Quake3World

Intellect?

We could use gwamps skull to knock doors down

I think thats what he meant. I liked the idea so much I began work on the Gwamps action figurine

[lvlshot]http://www.figuronomy.com/customcon4/red-dwarf-animated/rd5.gif[/lvlshot]

dubz wrote:gky`s neuroticism, lawl`s obsession, ygp/chunk intellect, kracus`s delusions, shafts loneliness.. when your powers combine...

now that would be a serial killer that would top high scores

Nerds trying way too hard.

YourGrandpa wrote:I didn't say more people were killed by toasters than firearms.
Comparing things that kill people makes them comparable.
Weapons and Firearms are not the same thing.
My point was a sarcastic example that pointed out the stupidity of banning something because it kills people.

Maybe if you didn't take the internet so seriously and get upset over every literal interpretation, you may find it easier to identify the sarcasm.

You're the only one short-sighted and stupid enough to think that an argument can be made in sarcastically saying anything ever created that has killed someone should be banned. Toasters, which are designed for toasting bread, kill 0.0000001% of the amount of people that guns kill, which are designed for killing people. Such a ridiculous comparison only shows how weak your argument is.

Also your head is massive.

Did anyone pick gwamps for the killing spree?

Yeah...some fagg0t.

Oh wait...

Shouldn't you be chomping on xeros dick for a beta invite ?

LawL wrote:You're the only one short-sighted and stupid enough to think that an argument can be made in sarcastically saying anything ever created that has killed someone should be banned. Toasters, which are designed for toasting bread, kill 0.0000001% of the amount of people that guns kill, which are designed for killing people. Such a ridiculous comparison only shows how weak your argument is.

Also your head is massive.

Sarcasm is sarcasm. Of course everything that kills shouldn't be banned. That's my entire point. Guns, like any great advancement were a refinement of invention. And like any great invention, guns serve multiple purposes. If fact they serve a more diverse purpose than most inventions that "kill" people.

1) Guns are used for hunting food.
2) Guns are used for recreational shooting.
3) Guns are used for competition shooting.
4) Guns are used for self defense.
5) Guns are collected for monetary gain.

Cars that were clearly designed to get people from point A to B kill way more people than guns. Alcohol, primarily designed for medicinal purposes kills more people than guns. Neither of which have the variety of use as a firearm and still remain unbanned. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for better regulation of firearms. I don't think they should be passed out like candy to every moron who wants one. I think there should be stricter regulations for attaining firearms. But I'm not for "banning" anything.

YourGrandpa wrote:1) Guns are used for hunting food.
2) Guns are used for recreational shooting.
3) Guns are used for competition shooting.
4) Guns are used for self defense.
5) Guns are collected for monetary gain.

In other words:

1) Killing animals
2) Killing practice with fat people
3) Killing practice with fatter people
4) Killing people
5) Collected by fat people with killing fantasies

YourGrandpa wrote:Sarcasm is sarcasm. Of course everything that kills shouldn't be banned. That's my entire point. Guns, like any great advancement were a refinement of invention. And like any great invention, guns serve multiple purposes. If fact they serve a more diverse purpose than most inventions that "kill" people.

1) Guns are used for hunting food.
2) Guns are used for recreational shooting.
3) Guns are used for competition shooting.
4) Guns are used for self defense.
5) Guns are collected for monetary gain.

Cars that were clearly designed to get people from point A to B kill way more people than guns. Alcohol, primarily designed for medicinal purposes kills more people than guns. Neither of which have the variety of use as a firearm and still remain unbanned. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for better regulation of firearms. I don't think they should be passed out like candy to every moron who wants one. I think there should be stricter regulations for attaining firearms. But I'm not for "banning" anything.

None of your examples were designed primarily for killing people other than guns.

None of my examples sever more viable purposes than guns either. And they kill more people.

Irrelevant. Using a gun for an alternate purpose doesn't somehow magically negate the purpose that it was primarily designed for: killing.

I dunno what you guys are talking about, I routinely use my tank to crush walnuts. That's what they're for, right?

LawL wrote:Irrelevant. Using a gun for an alternate purpose doesn't somehow magically negate the purpose that it was primarily designed for: killing.

So we can ignore the fact that cars and alcohol kill a substantially greater amount of people because they were primarily designed for something else, never factoring in how many people actually use cars/alcohol verses how many people misuse them and cause injury or death.

Sounds perfectly logical.

I'm almost insulted they chose you over me. Almost.

You need to be fully licenced to drive a vehicle and injure someone in an accident and you don't use or buy a car for protection. You also have different categories, you can't dive into a JCB cos you own a scooter and even though death rates are dropping sharply no one complains about any new rules the car manufactures are forced to adhere too . Wanna talk murder rate for guns VS cars ?, I can hazard a guess on who will win even taking into account the bias stats because of fucked up laws such as the 'stand and fight' ? that allows lawful murder

Even though guns are more common than cars in Yankland n all they're only owned by 33%ish of households (according to stats on prev page), so gun owners are far less common than car owners yet still contribute to a similar death rate and rising, as opposed to cars which is falling with 90% households owning one.

If you kill people with alcohol n all then I'd also very much like to be your next victim

Instead of banning fire arms, this is a rudimentary proposal I wrote up awhile back.

YourGrandpa wrote:So we can ignore the fact that cars and alcohol kill a substantially greater amount of people because they were primarily designed for something else, never factoring in how many people actually use cars/alcohol verses how many people misuse them and cause injury or death.

Sounds perfectly logical.

If guns were owned and used as frequently as cars then the fatality/injury rate would increase tenfold.

Lol wut?...ur all morons...

YourGrandpa wrote:

LawL wrote:Irrelevant. Using a gun for an alternate purpose doesn't somehow magically negate the purpose that it was primarily designed for: killing.

So we can ignore the fact that cars and alcohol kill a substantially greater amount of people because they were primarily designed for something else, never factoring in how many people actually use cars/alcohol verses how many people misuse them and cause injury or death.

Sounds perfectly logical.

Yeah because you can hold up a bank with beer, right?

Massive fat headed, skinny white armed moron.

YourGrandpa wrote:
I bought one because I wanted to fit my head in. It's nice to be able to do that.

Fixed.

LawL wrote:If guns were owned and used as frequently as cars then the fatality/injury rate would increase tenfold.

So we can justify car and alcohol deaths simply based on the initial design intent?

Can you answer that?

Doombrain wrote:Yeah because you can hold up a bank with beer, right?

Probably not. But you can die from liver disease, alcohol poisoning, alcohol related accidents, etc.

You mad bro?

Wooooooooshhhhhhh