[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Fact is a gun that isn't present can't kill anyone. Pretending that an armed person cannot be disarmed and have their own weapon used against them is lunacy.

What an ass. You realize you're making the argument that the victim was SAFER because no one on the bus had a gun. Moron.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

That's not Bernardo and Homolka. That's Collins and Prepon. This is Bernardo and Homolka:



+1 for a cute way to make a point but -10 for cocking it up.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Fact is a gun that isn't present can't kill anyone. Pretending that an armed person cannot be disarmed and have their own weapon used against them is lunacy.

What an ass. You realize you're making the argument that the victim was SAFER because no one on the bus had a gun. Moron.

Somebody piss in your breakfast today?

You do realize that people are safer when nobody has a gun and even safer still when nobody has a weapon.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Fact is a gun that isn't present can't kill anyone. Pretending that an armed person cannot be disarmed and have their own weapon used against them is lunacy.

What an ass. You realize you're making the argument that the victim was SAFER because no one on the bus had a gun. Moron.

No, I'm simply countering a false perception that only bad guys will ever get hurt if there are more guns around. Nothing more, nothing less.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

What a cowardly response. Please. You're not supposed to do anything because of a bunch of what-ifs? Do you ever even leave your house with this mindset?

What is it with liberals and their precious root causes? I COULD CARE LESS why this guy committed this murder. He's vermin and he needs to be put down and that won't happen in a country where being a g*ddamn serial killer isn't enough to keep you jail.

Grow up.

Why don't you apply your right to bear arms to the rest of the world and recognize their right to live without US interference and get the fuck out of countries you don't belong in. I suppose you don't consider it murder by vermin when innocent women and children die from US cluster bombs do you?

Now go back and read everything before you spout off uninformed BS to see that I agree with the death penalty and the right to defend oneself I simply hold that its not always black and white.

No, you assumed that anyone with a gun, a knife, a club, or a spine intervening in this situation would have had their weapon taken from them by the criminal. You assumed the worst.

All those people on that bus sat on their ass and watched while that kid was brutally murdered. And that's EXACTLY what you recommend they do because, omigosh, something bad might happen if they get involved.

Call it what you want, I call it cowardice.

So far as your telling me to eff off you have NOTHING to back that up with. Nothing. What are you going to do if I and 100,000 Marines march on into Canada to take over? Write a nasty letter to the Globe and Mail? Because if you don't have the nerve to simply recommend that people not just watch when a vicious crime occurs you won't have the stones to put yourself at risk for anything more than that.

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Fact is a gun that isn't present can't kill anyone. Pretending that an armed person cannot be disarmed and have their own weapon used against them is lunacy.

What an ass. You realize you're making the argument that the victim was SAFER because no one on the bus had a gun. Moron.

No, I'm simply countering a false perception that only bad guys will ever get hurt if there are more guns around. Nothing more, nothing less.

There were no guns on that bus. Who was safer because of that?

[Streaker]

LMAO!!

I see that Bart is in full-blown psycho mode again.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

No, you assumed that anyone with a gun, a knife, a club, or a spine intervening in this situation would have had their weapon taken from them by the criminal. You assumed the worst.

All those people on that bus sat on their ass and watched while that kid was brutally murdered. And that's EXACTLY what you recommend they do because, omigosh, something bad might happen if they get involved.

Call it what you want, I call it cowardice.

So far as your telling me to eff off you have NOTHING to back that up with. Nothing. What are you going to do if I and 100,000 Marines march on into Canada to take over? Write a nasty letter to the Globe and Mail? Because if you don't have the nerve to simply recommend that people not just watch when a vicious crime occurs you won't have the stones to put yourself at risk for anything more than that.

Grow up, and do some more reading about what happened. The people didn't do nothing, they protected the rest of themselves who were not being attacked. One guy says he made sure everyone got off the bus, and then three of them held the attacker inside, further protecting those who were so far unharmed, and making it possible for the police to get the guy. They looked out for each other. Just because they didn't actively step in and try to help the poor guy who was being attacked, who they didn't know if he could be saved or not, and not knowing if they'd be dead too, doesn't make them wrong. Some were old. Some were young. Shame on YOU for thinking the worst of these people when they clearly DID ACT, just not in the way you wanted them to.

Link.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Somebody piss in your breakfast today?

Yeah, sorry. Don't mean to unload on you. It's been a day.

$1:

You do realize that people are safer when nobody has a gun and even safer still when nobody has a weapon.

No, Derby, that is simply not true. Prior to the invention of firearms were people safer? No, they were murdered, raped, robbed, and enslaved with far greater frequency than people are today.

People are safer when criminals are not allowed to commit crimes without severe repercussions. The risk of murdering someone in Canada is pretty low. If you get caught then maybe you'll get twenty years for it. Even if you do, some cuddly judge will cut you loose after 7-9 years because jail is just so awful and unfair and it's a violation of your rights as a criminal.

In the case at hand, the argument that the absence of a gun on that bus made anyone safer is hollow as there wasn't a gun on that bus.

[BartSimpson]

Streaker Streaker:

LMAO!!

I see that Bart is in full-blown psycho mode again.

Feel free to come back to CN so I can nuke you again.

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

No, you assumed that anyone with a gun, a knife, a club, or a spine intervening in this situation would have had their weapon taken from them by the criminal. You assumed the worst.

All those people on that bus sat on their ass and watched while that kid was brutally murdered. And that's EXACTLY what you recommend they do because, omigosh, something bad might happen if they get involved.

Call it what you want, I call it cowardice.

So far as your telling me to eff off you have NOTHING to back that up with. Nothing. What are you going to do if I and 100,000 Marines march on into Canada to take over? Write a nasty letter to the Globe and Mail? Because if you don't have the nerve to simply recommend that people not just watch when a vicious crime occurs you won't have the stones to put yourself at risk for anything more than that.

Grow up, and do some more reading about what happened. The people didn't do nothing, they protected the rest of themselves who were not being attacked. One guy says he made sure everyone got off the bus, and then three of them held the attacker inside, further protecting those who were so far unharmed, and making it possible for the police to get the guy. They looked out for each other. Just because they didn't actively step in and try to help the poor guy who was being attacked, who they didn't know if he could be saved or not, and not knowing if they'd be dead too, doesn't make them wrong. Some were old. Some were young. Shame on YOU for thinking the worst of these people when they clearly DID ACT, just not in the way you wanted them to.

Link.

Kitty Genovese.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

What an ass. You realize you're making the argument that the victim was SAFER because no one on the bus had a gun. Moron.

No, I'm simply countering a false perception that only bad guys will ever get hurt if there are more guns around. Nothing more, nothing less.

There were no guns on that bus. Who was safer because of that?

You want a wild, hypothetical scenario? Fine: The stabbing caused pandemonium on the bus. Someone a few rows away pulls their gun and takes aim. Someone uninvolved get up into the line of fire, not seeing the gun as they've been ducking behind the tall seats on a Greyhound (which also obscured them from the gunman), as the gunamn pulls the trigger. Innocent dead, attacker unharmed. Prove this is impossible.

But if nothing else, get this through your thick-ass skull: the absence of a gun did not necessarily make anyone safer, but the presence of a gun would not necessarily have made anyone safer either.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Kitty Genovese.

Didn't happen like most think it did.

[BAT119]

This only points out the need for a long knife registry, if that knife was registered none of this would have happened.

[hurley_108]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

No, Derby, that is simply not true. Prior to the invention of firearms were people safer? No, they were murdered, raped, robbed, and enslaved with far greater frequency than people are today.

Yea, and the earth was cooler when there were more pirates.



Got any other bullshit correlations?