everyone has their passions. Make training, reenactments, or collecting a hobby. But don't try to use it to impose some sort of whack nostalgia on the present.
Quote
You know, you'd be surprised how many people today actually whole-heartedly believe that there is still a King of England.
The king is dead. LONG LIVE THE KING!
Post by: Meiscool-2 on April 26, 2007, 12:33:48 AM
It's natural for gamers to like weapons they see in games in actual reality... but still, that's a generally stupid comment.
Plus, has anyone here actually taken swordsmenship? I think oooog said he did, and I've taken fencing, but other than that, your "Press X" hardly qualifies as a skill.
Not saying you would be the one fighting of course.
Post by: Ben on April 26, 2007, 12:44:04 AM
Aiming takes skill.
Sword wars are bloodier.
Sword wars were way more brutal than gun wars. Guns are just more efficient. Its not that were lazy. Its that we dont want to get decapitated.
Its efficiency.
yeah, its easy to sit and cut apart guns and theoir effects, but the truth is, If guns never came along...the world would be alot more of a violent place. Police get sweet guns. They keep peoiple from coming into your house and taking your stuff and Raping your daughter
Post by: ZeroKirbyX on April 26, 2007, 12:55:18 AM
Post by: Ben on April 26, 2007, 12:58:25 AM
Post by: Kinslayer on April 26, 2007, 01:13:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DragoniumQuoteOriginally posted by Kinslayer
Guns 'r good to keep the King of England out of our lands!
Is that what you want?!
The King of England...?!
You know, you'd be surprised how many people today actually whole-heartedly believe that there is still a King of England.[/B]
NAAAAAAAAAAH I seriously hope it was a random joke like mine. If not I'll be even more dissapointed of people.
Post by: Revolution911 on April 26, 2007, 01:15:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dragonium
Anyone can shoot someone. Swords are better, since they're about skill. If everyone had swords instead of guns, we'd be a lot safer. And wars would be more fun. :D
The only reason people prefer guns is because of convenience. A sword requires effort to swing. Not so with a gun.
Guns are the result of mankind's laziness.QuoteOriginally posted by Kinslayer
Guns 'r good to keep the King of England out of our lands!
Is that what you want?!
The King of England...?!
You know, you'd be surprised how many people today actually whole-heartedly believe that there is still a King of England.[/B]
OH YEAH HOLD ON LEMME GET MY SWORD SO I CAN GO FIGHT IN IRAQ.
Post by: Ben on April 26, 2007, 01:26:20 AM
UNDER EQUIPPED
Post by: drenrin2120 on April 26, 2007, 01:28:07 AM
Yeah, guns are definitely more efficient, but I do believe it's also in part to humans being 'lazy'.
Post by: ZeroKirbyX on April 26, 2007, 01:43:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by drenrin2120
Dying by the blade of a sword is, I'd imagine, way more brutal and just out-right disturbing then a gun shot to the head. And half the time you didn't die instantly, you'd be ripped open at the stomach or mortally wounded elsewhere, unable to move on the ground, then trampled on by both foe and allie. If you were lucky, maybe you'd get stabbed through the head, heart or major artery.
Yeah, guns are definitely more efficient, but I do believe it's also in part to humans being 'lazy'.
Yep. Especially when they had armor, any attack wouldn't ever kill you, just **** you up so you could either drown in the mud or be crushed under corpses.
Post by: drenrin2120 on April 26, 2007, 01:53:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by ZeroKirbyXQuoteOriginally posted by drenrin2120
Dying by the blade of a sword is, I'd imagine, way more brutal and just out-right disturbing then a gun shot to the head. And half the time you didn't die instantly, you'd be ripped open at the stomach or mortally wounded elsewhere, unable to move on the ground, then trampled on by both foe and allie. If you were lucky, maybe you'd get stabbed through the head, heart or major artery.
Yeah, guns are definitely more efficient, but I do believe it's also in part to humans being 'lazy'.
Yep. Especially when they had armor, any attack wouldn't ever kill you, just **** you up so you could either drown in the mud or be crushed under corpses.[/B]
*Infomercial acting voice*
Wow, drag was right! Sounds like one gosh darn good time!
Post by: HackersTotalMassLaser on April 26, 2007, 02:12:58 AM
I wonder if there where ever "School Slashings" in medeval times. Or Macings.
Though I understand schools where a bleak thing back then. Children were more disciplined than schooled. Though from the same tree, they're are both different branches.
Quote
yeah, its easy to sit and cut apart guns and theoir effects, but the truth is, If guns never came along...the world would be alot more of a violent place. Police get sweet guns. They keep people from coming into your house and taking your stuff and Raping your daughter
That still happens in parts of the world. Mainly because the police were too busy eating dunkin' donuts.
Guns are more efficient and faster in killing than swords. I thought it was more obvious.
Post by: Ben on April 26, 2007, 02:44:26 AM
Post by: Meiscool-2 on April 26, 2007, 03:25:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by drenrin2120QuoteOriginally posted by ZeroKirbyXQuoteOriginally posted by drenrin2120
Dying by the blade of a sword is, I'd imagine, way more brutal and just out-right disturbing then a gun shot to the head. And half the time you didn't die instantly, you'd be ripped open at the stomach or mortally wounded elsewhere, unable to move on the ground, then trampled on by both foe and allie. If you were lucky, maybe you'd get stabbed through the head, heart or major artery.
Yeah, guns are definitely more efficient, but I do believe it's also in part to humans being 'lazy'.
Yep. Especially when they had armor, any attack wouldn't ever kill you, just **** you up so you could either drown in the mud or be crushed under corpses.[/B]
*Infomercial acting voice*
Wow, drag was right! Sounds like one gosh darn good time![/B]
Speaking of infomercials, anyone ever see those male enhacement commercials?
They state that men with larger items have more cofinadence and esteem.
I guess that's why they're a little "cocky", amirite?
Post by: Ben on April 26, 2007, 03:39:02 AM
Post by: HackersTotalMassLaser on April 26, 2007, 06:06:17 AM
Post by: j_master on April 26, 2007, 08:42:56 AM
Maybe just police and stuff.
hmmmm... swords?
imagine police standing at a buildings entrance with swords in their hands!
A sword isnt gonna stop a suicide bomber, is it?
Post by: Blue_Strife on April 26, 2007, 01:26:01 PM
There ARE corrupt officials, you know.
Post by: Dragonium on April 26, 2007, 04:13:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SaiKar
It grates me on me a little bit when people romanticize medieval times. A sword may be a more flashy weapon than a gun, but that era was full of nonsenseical and meaningless violence. "Wars would be more fun?" Yeah, there's nothing fun about the guy who owns your land saying you need to go fight in his honor for years at a time. Medival wars were slow, in part because it DID take longer to fight with swords and the general level of technology they had back then.
And guns may be the result of manking's laziness, but so was the indstrial revolution. And electricity, not needing to rely on oil and lamps. And the internet, lightspeed communication anywhere in the world. Being able to do stuff faster is the driving force of almost all progress. Welcome to the future.
Me says, if you like medival weapons, that's cool. Everyone has their passions. Make training, reenactments, or collecting a hobby. But don't try to use it to impose some sort of whack nostalgia on the present.
Certainly I agree that swords and their ilk are romanticised. But so are guns. When was the last time you saw a rap video where everyone was toting swords?
Also, I have taken part in a few reenactments. There's a group who work near to me, a voluntary thing, that reenact battles that happened in our area of the country. It's quite fun really. Of course your argument will be "it wouldn't have been fun if it was real", so I'll just save you the trouble by saying: okay.
I'll agree that I do have a passion for that sort of thing. Wars aren't supposed to be "fun", I know (Which was why I implied with my ":D" that that comment was actually a "joke"). But I dislike modern weaponry for all it's worth, and I prefer to speak my mind than go along with everyone else. So hush.
Quote
Originally posted by drenrin2120
Dying by the blade of a sword is, I'd imagine, way more brutal and just out-right disturbing then a gun shot to the head. And half the time you didn't die instantly, you'd be ripped open at the stomach or mortally wounded elsewhere, unable to move on the ground, then trampled on by both foe and allie. If you were lucky, maybe you'd get stabbed through the head, heart or major artery.
Probably just person opinion, but I'd prefer that than being shot from some ridiculous distance away by some "gangsta" who thinks that now he's "busted" me his "crew" will think he's a "playa".
I also don't particularly think that modern weapons are that much more humane. A bullet to the head will still destroy most (or at least a sizeable chunk) of the brain on impact. With a powerful weapon the skull shatters. Then we have the modern fragmentation grenade - if the flying shrapnel doesn't kill you the explosion causes a "ballooning effect" or something like that which causes the blood vessels in the victim's body to burst.
I'd rather be stabbed to be honest.
So yeah. I like swords and think they're better. No need for everyone to get all period-y about it. Especially you Meis, you big female.
EDIT: Lol, wall of text.
Also, this is fairly irrelevant, but I thought I'd bring it up. This is Thermobaric weapons, the latest weapons the military are developing.
Quote
"Thermobaric" roughly means "heat and pressure", which is exactly what it creates. In short, the explosion creates a cloud of highly explosive gas, and then ignites it with a second charge. This creates a large fireball which, after being ignited, keeps growing, and produces a lot of heat and pressure, thus burning and crushing everything engulfed by the fireball. This is quite often lethal to anyone within the fireball's large range. Once the fireball has burned up all its fuel, it suddenly contracts. This creates a vacuum. Anyone who, by some good fortune, is still alive when this happens, will have the air sucked from their lungs, or, in some cases, will have their lungs ripped right out of their mouth.
So yeah. In my opinion, modern weapons aren't really much more humane than our old ones.
Post by: HackersTotalMassLaser on April 26, 2007, 05:37:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by j_master
imagine police standing at a buildings entrance with swords in their hands!
A sword isnt gonna stop a suicide bomber, is it?
I don't think you understood the whole swords thing. Nobody said guns should be replaced. It is obvious that by today standard's we must use the latest in order to defend, or likewise, kill, with more ease.
Quote
Probably just person opinion, but I'd prefer that than being shot from some ridiculous distance away by some "gangsta" who thinks that now he's "busted" me his "crew" will think he's a "playa"
XD yeah, think about it; at least with a sword you'll have a fighting chance. Though playa doesn't mean bustin caps on someone's crew, that's something else.
As far as "With guns you wont have much of a mess." it can be true to a point but I have personally seen what a shotgun can do to a head. it is not a tidy site. Neither are bombs, or granades, or landmines. You know with the whole severe limbs and bloody guts flying everywhere. Sure the person might not feel tha pain, but you'll hurl at the site of it.
Indeed, you can be lucky by getting one single shot in a vital spot by a handgun and dies instantly, but there are other more explosive firearms out there that would sure leave a good mess. And those are accesible as well. And this is on the argument of swords being more brutal than guns.
Post by: Moosetroop11 on April 26, 2007, 06:03:23 PM
Post by: Meiscool-2 on April 26, 2007, 07:54:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dragonium
I'm such a dumbass.
No... no... no....
We are comparing a sword to a gun, not a naplam implosion to a sword.
Aside from that, killing something in a humane way is considered: "A quick, or painless, death usually resulting from a toxin injected into the blood system or a blow to the head."
A gun to the head will cause less pain than a sword to the head, seeing as bullets have less radius and travel faster. A gun to the lung will cause a same speed but less painful death than a blade to the lung. An explosion that tears your body apart will cause less pain and be quicker than a blade hitting you multiple times to tear your body apart.
Also, not only is there the initial strike of the sword that causes more pain than a bullet, but the fact that the sword generally has to be pulled out of you (as most melee weapons don't have the power to litterally cleave a person without getting stuck on something midway), also causes pain.
There is no way to say that a sword is more humane than a gun. Saying such is stating a buzzaw is also more humane than a gun. And if there were a way, it would be responcible for the bullet being made of something toxic to the body (such as lead), rather than the actual propolsion of the bullet.
Post by: Dragonium on April 26, 2007, 08:20:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Meiscool
We are comparing a sword to a gun, not a naplam implosion to a sword.
I apologise Meis. I completely understand how Thermobaric weapon could be misread as napalm implosion.
Quote
Originally posted by Meiscool
Aside from that, killing something in a humane way is considered: "A quick, or painless, death usually resulting from a toxin injected into the blood system or a blow to the head."
A bullet in the skull doesn't count as a blow to the head, Meis.
Besides, regarding the injection thing:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=68867
Quote
Originally posted by Meisfool
A gun to the head will cause less pain than a sword to the head, seeing as bullets have less radius and travel faster. A gun to the lung will cause a same speed but less painful death than a blade to the lung. An explosion that tears your body apart will cause less pain and be quicker than a blade hitting you multiple times to tear your body apart.
If I were to choose how I would rather die, I'd still go with the sword option. I'd prefer to be found dead with multiple stabwounds than found dead with half my head missing.
Quote
Originally posted by Meistool
Various other points which are pretty much obvious and as such will be ignored be Dragonium.
Yeah.
Quote
Originally posted by Meisgay
There is no way to say that a sword is more humane than a gun. Saying such is stating a buzzaw is also more humane than a gun.
I never implicitly said a sword was more humane than a gun. I simply said modern weapons aren't as humane as we say. People have survived with a bullet lodged into their brain, but have been pretty much hospitalized for life by it. If you aim for another vital organ, there's the chance you'll miss.
I'd say more, but arguing with you is pointless. It's like explaining A-Level Biology to a duck.
Post by: Revolution911 on April 26, 2007, 09:15:10 PM
I dont like how you make everything with a sword sound so simple and clean. I also dont like how you try to use some type of gang shooting you as a negative toward a gun. As if there weren't any thieves or thugs in sword eras. And yeah, a bullet to the head will blow up your brain, but a sword to the head will ****ing CUT IT IN HALF
Edit: I'm not angry or nothing, so dont get it all...twisted and whatnot.
Post by: HackersTotalMassLaser on April 26, 2007, 09:16:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dragonium
I'd say more, but arguing with you is pointless. It's like explaining A-Level Biology to a duck.
lol the duck will just keep on quacking pointlessly.
Well, more on the thread's point... I am still wondering how he managed to kill 32 people with two handguns in one room. He HAD to reload at some point.
Post by: SaiKar on April 26, 2007, 09:40:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dragonium
Meistool
I lol'd
Post by: Osmose on April 26, 2007, 09:41:15 PM
Post by: ZeroKirbyX on April 26, 2007, 10:54:50 PM
Coilguns ftw.
Post by: Razor on April 26, 2007, 11:18:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by HackersTotalMassLaserQuoteProbably just person opinion, but I'd prefer that than being shot from some ridiculous distance away by some "gangsta" who thinks that now he's "busted" me his "crew" will think he's a "playa"
XD yeah, think about it; at least with a sword you'll have a fighting chance. Though playa doesn't mean bustin caps on someone's crew, that's something else.
...why would you point that out? He was taking the p
iss. No one actually cares.
Post by: Meiscool-2 on April 27, 2007, 02:53:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DragoniumQuoteOriginally posted by Meiscool
We are comparing a sword to a gun, not a naplam implosion to a sword.
I apologise Meis. I completely understand how Thermobaric weapon could be misread as napalm implosion.[/B]
OH SH*T. I used an anology to compare something to another like object. I'm such a dumb****. You own dear sir.
Quote
Originally posted by DragoniumQuoteOriginally posted by Meiscool
Aside from that, killing something in a humane way is considered: "A quick, or painless, death usually resulting from a toxin injected into the blood system or a blow to the head."
A bullet in the skull doesn't count as a blow to the head, Meis.[/B]
Do tell me what that justifies as being then. You yourself state that you're comparing modern weaponary to those of the romantic period. Tell me what kind of modern anti-personal (meaning most current and up to date) gun couldn't pierce the skull?
Quote
Originally posted by DragoniumQuoteOriginally posted by Meiscool
A gun to the head will cause less pain than a sword to the head, seeing as bullets have less radius and travel faster. A gun to the lung will cause a same speed but less painful death than a blade to the lung. An explosion that tears your body apart will cause less pain and be quicker than a blade hitting you multiple times to tear your body apart.
If I were to choose how I would rather die, I'd still go with the sword option. I'd prefer to be found dead with multiple stabwounds than found dead with half my head missing.[/B]
That's special. However, how you would choose your death is irrevelant to how humane death by gun/sword is.
Quote
Originally posted by DragoniumQuoteOriginally posted by Meiscool
There is no way to say that a sword is more humane than a gun. Saying such is stating a buzzaw is also more humane than a gun.
People have survived with a bullet lodged into their brain, but have been pretty much hospitalized for life by it. If you aim for another vital organ, there's the chance you'll miss.[/B]
That is yet another retarded point to make. Arrows had a chance of missing. Sword stabs have a chance of missing. All weapon strikes have chances of missing vital areas. Also, such misses are less clean and more jagged than a gunshot, so guess which wound would cause more pain, and guess which wound people would have a higher percent chance of recovering from.
Also, guns are responcible for fewer brain failures than blunt force trauma caused by, duh hoi, hand to hand objects used as a weapon. I just felt that this should be noted, seeing as you found it a noteable point to say that: sometimes bullets don't kill, they just hospitalize you.
Quote
Originally posted by Dragonium
I'd say more, but arguing with you is pointless. It's like explaining A-Level Biology to a duck.
God damn! Your clever insults never end.
Post by: Ben on April 27, 2007, 03:05:49 AM
Post by: Meiscool-2 on April 27, 2007, 03:08:29 AM
Post by: Ben on April 27, 2007, 03:16:49 AM
I Still love you.
I love you both. It tears me apart to see you fight.
Post by: Daetyrnis on April 27, 2007, 03:22:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Moosetroop11
"Oh, that's how it feels to get killed by a medieval sword in the gut whilst falling out of an airship strapped to an atom bomb with a mouth full of cement whilst recieving a lapdance from a russian informant."
Pure win.