******* Dark Knight

Aha.

I like the attempt of annoyance.

Though no death is still better than death by a shot.

But also no death because of a shot is better than death in general.

Generally I think you shouldn't give death a shot. ajskdddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddds

Yes, no death is better than death.

So what you should do is try to live and survive

Yeah, you're right, at first I was afraid actually and quite petrified. I kinda like kept thinking that I could never live without you by my side. But then, after I spent like so many nights thinking how you did me wrong, I grew strong. And I learned to get along. So yeah.

I like your signature

Thanks. I like your hood.

Darkson wrote:If you had a family member that got shot by a random dude under influence then you would view things a little different maybe.

I know I'm heading towards an opinion now...

But with that point of view you have, it wouldn't matter if e.g. hard drugs were legal too I guess. Everything that applies to the gun topic should apply here too. And to anything else that is (still) illegal actually. No? :|

Actually I have

You don't know about my personal life.

I care about the second amendment even if something unfortunate happens.

Ok, this seems to have got off topic but the point it, no civilian needs a *** assault rifle. there is no reason to ownone. if you sauy he wouldve used another weapon yeah he would have, but no other gun can kill so many people so quick. If he only had a hand gun or assault rifle he couldnt spray it over a crowd, he'd be limited to 8-9 shots and then he'd have to reload and people could get away. End of story.

Extertionist wrote:

Acidic_Cook wrote:Shut happens, mostly because people can do it and reach towards it one reason or another.

Either way, better things could be... Worse things can be.

You're typing like yoda is drunk.

wouldn't drunk yoda talk like everyone else?

it's a tragedy sure but i don't know why people are so surprised i mean it's not like anything else has ever been shot up in Colorado

and if i may... any parents who bring a 4 week old baby and a 6 month old baby to see a movie at 3am deserve to be shot.

Ya no ****; the children need sleep at a young age more than in later ages it seems. Why, did they bring children in the premier as well? That's great.

joeclone wrote:

and if i may... any parents who bring a 4 week old baby and a 6 month old baby to see a movie at 3am deserve to be shot.

I'm sorry but this statement makes my blood boil.

The BABIES were shot. Under no circumstance should a baby be shot. And Yes I know you were talking about the parents but It isn't bad enough for a 4 week old baby to get abandoned because his parents got shot in a movie theater.

Serious_Much wrote:

Also, real guns suck a lot. World would be so much better without killing machines.

without killing machines huh?

yeah this planet would be awesome if there where no humans

you know historically blades have killed many many more people than guns.

swordiris wrote:

joeclone wrote:

and if i may... any parents who bring a 4 week old baby and a 6 month old baby to see a movie at 3am deserve to be shot.

I'm sorry but this statement makes my blood boil.

The BABIES were shot. Under no circumstance should a baby be shot. And Yes I know you were talking about the parents but It isn't bad enough for a 4 week old baby to get abandoned because his parents got shot in a movie theater.

those babies got shot because they have **** parents. they are much better off.

joeclone wrote:

swordiris wrote:

joeclone wrote:

and if i may... any parents who bring a 4 week old baby and a 6 month old baby to see a movie at 3am deserve to be shot.

I'm sorry but this statement makes my blood boil.

The BABIES were shot. Under no circumstance should a baby be shot. And Yes I know you were talking about the parents but It isn't bad enough for a 4 week old baby to get abandoned because his parents got shot in a movie theater.

those babies got shot because they have **** parents. they are much better off.

No they are not better off. Plenty of people come from **** families and live fulfilling lives.

And to say their families are **** is way to harsh.

Bring kid to movie theater does not = baby deserves to get shot in the head.

I mean come on can someone back me up here? NO ONE agrees with this?

and if i may... any parents who bring a 4 week old baby and a 6 month old baby to see a movie at 3am deserve to be shot.

They deserve to be shot ? Who are you to judge in such a radical manner ..

If you would be elected for president ,

I bet you'd get assassinated even before the inauguration , if you would publicly make these kind of statements !

it's really easy to judge someone who would take an infant to a movie at 3 am

come on to judge is okay.. but they def don't deserve to be executed

This is stupid; close the thread, we head towards morals and ethics which is relative and debate about which one is better or superior about parents ethics and infant murders is not exactly the greatest form of debate.

And to defend the parents just a little, they may have brought the children due to a lack of sitters out there, or are just cheap and can't afford it. At least they won't be orphans, but execution of such innocence is not fair, as they are helpless.

Of course, the world is unfair in every way

[youtube][/youtube]WTF? I...ARGH forum messed up my post.

We are not "undoing" dangerous inventions. We are limiting them. War is a human reality; guns should stay there. As I said before, there is no reason why people should be armed in a civilian situation.

Mexican drug gangs have guns due to private arms dealers, whether a person or country. China, Russia and the United States come to mind.

Also, Acidic. Untrained people can also operate crossbows with minimal training; same as guns. It all takes a pull of a trigger.

And sincerely, the Second Amendment sounds just like some of the "sign of commitments" some religions enforce on their believers. It makes sense? Yeah, but only when it was redacted, due to the social and political context.

you know historically blades have killed many many more people than guns.

Ugh, really? I mean, really? Is that even worth an answer?

I agree with Acidic. This thread should be closed; not only are people entitled to their own opinions, there seems to be an astonishing lack of the maturity needed to discuss such a serious topic.

An expert can reload a crossbow in a few seconds, however an untrained person would have to reload it at a longer time; guns have an easier time if reloading, as it is eject, insert, ****. As well, the crossbow requires people to be more built for better use of reloading than a gun (although many guns do require strength, some require just a stable grasp in general).

Just lock this. Everything that will be said has already been said and we're devolving into circuitous arguments and aren't getting anywhere.

In short, http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3oe3nk/

The point is; you only have to pull a trigger to actually fire the crossbow, same as a gun. I know of people who didn't even know about the magazine thing in weapons, even less about how to reload a gun.

Heck, most people use as Call of Duty mechanics as a base for their gun knowledge.

^ You, good sir, rock.