Originally posted by Schecter
i said it before (should have won the thread)'oklahoma city bombing:
deaths: 168
culprit: 2 pissed off paranoid rednecks who hated the government.
bullets fired: 0
Why stop there...
9/11
Deaths: 3000 +/-
Culprits: Several pissed off religious nuts armed with box cutters.
Bullets fired: 0
Originally posted by Bardock42
Eclipso got a permanent ban for what he did...which was...far less. [/B]
EDIT
He got a permanent ban for that? Wtf? While its nice (and common decency) to respect peoples wishes especially pertaining to a privacy matter, its not a KMC rule to not be allowed to call people by their name as far as I know and certainly doesn't warrant a permanent ban.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Harder to make a bomb than pull a trigger and easier to dodge a moving car than a bullet.
sorry, but you're pointing out superficial differences to support absolutist and completely baseless assumptions that illegilising guns will fix the problem of serial killers. its complete and utter horseshit. bombs kill exponentially more people so to someone who spends all that time planning and conspiring, not a big deal.
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
He got a permanent ban for that? Wtf? While its nice (and common decency) to respect peoples wishes espicially pretaining to privacy matter, its not a KMC rule to not be allowed to call people by their name as far as I know and certainly doesn't warrant a permanent ban.
Originally posted by Robtard
Why stop there...9/11
Deaths: 3000 +/-
Culprits: Several pissed off religious nuts armed with box cutters.
Bullets fired: 0
i thought of that as well (*before oklahoma city in fact), yet really its irrelevant since although no shots were fired, the resources (time, training, money) likely are not within the range of your average serial killer.
Originally posted by Schecter
i thought of that as well (*before oklahoma city in fact), yet really its irrelevant since although no shots were fired, the resources (time, training, money) likely are not within the range of your average serial killer.
Yours is a far better example no doubt since it took only a few men and resources easily obtained (fertilizer & diesel fuel), I just thought I'd add to it.
Originally posted by Schecter
sorry, but you're pointing out superficial differences to support absolutist and completely baseless assumptions that illegilising guns will fix the problem of serial killers. its complete and utter horseshit. bombs kill exponentially more people so to someone who spends all that time planning and conspiring, not a big deal.
I don't think it'd be possible to ban guns in the U.S now, there are far too many and far too many supporters. I do essentially agree with you, psychopaths will always find a way to create atrocities. Though I do think it needs to be pointed out just how many school shootings there have been, since 1997, all using guns, no bombs or cars.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Enough of this Eclipso talk! Move along....
So we just ignore the fact that he was wrongfully banned? Unless there's something I'm missing in the situation, it wasn't right to permanently ban him for calling someone by his name. While he was being a complete A-hole, he wasn't actually breaking any rules, unless he was in which case correct me, but until then I maintain is was wrong to ban him for something like that.
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
So we just ignore the fact that he was wrongfully banned? Unless there's something I'm missing in the situation, it wasn't right to permanently ban him for calling someone by his name. While he was being a complete A-hole, he wasn't actually breaking any rules, unless he was in which case correct me, but until then I maintain is was wrong to ban him for something like that.
waaaa waaaaa take it to the member banned thread 😬
its funny what eclipso said. in Canada and Europe, guns are illegal, but that doesn't stop gun crime. surely legalizing guns would at last level the playing field 😂
[smartarse]And also, he was breaking a rule. A very important law, infact, that in the UK can result in a fine of up to £500. He was distributing private, security threatening information about someone without consent (infact, expressed inconsent) over the web.[/smartarse]
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I don't think it'd be possible to ban guns in the U.S now, there are far too many and far too many supporters. I do essentially agree with you, psychopaths will always find a way to create atrocities. Though I do think it needs to be pointed out just how many school shootings there have been, since 1997, all using guns, no bombs or cars.
i understand that point. the point i've been making agrees to the idea that guns are most frequently used because they are readily available. the part where most people's deductive seems to end abruptly is the notion that by making guns illegal, the deathtoll from random killings will NOT sink directly proportunate to those who would have been killed by gun fire. in most cases (armed robbery and unrelated crimes such as) i feel it would be true, but not in cases such as this and those deprived of guns will find other means. not 'may find' but 'will find'.
that is why i feel that gun laws have nothing to do with the topic. i feel in the case of killers such as this, the means are irrelevant so long as the ends are met. guns...bombs....fire....poison...etc
Has anyone pointed out that Virgina Tech is a "Gun Free Zone", yet the criminals still find ways to use guns. There have also been school shootings that ended quickly with very few/no deaths simply because a lawful citizen armed with a gun was able to kill or incapacitate the would be assassin. Not saying that all people should carry guns, just that "gun free zones" are not necessarily safe by default.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Guns are banned in the UK....that didn't stop the IRA from killing people.(my two cents)
Do we really want to get into the embarassing territory of British gun crime deaths Vs American gun crime deaths? Legality does play a part in us having dramatically less than you.
I don't understand what Americans think they are defending themselves from that they need the right to bear arms. As if England is in total anarchy, every house getting robbed, just because we don't own guns.
-AC
Originally posted by Robtard
Has anyone pointed out that Virgina Tech is a "Gun Free Zone", yet the criminals still find ways to use guns. There have also been school shootings that ended quickly with very few/no deaths simply because a lawful citizen armed with a gun was able to kill or incapacitate the would be assassin. Not saying that all people should carry guns, just that "gun free zones" are not necessarily safe by default.
as expressed in my point about Canada and Europe.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do we really want to get into the embarassing territory of British gun crime deaths Vs American gun crime deaths? Legality does play a part in us having dramatically less than you.
only if we can pull the embarrassing figures of u.s. bomb related deaths to u.k. bomb related deaths during the years of i.r.a. attacks.