Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

82. Re: Skyrim Versus ThreatFire Aug 13, 2012, 16:54 Beamer
 
Matshock wrote on Aug 13, 2012, 16:41:
Beamer wrote on Aug 13, 2012, 16:35:
Matshock wrote on Aug 13, 2012, 16:14:
Beamer wrote on Aug 13, 2012, 15:00:
Well, guns clearly make it worse. Had the Batman shooter had a hammer instead of a gun with a 200 round magazine there would have been far fewer casualties, and stabbing/hammering someone is certainly more visceral and harder to do than merely pulling a trigger (I'd wager most of these people are too cowardly to do that.)

But yes, it'd still be happening, just with fewer casualties and likely fewer incidents as a whole.



And it's amusing that you're saying religion would solve this. I'm pretty certain there's an area in this world full of religious bombings that would disagree wholly, as well as a few periods of history full of religious inquisitions and crusades that would also disagree.

Holmes had a 100 round magazine that jammed- and they are well known for jamming by anyone that even bothered to read up on the case itself before posting about it.

I'll pretty much guarantee you that the majority of the wounds were caused by the pump-action shotgun and most likely the majority of the deaths as well although that may have been the handgun.

That aside- not likely. If you take away all guns they will find a way to make explosives and use those. And if through decades of pacification you manage to make people afraid of guns and explosives and all violence, they will be that much more docile and easy to kill with knives or hammers by the maladjusted among them.

PS I didn't say "religion would solve this"- reading comprehension fail but we already knew that.

No, but you did say that these people more and more aren't part of the values of most religions. Which would imply that you feel that, if they did buy into the values of most religions, they would not do this.
Did you mean for that to be interpreted in any other way?

Not sure how you think people having guns means they're easier to kill with other means, either. Because we're not afraid of guns we're harder to kill with other weapons?


I didn't say anything like "most religions". I said something very specific.

Your second question has nothing to do with my post about guns either.

Bye.

For the rest of you- that shooting in TX looks like an eviction gone bad, not a mass shooting. In places like Chicago that's called "Monday" and they don't report it in the news.

"Bye?"

Ok. I suppose you mean you're ignoring me. My questions were that bad? I haven't even taken an actual side on this, I'm just questioning on yours. Thin-skin.

You didn't say "most religions," you said "christian and buddhist religions." Not sure why you're splitting the hair here. Do you not want to include Hinduism in that? Or is it some other?

My second question directly relates to your post, too. Direct quote:
. And if through decades of pacification you manage to make people afraid of guns and explosives and all violence, they will be that much more docile and easy to kill with knives or hammers by the maladjusted among them. My second question was asking you to elaborate on that. How can you deny having said it?
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
 
Subject
  
Optional
Message
 
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
 




footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo