4/20: Columbine Rememberance and Time to "Smoke the Vote" (?)

[DealMonkey]

Well, it's 4/20. For many, that means a sad day of rememberance for the victims of Colombine. It's the 5th Anniversary of that horrible tragedy. A moment of silence . . .

Fifth anniversary arrives at Columbine
'A time to hope'

LITTLETON, Colorado (AP) -- Somber students, parents and neighbors went to the Columbine High School campus Tuesday to remember those killed five years ago in the worst school shooting in U.S. history.

"I just want today to be a peaceful day to remember and to hope for the future," said Kallen Dunn, 36, who went with her son, Michael, a 15-year-old Columbine student.

...

For the potheads of America, it's a day for forgetting where you put the car keys and hours wasted spent spacing out the window at work. The spleefs will be sparked from coast-to-coast. Personally, I don't partake, but should marijuana be decriminalized? Take the poll.

EDIT: Almost forgot, Smoke the Vote - can they remember what day is election day? Will they find their car keys? Will sparkly things and snacky sm'ores distract them completely?

 

[nutxo]

as hard as i tried I couldnt find any positive effects of smokin the weed . Found a lot like this though Text

 

[Infohawk]

Columbine could have been avoided if we had more stringent gun control laws. This kind of stuff does not happen in countries where there are no guns.

 

[zzzz]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Columbine could have been avoided if we had more stringent gun control laws. This kind of stuff does not happen in countries where there are no guns.

No I think it could have been avoided if every kid in the school had a gun.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Columbine could have been avoided if we had more stringent gun control laws. This kind of stuff does not happen in countries where there are no guns.

Umm, werent guns illegal in schools prior to columbine? Maybe if we enforced the existing laws ?

 

[Infohawk]

nuxto, Columbine shows that's not enough. As long as there are guns sitting around people will find a way to use them. Supporting the NRA is surrendering to the reality of future Columbines, sniper shootings, etc.

 

[DealMonkey]

Perhaps Columbine could have been prevented if those kids had access to weed?

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
nuxto, Columbine shows that's not enough. As long as there are guns sitting around people will find a way to use them. Supporting the NRA is surrendering to the reality of future Columbines, sniper shootings, etc.

Whats next. Michael Moore qoutes?

Perhaps Columbine could have been prevented if those kids had access to weed?

Hehe, one positive use of weed. Destroy motivation with only a few joints a day!

 

[kage69]

Perhaps Columbine could have been prevented if those kids had access to weed?

Who knows? Can't seem to recall meeting any violent pot smokers. And I'd much rather kids were out lookin for munchies instead of targets...

 

[BillyGoat]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
nuxto, Columbine shows that's not enough. As long as there are guns sitting around people will find a way to use them. Supporting the NRA is surrendering to the reality of future Columbines, sniper shootings, etc.

yea!!!!! Lets all sign up for patriot act 2- throw away your rights for the illusion of feeling safe...

 

[Infohawk]

Whats next. Michael Moore qoutes?

Whether or not Michael Moore quotes follow, your argument has been defeated. Adding a pithy comment afterwards does nothing for your argument, only your self esteem.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Whats next. Michael Moore qoutes?

Whether or not Michael Moore quotes follow, your argument has been defeated. Adding a pithy comment afterwards does nothing for your argument, only your self esteem.

pfft. You made a statement and have shown no evidence. Then you say "you lose!" I think you have overstimated the power of your argument to support your view.

:music:

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: nutxo
as hard as i tried I couldnt find any positive effects of smokin the weed . Found a lot like this though Text

For some reason I don't think the government propaganda page is going to highlight any of the positive effects of mj.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Whats next. Michael Moore qoutes?

Whether or not Michael Moore quotes follow, your argument has been defeated. Adding a pithy comment afterwards does nothing for your argument, only your self esteem.

pfft. You made a statement and have shown no evidence. Then you say "you lose!" I think you have overstimated the power of your argument to support your view.

:music:

My argument is solid. And if you know why it's not, it's up to you to point them out. If there were no guns around, Columbine could not have had happened.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Whats next. Michael Moore qoutes?

Whether or not Michael Moore quotes follow, your argument has been defeated. Adding a pithy comment afterwards does nothing for your argument, only your self esteem.

pfft. You made a statement and have shown no evidence. Then you say "you lose!" I think you have overstimated the power of your argument to support your view.



:music:

My argument is solid. And if you know why it's not, it's up to you to point them out. If there were no guns around, Columbine could not have had happened.

Text

maybe sarin would be better

:roll:

Humans will kill no matter what.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Whats next. Michael Moore qoutes?

Whether or not Michael Moore quotes follow, your argument has been defeated. Adding a pithy comment afterwards does nothing for your argument, only your self esteem.

pfft. You made a statement and have shown no evidence. Then you say "you lose!" I think you have overstimated the power of your argument to support your view.



:music:

My argument is solid. And if you know why it's not, it's up to you to point them out. If there were no guns around, Columbine could not have had happened.

You argement is sold in that if there where no guns around then no Columbine could not happen but your argument ignore reality of people willing to break the law to get guns.

And you also ignore the reallity that guns are not the only object that is capable of killing 15 people. If guns wear illegal they could have just used more pipe bomb or other primity weapons.

 

[Infohawk]

nuxto, guns make it far easier to kill than hands do. If the Trenchcoat Mafia had no guns they would not have been able to kill so many people. Columbine happened because of guns, not because of sarin. They had no access to sarin, but they did have access to guns. If you'd have more laws against other weapons, I would agree with you. But Columbine was about guns.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Whats next. Michael Moore qoutes?

Whether or not Michael Moore quotes follow, your argument has been defeated. Adding a pithy comment afterwards does nothing for your argument, only your self esteem.

pfft. You made a statement and have shown no evidence. Then you say "you lose!" I think you have overstimated the power of your argument to support your view.



:music:

My argument is solid. And if you know why it's not, it's up to you to point them out. If there were no guns around, Columbine could not have had happened.

You argement is sold in that if there where no guns around then no Columbine could not happen but your argument ignore reality of people willing to break the law to get guns.

And you also ignore the reallity that guns are not the only object that is capable of killing 15 people. If guns wear illegal they could have just used more pipe bomb or other primity weapons.

Governments CAN get rid of most guns. They do it in other countries. I agree with you, people can get around the laws, that's why you enforce them and make them more stringent.

Also, I highly doubt they could have killed so many people with pipe bombs. Let's assume they each had backpacks filled with them. Someone would have tackled them while they were throwing them and they would have hurt themselves when throwing them and placing htem. And if you're suggesting they would set up booby traps well after one went off the school would be emptied. You cannot seriously think they could have been as deadly with pipe bombs. You dont' see the infantry running around with only grenades. They use assault rifles as their basic weapon because they're so effective.

 

[Spencer278]

Governments CAN get rid of most guns. They do it in other countries. I agree with you, people can get around the laws, that's why you enforce them and make them more stringent.

Also, I highly doubt they could have killed so many people with pipe bombs. Let's assume they each had backpacks filled with them. Someone would have tackled them while they were throwing them and they would have hurt themselves when throwing them and placing htem. And if you're suggesting they would set up booby traps well after one went off the school would be emptied. You cannot seriously think they could have been as deadly with pipe bombs. You dont' see the infantry running around with only grenades. They use assault rifles as their basic weapon because they're so effective.

on 9/11 how many people wear killed with the only weapon being box cutters? Guns are not neccisary. How many people have been killed in isreal from sucided bombings? If the two people had went into the school with bombs straped on and blow them self up I'm sure the death toll would be much higher.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Whats next. Michael Moore qoutes?

Whether or not Michael Moore quotes follow, your argument has been defeated. Adding a pithy comment afterwards does nothing for your argument, only your self esteem.

pfft. You made a statement and have shown no evidence. Then you say "you lose!" I think you have overstimated the power of your argument to support your view.







:music:

My argument is solid. And if you know why it's not, it's up to you to point them out. If there were no guns around, Columbine could not have had happened.

You argement is sold in that if there where no guns around then no Columbine could not happen but your argument ignore reality of people willing to break the law to get guns.



And you also ignore the reallity that guns are not the only object that is capable of killing 15 people. If guns wear illegal they could have just used more pipe bomb or other primity weapons.

Governments CAN get rid of most guns. They do it in other countries. I agree with you, people can get around the laws, that's why you enforce them and make them more stringent.



Also, I highly doubt they could have killed so many people with pipe bombs. Let's assume they each had backpacks filled with them. Someone would have tackled them while they were throwing them and they would have hurt themselves when throwing them and placing htem. And if you're suggesting they would set up booby traps well after one went off the school would be emptied. You cannot seriously think they could have been as deadly with pipe bombs. You dont' see the infantry running around with only grenades. They use assault rifles as their basic weapon because they're so effective.

5 gallons of gas has the potential of 20 sticks of dynamite. Imagine that detonated in a cafeteria. Mix in some styrafoam peanuts( homemade napalm) and some roofing nails. .. Much more scary than any gun.

 

[Infohawk]

Too bad you can't conceal five gallons of gas in your trench coat. It's much easier to pick up a gun and shoot than it is to build a a suicide bomb. If there were no guns in America, homicides would go down because it would be harder to kill. Moreover, Columbine would not have happened (someone would have noticed those five gallons ).

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Too bad you can't conceal five gallons of gas in your trench coat. It's much easier to pick up a gun and shoot than it is to build a a suicide bomb. If there were no guns in America, homicides would go down because it would be harder to kill. Moreover, Columbine would not have happened (someone would have noticed those five gallons ).

How about carrying in 5 gallons of gas in a sports bag?

 

[Michael]

I don't understand. Their main plan to kill people was via bombs which they planted but didn't go off.

Shooting people was the fallback position.

If the bombs had worked, many, many more students would have died.

I guess we should ban fertilizer and gas.

Michael

 

[Infohawk]

"I guess we should ban fertilizer and gas. "
That is a strawman argument. Nobody's arguing we should do that. Read up on logical fallacies.

The fact the bombs did not go off does not support your position. It shows that guns are so much easier to use and are therefore a bigger problem! So if we had fertilizer and gas, but no guns, Columbine would not have happened.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
"I guess we should ban fertilizer and gas. "

That is a strawman argument. Nobody's arguing we should do that. Read up on logical fallacies.



The fact the bombs did not go off does not support your position. It shows that guns are so much easier to use and are therefore a bigger problem! So if we had fertilizer and gas, but no guns, Columbine would not have happened.

But if we didn't have fertilizer and gas we wouldn't have had the OK city bombing