xracerx17 said: sparkedglory said: ...Yes people can kill with fire, knives, cars, etc. but guns are by far the easiest way to kill. Simply saying that other ways to kill can be used is useless. I'm completely with Narmy on this one. Saying that other ways is useless means you are missing the point. There have been more vehicle deaths than gun deaths so far this year and I don't see anyone crying to outlaw cars. To sit there and say that the world would be a far better place without guns is to forget that throughout all of human history violence has existed. That includes knives, sticks, stones, swords, bow and arrows, etc... Banning something for everyone because a few dumb people use it in a bad way isn't going to solve anything. All it will do is give a false sense of comfort ignoring the fact that those that still want to kill will kill. Thanks for completely missing everything. I said that guns are the easiest way to kill. In no way did I say that the world would be better off without guns. Guns should be regulated a lot more in the US. I'll say that. Human violence will always exist, but if we can lessen the amount of violence to a degree then why shouldn't we? Nobody is saying that people will stop killing if we have more gun control, but it more than likely be significantly less. |
xracerx17 said: You need hand eye coordination for all the weapons previously mentioned. Yes guns are the preferred weapon of modern civilization, but to say that some one can't do the same with a sword or bow and arrow isn't an accurate statement. Clumsy or not, someone with motif can kill with any of the mentioned weapons. It is not the weapons fault, but rather the individual. Saying guns are the problem is the same as blaming video games, music, movies, books, and drugs for the actions that people take. What is so wrong with saying it is that persons fault and not placing the blame on something else. It's the person's fault for killing the people, it's the gun's fault for allowing them to do it so easily. Or are you arguing that it would be just as easy to massacre that many people with a knife, sword, or bow? |
 |
| If the weapon doesn't matter then let's give everyone nukes. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Narmy said: Or are you arguing that it would be just as easy to massacre that many people with a knife, sword, or bow? Yeah, only guns hurt people and only places full of guns are dangerous. You figured out the big secret. Oh wait... http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents |
 |
TallonKarrde23 said: Narmy said: Or are you arguing that it would be just as easy to massacre that many people with a knife, sword, or bow? Yeah, only guns hurt people. You figured out the big secret. Oh wait... http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html Again, how many people died? |
|
Narmy said: TallonKarrde23 said: Narmy said: Or are you arguing that it would be just as easy to massacre that many people with a knife, sword, or bow? Yeah, only guns hurt people. You figured out the big secret. Oh wait... http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html Again, how many people died? The same number that could have if this guy didn't shoot so well. A knife is just as lethal as a gun when used right - if not more due to how it effects your important internal organs more than a bullet (made to go THROUGH them not tear them into pieces) would. And what about all the bombings in Europe? How many people have died there? None, by your logic. Afterall, only guns hurt people - not explosions in trains. |
|
TallonKarrde23 said: Narmy said: TallonKarrde23 said: Narmy said: Or are you arguing that it would be just as easy to massacre that many people with a knife, sword, or bow? Yeah, only guns hurt people. You figured out the big secret. Oh wait... http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html Again, how many people died? The same number that could have if this guy didn't shoot so well. A knife is just as lethal as a gun when used right - if not more due to how it effects your important internal organs more than a bullet (made to go THROUGH them not tear them into pieces) would. And what about all the bombings in Europe? How many people have died there? None, by your logic. Afterall, only guns hurt people - not explosions in trains. ...Once again, nobody is arguing that guns are the only way to kill. They are the easiest and most efficient way to kill. Are you going to sit here and tell me that a guy with a knife could kill as many people as a guy with a gun? Are you really going to sit here and say that a knife is more effective than a gun? Really? Don't forget that 0 of those kids in china died, not a one. Plus compare the number of fatal bombings and stabbings to the number of gun deaths. |
| @ Narmy: Are you saying that it is an inanimate objects fault for being used by someone? I think that if someone is sick enough to plan out a tragedy such as the one that occurred today, then yes, they could do it if they planned on it. @sparkedglory: Clearly we are both missing the point. Regardless of how much gun control the world tries to accomplish, there will always be those that do not follow it and will continue to do as they please. Making tighter regulations without a true way to enforce them would ultimately fail. The US Government is constantly going after drug cartels and in the end it is a cat and mouse game because the cartels just change their methods to break the law and get drugs into the country. As long as guns exist people will be able to get their hands on them regardless of the rules placed on them. |
 |
TallonKarrde23 said: The same number that could have if this guy didn't shoot so well. A knife is just as lethal as a gun when used right - if not more due to how it effects your important internal organs more than a bullet (made to go THROUGH them not tear them into pieces) would. Consider this scenario: What if you had a child at this school, and you hear about an incident but you're not sure who died. You wouldn't feel like there's a greater chance of their safety if the guy had a knife instead of a gun? TallonKarrde23 said: And what about all the bombings in Europe? How many people have died there? None, by your logic. Afterall, only guns hurt people - not explosions in trains. I'm not sure what your point is here. I never said that guns are the only thing that kills people, I said they are the most efficient. |
|
Paffendorf said: But is anyone interested in why Americans suddenly like to shoot children the moment they have a gun in their hands? I'm kind of interested in finding out why the fuck people are acting like this. We have a big population and a lot of social issues within the country that cause a lot of mental problems in general society. A very very very small number of those cases lead to disturbed individuals who do shit like this. It's far from commonplace. How many shootings have happened in America in the past year? More than elsewhere - but still a small number. You're basically comparing our shootings to zero rather than anything remotely related, because there's nothing else to compare it with - so it SHOULDNT BE COMPARED at all. The percent of Americans who own guns - and then the percentage of THOSE that kill innocent people randomly is infinitesimal. There's no need for changes in law because this is barely a number that exists. Narmy said: TallonKarrde23 said: And what about all the bombings in Europe? How many people have died there? None, by your logic. Afterall, only guns hurt people - not explosions in trains. I'm not sure what your point is here. I never said that guns are the only thing that kills people, I said they are the most efficient. Pretty sure massive explosions you don't even have to be around for are more efficient. |
|
TallonKarrde23 said: Pretty sure massive explosions you don't even have to be around for are more efficient. Not if you consider the setup, plus the task of obtaining such a bomb. Gun are much easier to obtain, and they don't require any sort of planning. TallonKarrde23 said: The percent of Americans who own guns - and then the percentage of THOSE that kill innocent people randomly is infinitesimal. There's no need for changes in law because this is barely a number that exists. I don't think of people's lives as a statistic. People are dying and that can be prevented, that's the only thing that matters. |
|
xracerx17 said: @ Narmy: Are you saying that it is an inanimate objects fault for being used by someone? I think that if someone is sick enough to plan out a tragedy such as the one that occurred today, then yes, they could do it if they planned on it. @sparkedglory: Clearly we are both missing the point. Regardless of how much gun control the world tries to accomplish, there will always be those that do not follow it and will continue to do as they please. Making tighter regulations without a true way to enforce them would ultimately fail. The US Government is constantly going after drug cartels and in the end it is a cat and mouse game because the cartels just change their methods to break the law and get drugs into the country. As long as guns exist people will be able to get their hands on them regardless of the rules placed on them. No, you're missing what I'm saying completely. Yes, there will always be people who harm others, but I'm saying that there could be less gun related killings if we had better control. The US has more guns per capita than pretty much any other modern country, and MUCH more gun crime. If we can make it harder for those crazy guys to obtain these weapons, then I believe that gun violence would drop significantly. Not go away completely, but there would be less. Or do you believe otherwise? Why would the regulations fail? It works for other countries just fine. Japan bans all guns, and hey, no gun crimes. |
Narmy said: TallonKarrde23 said: Pretty sure massive explosions you don't even have to be around for are more efficient. Not if you consider the setup, plus the task of obtaining such a bomb. Gun are much easier to obtain, and they don't require any sort of planning. Bombs are something you can create all on your own (which is probably more of a problem than guns are, given that point) - nobody is building their own guns. |
|
sparkedglory said: xracerx17 said: @ Narmy: Are you saying that it is an inanimate objects fault for being used by someone? I think that if someone is sick enough to plan out a tragedy such as the one that occurred today, then yes, they could do it if they planned on it. @sparkedglory: Clearly we are both missing the point. Regardless of how much gun control the world tries to accomplish, there will always be those that do not follow it and will continue to do as they please. Making tighter regulations without a true way to enforce them would ultimately fail. The US Government is constantly going after drug cartels and in the end it is a cat and mouse game because the cartels just change their methods to break the law and get drugs into the country. As long as guns exist people will be able to get their hands on them regardless of the rules placed on them. No, you're missing what I'm saying completely. Yes, there will always be people who harm others, but I'm saying that there could be less gun related killings if we had better control. The US has more guns per capita than pretty much any other modern country, and MUCH more gun crime. If we can make it harder for those crazy guys to obtain these weapons, then I believe that gun violence would drop significantly. Not go away completely, but there would be less. Or do you believe otherwise? Why would the regulations fail? It works for other countries just fine. Japan bans all guns, and hey, no gun crimes. Well no shit there would be less gun-related killings if guns were around less - just like there'd be less vehicular manslaughter cases if cars didn't exist. |
|
Neane1993 said: I was debating bringing this up when I first saw the thread but I figured it would be conveniently ignored.Let's consider Switzerland for a while, "The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols." "but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm The people is not guns, it's people. According to Wikipedia, Switzerland had 46 firearms per 100 people in 2007, and 52 total homicides last year. Meanwhile, England (where guns are damn-near prohibited) had 722. If people really want to kill, they'll find a way. |
Negative-TravisDec 14, 2012 3:15 PM
| I'm dead. Don't come looking for me. |
TallonKarrde23 said: Well no shit there would be less gun-related killings if guns were around less - just like there'd be less vehicular manslaughter cases if cars didn't exist. How many car crashes are accidental compared to shootings, and how many shootings are on purpose compared to purposefully running down a person with a car? Comparing a gun to a car is stupid. edit: Switzerland is always brought up. :P |
sparkedglory said: No, you're missing what I'm saying completely. Yes, there will always be people who harm others, but I'm saying that there could be less gun related killings if we had better control. The US has more guns per capita than pretty much any other modern country, and MUCH more gun crime. If we can make it harder for those crazy guys to obtain these weapons, then I believe that gun violence would drop significantly. Not go away completely, but there would be less. Or do you believe otherwise? Why would the regulations fail? It works for other countries just fine. Japan bans all guns, and hey, no gun crimes. You would have to change the culture of the people, not the laws about guns to achieve what you are wishing for. You basically want to make it legally harder to get a gun, but you must also remember that there is always the option to obtain one illegally. Making stricter gun laws in America would open the doors for rebellion and also make another money making way for corrupt individuals to take money out of the economy. I wish the gun related crime numbers went down too, but given our society, that isn't going to happen anytime soon. |
|
sparkedglory said: TallonKarrde23 said: Well no shit there would be less gun-related killings if guns were around less - just like there'd be less vehicular manslaughter cases if cars didn't exist. How many car crashes are accidental compared to shootings, and how many shootings are on purpose compared to purposefully running down a person with a car? Comparing a gun to a car is stupid. You're comparing things again. My point was your entire point was retarded. Let me be more specific given you're clearly a dipshit. sparkedglory said: I'm saying that there could be less gun related killings if we had better control. Which went into having less guns around like Japan. My point is - NO SHIT IF THERE WERE LESS GUNS THERE'D BE LESS GUN VIOLENCE. Just like if we had less cars there'd be less car accidents, less ground beef we'd have less cases of e.coli, less whatever else we'd have LESS OF IT. WOW DETECTIVE. |
|
TallonKarrde23 said: sparkedglory said: I'm saying that there could be less gun related killings if we had better control. Which went into having less guns around like Japan. My point is - NO SHIT IF THERE WERE LESS GUNS THERE'D BE LESS GUN VIOLENCE. So pretty much I'm right. :P thank you. |
sparkedglory said: TallonKarrde23 said: sparkedglory said: I'm saying that there could be less gun related killings if we had better control. Which went into having less guns around like Japan. My point is - NO SHIT IF THERE WERE LESS GUNS THERE'D BE LESS GUN VIOLENCE. So pretty much I'm right. :P Saying the logic that "less of something = less of that thing"? Yeah, I didn't refute that point at all - I was saying it's hilariously obvious and you pretending you're making any point by stating that is laughable at best. |
|
TallonKarrde23 said: So agree with me, yet you argue. Oksparkedglory said: TallonKarrde23 said: sparkedglory said: I'm saying that there could be less gun related killings if we had better control. Which went into having less guns around like Japan. My point is - NO SHIT IF THERE WERE LESS GUNS THERE'D BE LESS GUN VIOLENCE. So pretty much I'm right. :P Saying the logic that "less of something = less of that thing"? Yeah, I didn't refute that point at all - I was saying it's hilariously obvious and you pretending you're making any point by stating that is laughable at best. |
sparkedglory said: TallonKarrde23 said: So agree with me, yet you argue. Oksparkedglory said: TallonKarrde23 said: sparkedglory said: I'm saying that there could be less gun related killings if we had better control. Which went into having less guns around like Japan. My point is - NO SHIT IF THERE WERE LESS GUNS THERE'D BE LESS GUN VIOLENCE. So pretty much I'm right. :P Saying the logic that "less of something = less of that thing"? Yeah, I didn't refute that point at all - I was saying it's hilariously obvious and you pretending you're making any point by stating that is laughable at best. I was not the person you were replying to - I was calling you out for saying something incredibly stupid, not arguing with your point. Please learn to keep up with a conversation and comprehend what's being said to you. I never disagreed with what you said - I said what you were saying in itself was fucking stupid and that's the only thing I said to you in that line of conversation. |
|
TallonKarrde23 said: I was not the person you were replying to - I was calling you out for saying something incredibly stupid, not arguing with your point. Please learn to keep up with a conversation and comprehend what's being said to you. I never disagreed with what you said - I said what you were saying in itself was fucking stupid and that's the only thing I said to you in that line of conversation. I know you're not. You were the guy who said using a knife is as effective as a gun. |
sparkedglory said: TallonKarrde23 said: I was not the person you were replying to - I was calling you out for saying something incredibly stupid, not arguing with your point. Please learn to keep up with a conversation and comprehend what's being said to you. I never disagreed with what you said - I said what you were saying in itself was fucking stupid and that's the only thing I said to you in that line of conversation. I know you're not. You were the guy who said using a knife is as effective as a gun. Which is still technically correct. A stab wound is on par - and actually sometimes much more fatal due to the type of wound it creates and infection - than a bullet wound (unless the bullet is hollow tip or other special types of ammunition) unless the bullet hits some very specific spots in very specific ways. From what the reports of this shooting sound like - those kids died only FROM BLEEDING OUT and the shock their bodies went into along with that (which in a small kid would happen rather quickly), not FROM the gunshot. Which just proves my point further guns and knives are pretty equally effective at killing people depending on how you use them and how quickly medical attention is given. The guy probably didn't actually kill anyone from the initial damage at all - which would explain why some people are saying he "fired at least 100 rounds". He probably had no control, no aim, and no real idea what he was doing and those dead only ended up that way from the later effects of any sort of critical wound after laying there bleeding for too long, which for a kid is sadly a very short span of time. |
TallonKarrde23Dec 14, 2012 3:22 PM
|
sparkedglory said: I'm saying that there could be less gun related killings if we had better control. When you say better control do you mean government regulations or better gun control in the sense of educating the people? I am asking because it will help me better understand what point you are trying to make besides the obvious "less of something = less of that thing" |
|
TallonKarrde23 said: Because you can't die bleeding out from a knife would. >.> Either way it's still much easier to kill a large group of people with a gun rather than a knife.sparkedglory said: TallonKarrde23 said: I was not the person you were replying to - I was calling you out for saying something incredibly stupid, not arguing with your point. Please learn to keep up with a conversation and comprehend what's being said to you. I never disagreed with what you said - I said what you were saying in itself was fucking stupid and that's the only thing I said to you in that line of conversation. I know you're not. You were the guy who said using a knife is as effective as a gun. Which is still technically correct. A stab wound is on par - and actually sometimes much more fatal due to the type of wound it creates and infection - than a bullet wound (unless the bullet is hollow tip or other special types of ammunition) unless the bullet hits some very specific spots in very specific ways. From what the reports of this shooting sound like - those kids died only FROM BLEEDING OUT and the shock their bodies went into along with that (which in a small kid would happen rather quickly), not FROM the gunshot. Which just proves my point further guns and knives are pretty equally effective at killing people depending on how you use them and how quickly medical attention is given. The guy probably didn't actually kill anyone from the initial damage at all. xracerx17 said: When you say better control do you mean government regulations or better gun control in the sense of educating the people? I am asking because it will help me better understand what point you are trying to make besides the obvious "less of something = less of that thing" For argument's sake. Both. If we can regulate who gets these weapons and the amount that can be had. People should also be educated on gun safety. |
sparkedglory said: Because you can't die bleeding out from a knife would. >.> Either way it's still much easier to kill a large group of people with a gun rather than a knife. I'm not saying you can't bleed out from a knife wound, but that a knife is more likely to kill you immediately in a DIRECT means - while a gun is more likely to be an indirect cause. And yeah, a large group would be in more trouble from a gun than a knife, but they'd also be in more trouble from a vehicle driving through an open mall or busy sidewalk than a gun, and they'd be in more trouble from a bomb than any of those. The slippery slope argument is a stupid one. |
|
TallonKarrde23 said: sparkedglory said: Because you can't die bleeding out from a knife would. >.> Either way it's still much easier to kill a large group of people with a gun rather than a knife. I'm not saying you can't bleed out from a knife wound, but that a knife is more likely to kill you immediately in a DIRECT means - while a gun is more likely to be an indirect cause. And yeah, a large group would be in more trouble from a gun than a knife, but they'd also be in more trouble from a vehicle driving through an open mall or busy sidewalk than a gun, and they'd be in more trouble from a bomb than any of those. The slippery slope argument is a stupid one. I'm having trouble agreeing with you with the knife. A gunshot to the head is pretty much an instant kill, the same with getting sprayed with an assault rifle. Why does it matter at all whether you die from a knife would or a gunshot? Either way you die, a gun kills much more than a knife. True, however a vehicle driving through a mall is so much less likely to happen than a mall shooting, which by the way, happened earlier this week, so that's a pretty stupid comparison if you ask me. Making a bomb is also harder to do than obtaining a gun, yes more people would be in danger, but shootings are still much more likely to happen. |
sparkedglory said: TallonKarrde23 said: sparkedglory said: Because you can't die bleeding out from a knife would. >.> Either way it's still much easier to kill a large group of people with a gun rather than a knife. I'm not saying you can't bleed out from a knife wound, but that a knife is more likely to kill you immediately in a DIRECT means - while a gun is more likely to be an indirect cause. And yeah, a large group would be in more trouble from a gun than a knife, but they'd also be in more trouble from a vehicle driving through an open mall or busy sidewalk than a gun, and they'd be in more trouble from a bomb than any of those. The slippery slope argument is a stupid one. I'm having trouble agreeing with you with the knife. A gunshot to the head is pretty much an instant kill, the same with getting sprayed with an assault rifle. Why does it matter at all whether you die from a knife would or a gunshot? Either way you die, a gun kills much more than a knife. True, however a vehicle driving through a mall is so much less likely to happen than a mall shooting, which by the way, happened earlier this week, so that's a pretty stupid comparison if you ask me. Making a bomb is also harder to do than obtaining a gun, yes more people would be in danger, but shootings are still much more likely to happen. You're getting the wrong impression again. I'm not comparing - I'm just giving other examples, not to compare to, but to get the understanding of my point better which I guess is just distracting you from it instead, which is my fault for not explaining it clearly enough - so my bad. Not being sarcastic or anything - I'm clearly having trouble trying to explain what I want to say, so I'll just step out of the discussion for now and maybe come back to it when I can word it all a bit better. As for bombings happening less than shootings - I dunno. They seem to happen an awful lot over in Europe and the middle east lately. |
|
TallonKarrde23 said: You're getting the wrong impression again. I'm not comparing - I'm just giving other examples, not to compare to, but to get the understanding of my point better which I guess is just distracting you from it instead, which is my fault for not explaining it clearly enough - so my bad. Not being sarcastic or anything - I'm clearly having trouble trying to explain what I want to say, so I'll just step out of the discussion for now. As for bombings happening less than shootings - I dunno. They seem to happen an awful lot over in Europe and the middle east lately. Well it's pretty silly to bring them up and not compare. What is your point exactly? |
sparkedglory said: TallonKarrde23 said: You're getting the wrong impression again. I'm not comparing - I'm just giving other examples, not to compare to, but to get the understanding of my point better which I guess is just distracting you from it instead, which is my fault for not explaining it clearly enough - so my bad. Not being sarcastic or anything - I'm clearly having trouble trying to explain what I want to say, so I'll just step out of the discussion for now. As for bombings happening less than shootings - I dunno. They seem to happen an awful lot over in Europe and the middle east lately. Well it's pretty silly to bring them up and not compare. What is your point exactly? I'm not so sure anymore, which is why I mentioned stepping out for now. It's too hard to focus when I'm reading (elsewhere) all these retards genuinely already blaming video games and other stupid shit that has no relevance to what happened for it that I guess I can't focus. Here's a new point - this sort of ignorance in the image is the problem with society more than gun control issues. I'm sure some are trolls but the majority seem legit along with all the shit on twitter and comments on news sites and so on.  |
|
TallonKarrde23 said: Woot people are stupid. That'll never change.sparkedglory said: TallonKarrde23 said: You're getting the wrong impression again. I'm not comparing - I'm just giving other examples, not to compare to, but to get the understanding of my point better which I guess is just distracting you from it instead, which is my fault for not explaining it clearly enough - so my bad. Not being sarcastic or anything - I'm clearly having trouble trying to explain what I want to say, so I'll just step out of the discussion for now. As for bombings happening less than shootings - I dunno. They seem to happen an awful lot over in Europe and the middle east lately. Well it's pretty silly to bring them up and not compare. What is your point exactly? I'm not so sure anymore, which is why I mentioned stepping out for now. It's too hard to focus when I'm reading (elsewhere) all these retards genuinely already blaming video games and other stupid shit that has no relevance to what happened for it that I guess I can't focus. Here's a new point - this sort of ignorance in the image is the problem with society more than gun control issues. I'm sure some are trolls but the majority seem legit. |
sparkedglory said: TallonKarrde23 said: So agree with me, yet you argue. Oksparkedglory said: TallonKarrde23 said: sparkedglory said: I'm saying that there could be less gun related killings if we had better control. Which went into having less guns around like Japan. My point is - NO SHIT IF THERE WERE LESS GUNS THERE'D BE LESS GUN VIOLENCE. So pretty much I'm right. :P Saying the logic that "less of something = less of that thing"? Yeah, I didn't refute that point at all - I was saying it's hilariously obvious and you pretending you're making any point by stating that is laughable at best. Guns don't kill people, people do. Could make less gun violence, but then instead you'd just have some psychopath shooting kids with staple guns, or using power tools. Anything can be made into a weapon. |
Touch me, you filthy casual~ |
| Great... A bonus before 12/21/12. |
 |
Ragix said: This was gone over already. >.> guns are the easiest tool to use when it comes to killing, and in my belief there would be less killings, but yes they will always figure out how to get past laws.Guns don't kill people, people do. Could make less gun violence, but then instead you'd just have some psychopath shooting kids with staple guns, or using power tools. Anything can be made into a weapon. Neane1993 said: That was back when they had the wrong guy as the killer. Those idiots won't do anything. Mass Effect will be fine...though the kids are more important right now.Oh God, of all the Games they could target, they choose Mass Effect? |
sparkedglory said: Neane1993 said: That was back when they had the wrong guy as the killer. Those idiots won't do anything. Mass Effect will be fine...though the kids are more important right now.Oh God, of all the Games they could target, they choose Mass Effect? I found this so retarded. The people that were blasting Mass Effect didn't even know the Killer's name as I think it was his brother that liked Mass Effect and not him. I guess people wanted to blame something though, and maybe not the fact he is mentally unstable. People just get over-obsessively mad and just want something to put all their anger onto. Since apparently a game about saving humanity and the universe from like cybernetic aliens relates to killing children.(If you chose to.) |
Touch me, you filthy casual~ |
| @ that Mass Effect post: Fucking people are ridiculous. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| If you want to look at the positive side of this, it somewhat helps with our overpopulation problem. My thoughts and prayers go out to the affected families. |
 |
Neane1993 said: Have you not seen a public school lately?Shuhan said: If you want to look at the positive side of this, it somewhat helps with our overpopulation problem. How do we have an overpopulation problem? Classrooms shouldn't have 40+ kids in them. |
| I'm dead. Don't come looking for me. |
Neane1993 said: Shuhan said: If you want to look at the positive side of this, it somewhat helps with our overpopulation problem. How do we have an overpopulation problem? Are you srs? With how fast the population is increasing, we are expected to have a population around 10 billion by 2050, we are already barely scraping by with natural resources like oil. With our current rate of consumption we are doomed a few decades from now. Negative-Travis said: How do we have an overpopulation problem? Have you not seen a public school lately? Classrooms shouldn't have 40+ kids in them. This also is a good point. Maybe the gunman was insane in the head, or maybe he was aware of the classroom size issue in America and wanted to make a stand for it. |
ShuhanDec 14, 2012 4:52 PM
|
Shuhan said: Neane1993 said: Shuhan said: If you want to look at the positive side of this, it somewhat helps with our overpopulation problem. How do we have an overpopulation problem? Are you srs? With how fast the population is increasing, we are expected to have a population around 10 billion by 2050, we are already barely scraping by with natural resources like oil. With our current rate of consumption we are doomed a few decades from now. Pack yo bags, we going to Mars! |
Touch me, you filthy casual~ |
Ragix said: Shuhan said: Neane1993 said: Shuhan said: If you want to look at the positive side of this, it somewhat helps with our overpopulation problem. How do we have an overpopulation problem? Are you srs? With how fast the population is increasing, we are expected to have a population around 10 billion by 2050, we are already barely scraping by with natural resources like oil. With our current rate of consumption we are doomed a few decades from now. Pack yo bags, we going to Mars! Shotgun! |
| I'm dead. Don't come looking for me. |
Shuhan said: Are you srs? With how fast the population is increasing, we are expected to have a population around 10 billion by 2050, we are already barely scraping by with natural resources like oil. With our current rate of consumption we are doomed a few decades from now. Almost all of the growth is in 3rd world countries, 1st world countries are mostly either shrinking or just barely growing. |
SSJgoku91 said: Shuhan said: Are you srs? With how fast the population is increasing, we are expected to have a population around 10 billion by 2050, we are already barely scraping by with natural resources like oil. With our current rate of consumption we are doomed a few decades from now. Almost all of the growth is in 3rd world countries, 1st world countries are mostly either shrinking or just barely growing. The United States is projected to have a population of over 400 million by 2050, we are at 300 million currently. |
|
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |