NationStates Jolt Archive

I suppose it's time to ban wire now.
Girls Gone Wild Down Under ('http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/05/10/australia.murder.reut/index.html?eref=rss_latest')

Two Australian schoolgirls who garroted a friend as an experiment to see what it was like to kill someone were on Thursday sentenced to life in jail for a murder a judge said was "gruesome and merciless in the extreme".

The two 17-year-olds, who cannot be named, stuffed a chemical-soaked cloth into the mouth of Eliza Jane Davis, 15, and throttled her with wire after waking up on a sleepover and deciding neither would feel bad about killing someone.

Wow. Just wow. It takes time to kill someone that way - unless the wire somehow cuts through the major blood vessels, in which case it's a real mess.

Is reality more horrifying than a horror movie? I say yes!

Killing just to see what it felt like, and not feeling any remorse for killing, especially a friend, seems almost psychopathic to me. Then again, i have a bad habit of stating the obvious.

That is pretty fucked up.

I suppose it's time to ban wire now.
Girls Gone Wild Down Under ('http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/05/10/australia.murder.reut/index.html?eref=rss_latest')



Wow. Just wow. It takes time to kill someone that way - unless the wire somehow cuts through the major blood vessels, in which case it's a real mess.

Is reality more horrifying than a horror movie? I say yes!

Murder without gain or an specific reason is worthless

That is pretty fucked up.

Couldn't have put that better my self.

You looking at me funny? *tightens wire wrapped around both index fingers*:mad:

I'm not entirely confident that Jack Thompson wouldn't, given the chance, attribute this behavior as a direct result to them having allegedly playing too much Hitman.

I suppose it's time to ban wire now.

I know you love your guns, but you really come off like an ass when you try to compare ordinary, everyday things like wire to them when they're used in a murder. It's a bullshit argument and nobody falls for it--a five year old knows the difference between a gun (whose primary purpose is to kill something, although not necessarily human) and wire. And you alienate people like me who don't personally own guns, but who have no real objection to gun ownership in general. You make it difficult for us to defend your general position.

we not like you we don't go running yelling Ban this Ban that

Wow...

we not like you we don't go running yelling Ban this Ban that

CanuckHeaven does...

CanuckHeaven does...

who no really who
there are that many people on here i don't keep count of the ones i don't know

I've heard some horrible plots at slumber parties...but, wow. That poor girl. I think this is evidence of just how cruel and bitter (and experimental) teenage girls can be.

I suppose it's time to ban wire now.
Will wire be used as a murder weapon in about 59 cases in Australia this year? And 8,200 in the US? 20,000+ in Columbia and 30,000+ in South Africa?

When it passes 80,000 worldwide a year (remember, this is only murders, not accidents, war or suicides) than you can bring that idea back to the table.

I won't promise not to ridicule you for it though, but still :)

Will wire be used as a murder weapon in about 59 cases in Australia this year? And 8,200 in the US? 20,000+ in Columbia and 30,000+ in South Africa?

When it passes 80,000 worldwide a year (remember, this is only murders, not accidents, war or suicides) than you can bring that idea back to the table.

Who knows, now that guns are banned in Australia. Maybe they had to use wire because that's all they could get hold of...

Who knows, now that guns are banned in Australia. Maybe they had to use wire because that's all they could get hold of...

Maybe...

The Australian National University's Andrew Leigh told Australia's ABC Radio that Howard's policy had saved between 120 and 280 lives a year and that the buy-back had paid for itself many times over in simple economic terms.

"Even if we take the bottom level of that and take the standard estimate that economists put on the value of a statistical life - AUS$2,5-million - then that suggests to us that the buy- back paid for itself in the first two years," the Canberra researcher said.

Leigh said the statistics showed that gun-deaths had not been replaced by intentional deaths by others means.

"The fact that overall violent deaths have fallen since 1996 ... strongly suggests there has not been substantial method substitution," he said.

Leigh's conclusion bears out a similar finding by Sydney University's Simon Chapman. His study shows deaths from firearms have halved since Bryant was locked away in Hobart's Risdon Prison - and there have been no mass killings since the buy-back.

"The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides," Chapman said after the shootings in the US.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=2024&art_id=nw20070423092103299C688294

I've been picked on at slumber parties...but, wow. That poor girl. I think this is evidence of just how cruel and bitter (and experimental) teenage girls can be.

Not just that, but anyone in general really.

I mean, what the fuck? I have a young sister, age 12, who gets shit constantly because of her self being a bit more self-centered but in a good way. She gets all jumpy and excited when some acquaintances or friends want to hang out with her. Not saying that one day she'll wake up to wire wielding fucking maniac whores, but still...

I guess in one of those "If it happened and my life was severely involved in it" I would cold heartedly beat the living fucking feces out of those responsible, involved, and those who just didn't care to get involved and try to stop it. Seriously, I may sound unjustifiable here...but I honestly would put them through even worst, not even caring if they may have some sort of mental fucking complex that suddenly has us all going "Oh well it's permissable".

Anyways, that's me...and no that post wasn't directed at the person I quoted, that was just a generalisation of my feelings.

Maybe...


http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=2024&art_id=nw20070423092103299C688294

Still doesn't explain how we've dropped over 60% in firearm deaths, despite massive surges in gun ownership here.

Have you had a 60% decline?

Who knows, now that guns are banned in Australia. Maybe they had to use wire because that's all they could get hold of...

you can still get hold of a gun if you want one you just need to know people

Whoa, I would never have gone to a sleepover if I thought something like that might happen.

Classic case of two sociopaths. Sick in the extreme.

That is awesome. More power to them! There's way too many people on the planet anyway.

Yeah, and killing one 15-year-old girl has effectively solved that problem. Those girls are heroes.

Whoa, I would never have gone to a sleepover if I thought something like that might happen.

Classic case of two sociopaths. Sick in the extreme.

I don't think they were sociopathic...I think they were just like any teen, really bored and easily contemplative. Something really really seems easy and fun, they are going to do it. I mean, people up to their 40s even do it. It's the "Hey I think I have a full proof plan to rob a bank!!", but they end up getting trapped in a ventilation system.

If they were sociopathic, I'd imagine they would have never turned their selves in and that they would to this day and for years on later denied it.

I don't think they were sociopathic...I think they were just like any teen, really bored and easily contemplative. Something really really seems easy and fun, they are going to do it. I mean, people up to their 40s even do it. It's the "Hey I think I have a full proof plan to rob a bank!!", but they end up getting trapped in a ventilation system.

If they were sociopathic, I'd imagine they would have never turned their selves in and that they would to this day and for years on later denied it.

No, they originally reported her missing, and then decided they would be found out if the cops searched the house, so turned themselves in so they'd be given a lighter sentence.

They're many paths. Sociopaths, psychopaths, crazystupidbitchopaths...

EDIT why say CANBERRA, Australia if did not happen there

Still doesn't explain how we've dropped over 60% in firearm deaths, despite massive surges in gun ownership here.
Well the US peaked massively in the 90's... So instead of a horrendous rate of firearm deaths per capita it is now merely massive... But there are no sure way to tell what has caused the drop and what will make the numbers fall further. Astralia seems to show that strong legislation is one way to go. Would it work in the US? I'm not convinced - that's why I've previously argued for trying to combat the negative facets of the prevalent gun culture (and culture of violence) that seems to exist in the country.
But there's been enough threads on that.


Have you had a 60% decline?
Where do you think I am?

a gun (whose primary purpose is to kill something, although not necessarily human) and wire.

Why yes, there IS a difference. A gun involves complex moving parts, chemicals... a wire doesn't.

But what you seem to be not getting is that "purpose" doesn't matter when it's an inanimate object. An object doesn't have intent. People have intent. If outcome is what you care about - people getting murdered - then it shouldn't matter to you what object was used to commit the murder.

And you alienate people like me who don't personally own guns, but who have no real objection to gun ownership in general.

I don't own a gun and support gun ownership and I don't feel alienated. Maybe it's just you, perhaps relating to your insistence on anthropomorphizing inanimate objects.

so.... there were no signs of being screwed up prior to this happening? i am seriously, how can two 17yr old girls just go from being everyday-normal to ruthless killers without any signs of major issues?

:sniper:

Reminds me of Heavenly Bodies.

It's by Peter Jackson and a lot better than The Lord of the Rings. Plus it involves Kate Winslett being sexy.

so.... there were no signs of being screwed up prior to this happening? i am seriously, how can two 17yr old girls just go from being everyday-normal to ruthless killers without any signs of major issues?

:sniper:

it's just like the Two girls who said they going shopping then they find some day later dead as they killed them selfs

@Greater Trostia

I don't know if you've ever fired a gun, but I can tell you right now, it's not bloody hard to load a clip/shell/round and fire. Difference between wire and a gun is that you actually have a fighting chance with wire. Not that it's easy to keep from dying if you get surprised.

These girls must've been psychopaths to the extreme, I mean, who decides they want to try killing someone?

Killing on accident is one thing - deliberately garotting a person to death after planning is another...

Let's all blame barbie-dolls. They give the impression that people are puppets.

Whoa, I would never have gone to a sleepover if I thought something like that might happen.

Classic case of two sociopaths. Sick in the extreme.

At least the two psychos in Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures had some kind of reason for murdering their target (the mother who didn't want them seein one another anymore). And yes, I know they were Kiwis, not Aussies.

[minor nitpick]'Tis Heavenly Creatures[/minor nitpick]

And this incident merely strengthens my resolve to find a way to grow humans to adulthood in glass jars to avoid the "stupid idiot" stage. The problem, of course, is that the "stupid idiot" stage seems to never end ...

Still doesn't explain how we've dropped over 60% in firearm deaths, despite massive surges in gun ownership here.

Have you had a 60% decline?

Uh...Australia could have a 60% decline if there were, what, 3 or 4 fewer murders by firearm next year. 3 or 4 fewer here wouldn't even register as a change, statistically. :rolleyes:

Still doesn't explain how we've dropped over 60% in firearm deaths, despite massive surges in gun ownership here.

Have you had a 60% decline?

Uh...Australia could have a 60% decline if there were, what, 3 or 4 fewer murders by firearm next year. 3 or 4 fewer here wouldn't even register as a change, statistically. :rolleyes:

Reminds me of Heavenly Bodies.

It's by Peter Jackson and a lot better than The Lord of the Rings. Plus it involves Kate Winslett being sexy.

[minor nitpick]'Tis Heavenly Creatures[/minor nitpick]

And this incident merely strengthens my resolve to find a way to grow humans to adulthood in glass jars to avoid the "stupid idiot" stage.

I liked that movie.

Why yes, there IS a difference. A gun involves complex moving parts, chemicals... a wire doesn't.

But what you seem to be not getting is that "purpose" doesn't matter when it's an inanimate object. An object doesn't have intent. People have intent. If outcome is what you care about - people getting murdered - then it shouldn't matter to you what object was used to commit the murder.


I don't own a gun and support gun ownership and I don't feel alienated. Maybe it's just you, perhaps relating to your insistence on anthropomorphizing inanimate objects.

An object doesn't have intent, but a tool does have a primary purpose, and a gun is a tool. It is designed to kill other living things. It can be used for other purposes, but that is its designed function. Wire--not so much. I'm not anthropomorphizing when I point that fact out.

Jesus. And I thought it was bad when I got my hair chopped off at a slumber party...

An object doesn't have intent, but a tool does have a primary purpose, and a gun is a tool. It is designed to kill other living things. It can be used for other purposes, but that is its designed function. Wire--not so much.

Big deal. Ask any engineer, what something is designed to do is less important than what it can do.

Harping on the "design" aspect is silly in the extreme. Apparently you care more about what objects are designed to do than what they are used for. Hence people like you contribute to the "guns should be banned" meme, based more on the notion that a gun is "meant" to kill whereas I guess wires and axes and knives and fists and cars - why, they all just "accidentally" kill and are thus somehow less relevant.

I suppose it's time to ban wire now.
Girls Gone Wild Down Under ('http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/05/10/australia.murder.reut/index.html?eref=rss_latest')



Wow. Just wow. It takes time to kill someone that way - unless the wire somehow cuts through the major blood vessels, in which case it's a real mess.

Is reality more horrifying than a horror movie? I say yes!


Ban School Girls!!!111!! They're lethal yokes alltogether"!!!!!!!

And yet some people still dont belive in the death penalty. Those girls should be hung, pure and simple.

And yet some people still dont belive in the death penalty. Those girls should be hung, pure and simple.

Why do you want to let them off easy? Shouldn't they suffer for what they've done?

Big deal. Ask any engineer, what something is designed to do is less important than what it can do.

Harping on the "design" aspect is silly in the extreme. Apparently you care more about what objects are designed to do than what they are used for. Hence people like you contribute to the "guns should be banned" meme, based more on the notion that a gun is "meant" to kill whereas I guess wires and axes and knives and fists and cars - why, they all just "accidentally" kill and are thus somehow less relevant.

They are less relevant, whether you want to accept that or not. Damn near anything can be used in a way other than its intended purpose to cause harm to another person or being. But if a gun is being used in the way it is designed to be used, it's going to cause harm. I don't know if you're arguing just for the sake of arguing, or if you actually believe the tripe you're spouting, but it's certainly not benefiting you.

They are less relevant, whether you want to accept that or not.

Tell that to Eliza Jane Davis.

Damn near anything can be used in a way other than its intended purpose to cause harm to another person or being. But if a gun is being used in the way it is designed to be used, it's going to cause harm.

Again - you apparently care more about the design of an object, than the outcome.

Guns are not designed to commit homicide. Otherwise just owning a gun would constitute intent. Guns are actually designed to propel a projectile.

I don't know if you're arguing just for the sake of arguing, or if you actually believe the tripe you're spouting, but it's certainly not benefiting you.

I think I'll just ignore this bit of self-love fluff you've got going. It's actually rather disgusting.

why don't you guys take your gun control argument somewhere else


i think these girls should get a long sentence in a mental institution not a prison

And this incident merely strengthens my resolve to find a way to grow humans to adulthood in glass jars to avoid the "stupid idiot" stage. The problem, of course, is that the "stupid idiot" stage seems to never end ...I'm afraid all work-arounds that do not go to the root of the problem - human nature - are doomed to be bulky and inefficient. Re-engineer it, however, and stupidity as it is known today can be eliminated.

Tell that to Eliza Jane Davis.The original piece I responded to was the dumbass statement "I suppose its time to ban wire now." You know that, because you quoted my response. It's a stupid argument, and I pointed that out.



Again - you apparently care more about the design of an object, than the outcome.

Guns are not designed to commit homicide. Otherwise just owning a gun would constitute intent. Guns are actually designed to propel a projectile. Guns are designed to kill living animals by hitting said animal with a projectile. Homicide certainly falls under that set of actions.

While I think the actions of these girls is reprehensible, I can somehow see why they did it, and here's why: I remember when I was younger, I was bored and I didn't have anything better to do. I was walking by a unit that had an unprotected basement window. The window pane did not look like glass, so I decided to fulfil my curiosity and I tapped my foot against it, breaking it. It turned out to be glass. I was 12 years old at the time.

What does this have to do with anything? You know the old saying "curiosity killed the cat?" well, I can see how they came up with it. Not because the cat was curious but because someone or something else was curious and the cat was killed because of it.

There was a lapse of reason. People forget that curiosity can be our undoing. But some follow through because they want to know what will happen, and I believe this is why the girls did it, and I can understand that. There was a pre-existing morbid curiosity with a hankering to fulfil it.

The voice of reason that often prevents us from doing shit can be silent when there is enough of a desire to try something. Once that voice is silenced, we are able to act upon our curiosity and witness the results; the consequences of our choices.

With the voice silenced, we no longer have the inhibitor that tells us to "hold on, that is not right." The burning itch doesn't appear until later; the itch that reminds is that we're doing something wrong and that we feel guilty for doing something wrong.

That being said, I think it was cruel and unnecessary for them to kill their friend.

Uh...Australia could have a 60% decline if there were, what, 3 or 4 fewer murders by firearm next year. 3 or 4 fewer here wouldn't even register as a change, statistically. :rolleyes:

With about 60 deaths by firearms a year, it would actually be enough to reduce the numbers of murder by about 35. :)

Guns are designed to kill living animals by hitting said animal with a projectile. Homicide certainly falls under that set of actions.

Some guns. Not all guns.

There you go generalizing about a subject of which you know nothing.

That's just sick really...

But I still think it's a little weird to compare wire to guns, mostly because it requires a lot more sickness and effort to kill someone with wire that with a gun...

So as a break from warring about how Islam is or is not about to eat the proverbial baby, its off to "Guns R good/Guns R bad" for a few threads...sure why not....

That's just sick really...

But I still think it's a little weird to compare wire to guns, mostly because it requires a lot more sickness and effort to kill someone with wire that with a gun...

Eraeya, meet Remote Observer. You'll get used to it :)

Some guns. Not all guns.

There you go generalizing about a subject of which you know nothing.

Most guns--and you fucking well know it.

that's fucking horiffic

The original piece I responded to was the dumbass statement "I suppose its time to ban wire now." You know that, because you quoted my response. It's a stupid argument, and I pointed that out.

You're right, banning wire because wire is used to kill someone is a stupid argument. It's intended to reveal the stupidity of banning guns because guns get used to kill people. In both cases the problem is psychopaths killing innocent people, not the tools they happen to use.

Guns are designed to kill living animals by hitting said animal with a projectile.

Nuclear fission is designed to kill living humans by burning, vaporizing, crushing and radioactivity.

BAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS RIGHT NOW!

I know you love your guns, but you really come off like an ass when you try to compare ordinary, everyday things like wire to them when they're used in a murder. It's a bullshit argument and nobody falls for it--a five year old knows the difference between a gun (whose primary purpose is to kill something, although not necessarily human) and wire. And you alienate people like me who don't personally own guns, but who have no real objection to gun ownership in general. You make it difficult for us to defend your general position.
Wow! You read way more into that than I did. Glad you're around to point stuff out for us :p

Eraeya, meet Remote Observer. You'll get used to it :)

Okido :) I can cope though. I just hope he can.

This is horrible! :(

Why did they kill their own friend!?!? I know that they wanted to know what killing someone was like, but Jesus! Somebody should have taken them to a counselour or something!!!! Was the 15 year old suicidal or just plain insane!?!?!

And why ban wire? Just because somebody killed another person with a piece of wire doesn't mean it's just as bad as guns. You could kill someone with a baseball bat, probably even a marshmallow. Should we ban them too, even though they are far more useful than guns?

This is horrible! :(

Why did they kill their own friend!?!? I know that they wanted to know what killing someone was like, but Jesus! Somebody should have taken them to a counselour or something!!!! Was the 15 year old suicidal or just plain insane!?!?!

And why ban wire? Just because somebody killed another person with a piece of wire doesn't mean it's just as bad as guns. You could kill someone with a baseball bat, probably even a marshmallow. Should we ban them too, even though they are far more useful than guns?

no one really knows why they did it

no one really knows why they did it

They did it because they wanted to know what killing someone was like...

but why their own friend!? Are they psychopaths or something?!

Are they psychopaths or something?!
Yeah, I'll go with that.

They did it because they wanted to know what killing someone was like...

but why their own friend!? Are they psychopaths or something?!

i was been lazy it was to the
15 year old suicidal or just plain insane

This is horrible! :(

Why did they kill their own friend!?!? I know that they wanted to know what killing someone was like, but Jesus! Somebody should have taken them to a counselour or something!!!! Was the 15 year old suicidal or just plain insane!?!?!

I guess they are just people who don't give a damn, only think of themselves. To a psycho degree.

And why ban wire? Just because somebody killed another person with a piece of wire doesn't mean it's just as bad as guns. You could kill someone with a baseball bat, probably even a marshmallow. Should we ban them too, even though they are far more useful than guns?

Don't expect the gun nuts to give rational arguments.

I guess they are just people who don't give a damn, only think of themselves. Narcissists I believe. I wonder if the victim was suicidal, insane, or totally unaware...



Don't expect the gun nuts to give rational arguments. Are you calling me a gun nut? :confused:

Are you calling me a gun nut? :confused:

no just telling you Don't expect them too

Are you calling me a gun nut? :confused:

no just telling you Don't expect them too

What he ^ said. The gun nuts love giving those faulty comparisons to "prove" that guns aren't devices to kill. Ridiculous but all you can do is humor them.

What he ^ said. The gun nuts love giving those faulty comparisons to "prove" that guns aren't devices to kill. Ridiculous but all you can do is humor them.

Oh. The post did sound rather pro-gun, but I'm anti-gun, so feh. It is rather stupid to compare wire or marshmallows or baseball bats to guns though.... The first three were never intended to be lethal weapons.

Australia, meet your versions of Nevada-Tan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada-tan). You'll be asking the same questions years later with no answers in sight. :(

Australia, meet your versions of Nevada-Tan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada-tan). You'll be asking the same questions years later with no answers in sight. :(

I bet the University of Nevada really loved this kind of publicity. :p

I bet the University of Nevada really loved this kind of publicity. :p
They pulled those sweatshirts from the online bookstore once they found out (and it explained the sudden jump in orders from Japan).

It also explains why I got some very strange looks when I wore mine in Shibuya not long afterwards.

I know people that seem, to me anyway, that they would kill someone, just to experience it, if they could get away with it. Though this same individual is also prone to making up strange and absurd hypothetical situations in which the presented solutions are horrible and disgusting.

On a side note:

Guns are designed to kill people, but enough of this nonsense of debating why these people of gun culture, namely Americans, are so fond of their guns.

The reason why these nutjobs think they have a "right" to own guns is because of the second ammendment. Now, if you know anything about the history of the United States, the second ammendment is a part of a larger body called the bill of rights, which adds ten ammendments to the consitution of the United States.

Note:

1. the second ammendment was not created for hunting purposes

2. the second ammendment was not created for defensivess purposes

3. the second ammendment WAS created for defending against a tyranical government, such as the one existing during the time of the American revolt

I mean, such barbaric practices are in the past -other countries, especially America, should follow in the footsteps of Australia and the UK and pass a sensible bans on firearms so that we can ensure domestic compliance -of tranquility that is. I mean, look how it worked so well in India, especially in Amritsar.

The important thing is they were punished for it. As crazy as it is, at least they didn't get off the hook, like some people might.

You're right, banning wire because wire is used to kill someone is a stupid argument. It's intended to reveal the stupidity of banning guns because guns get used to kill people. In both cases the problem is psychopaths killing innocent people, not the tools they happen to use.
Did I say that guns were the problem? No. Did I even hint it? Not at all. But to say that wire=guns when it comes to killing people is stupid because when a person used a gun to kill, that person is using that tool for the purpose it was designed for. Not so with wire.


Nuclear fission is designed to kill living humans by burning, vaporizing, crushing and radioactivity.

BAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS RIGHT NOW!
This is an even dumber example than the one you're defending, because you're saying that nuclear fission is a tool. A proper analogy would be to compare a nuclear bomb to a gun, and then to call for its banning, a sentiment I also disagree with. You know, until your reasoning skills return, you might want to start calling yourself Lesser Trostia. It's more apt.

Please don't make a comment about Australia's penal history.

I mean, such barbaric practices are in the past -other countries, especially America, should follow in the footsteps of Australia and the UK and pass a sensible bans on firearms so that we can ensure domestic compliance -of tranquility that is. I mean, look how it worked so well in India, especially in Amritsar.
Great idea, that way when the government comes knocking at my door to take away all my property I'll be completely defenseless. How about when some criminal with no regard for the no gun law jumps me in on the street? The police can't be everywhere at once, and that's why it should be my right and responsibility to protect myself.

Please don't make a comment about Australia's penal history.

don't tell them they wont recall it

What, you don't want domestic compli-damn it, "tranquility", do you?
Do a favor for me. Google Amritsar.

I know you love your guns, but you really come off like an ass when you try to compare ordinary, everyday things like wire to them when they're used in a murder. It's a bullshit argument and nobody falls for it--a five year old knows the difference between a gun (whose primary purpose is to kill something, although not necessarily human) and wire. And you alienate people like me who don't personally own guns, but who have no real objection to gun ownership in general. You make it difficult for us to defend your general position.

I wish you wouldn't; it's not like they need the back-up, Nazz.

What, you don't want domestic compli-damn it, "tranquility", do you?
Do a favor for me. Google Amritsar.
You call it domestic tranquility. I call it opression.

I wish you wouldn't; it's not like they need the back-up, Nazz.

Well, it's a position I hold, and I see no need to change it just because the extremists happen to be intellectually questionable in their arguments from time to time. I feel about them on this issue the same way I used to feel about The Red Arrow back in the day. I could win some arguments if they'd just stop "helping." ;)

In the US, is having guns kinda like an ego thing or something? Like overcompensation?

In the US, is having guns kinda like an ego thing or something? Like overcompensation?
You could use that argument, and many television shows often elude to it. However, I do not own a gun (not old enough). I plan to get a legally licensed firearm when I am old enough to protect myself.

NOT to hurt or kill people
NOT to intimidate people
NOT to "compensate" for anything

To protect myself from danger, whether it be a rabid animal, a criminal with a gun, or anything else trying to take away my life, liberty, or property.

In the US, is having guns kinda like an ego thing or something? Like overcompensation?
As with most issues, it depends. My experience is that most gun owners are hunters--thats anecdotal evidence, mind you, but remember that most of the US is still largely rural. The one time I considered purchasing a gun was because I was living way out in the middle of nowhere on a farm, and there were wild dogs that occasionally threatened the cows that lived on the land. I wound up moving and didn't buy it, but I was definitely in the minority in a 30 mile radius in being a non-gun owner.

That said, I knew plenty of people who had a relationship with guns that I would call unhealthy, and there were certainly people who were compensating. They were decidedly in the minority--among the people I knew, let me emphasize.

In the US, is having guns kinda like an ego thing or something? Like overcompensation?

As I understand it, with every gun you own it adds an imaginary inch to your dick.


But then some people actually don't fall into a gun nut stereotype so it isn't always an "overcompensation" thing.


So it depends. ;)

You could use that argument, and many television shows often elude to it. However, I do not own a gun (not old enough). I plan to get a legally licensed firearm when I am old enough to protect myself.

NOT to hurt or kill people
NOT to intimidate people
NOT to "compensate" for anything

To protect myself from danger, whether it be a rabid animal, a criminal with a gun, or anything else trying to take away my life, liberty, or property.

You worry too much, kiddo. Oh, and it's "allude" in this case, not "elude".

Pardon my grammar-nazism.

You worry too much, kiddo. Oh, and it's "allude" in this case, not "elude".

Pardon my grammar-nazism.

That's not a grammar problem--it's a word usage issue. :D

Great idea, that way when the government comes knocking at my door to take away all my property I'll be completely defenseless.
Instead you will be compleatly overwhemed and die in a hail of bullets. Nice.

Instead you will be compleatly overwhemed and die in a hail of bullets. Nice.

well said


now who can tell me what made us ban guns here yes i do know but do you

You call it domestic tranquility. I call it opression.

You're not picking up what I'm putting down.

How about if I said, "Gun control worked well in Warsaw".

However, I thought the Amritsar example would be far more biting, though less well known.

But come on, you can't say that most people who have these automatic firearms wouldn't feel somehow superior and more in control because of these weapons, even beyond a feeling of security. I mean I remember when I was younger and I had a BB Gun, and damn I felt important.

I mean sure you feel that you can defend yourself from tyrannical government and all, but lets face it, if the US went nazi I doubt small arms would do very much.

well said


now who can tell me what made us ban guns here yes i do know but do you

I'd be more interested in how threads about any kind of violence descend into gun debates and political threads inevitably head to Bush/Iraq arguments. It is an interesting phenomenon.

But come on, you can't say that most people who have these automatic firearms wouldn't feel somehow superior and more in control because of these weapons, even beyond a feeling of security. I mean I remember when I was younger and I had a BB Gun, and damn I felt important.
We can get you a nice framed certificate that says you're a VIP if you like. ;)

I'd be more interested in how threads about any kind of violence descend into gun debates and political threads inevitably head to Bush/Iraq arguments. It is an interesting phenomenon.

yes that is odd
but if they throwing around that we ban them i like to know if they know why we did

I'd be more interested in how threads about any kind of violence descend into gun debates and political threads inevitably head to Bush/Iraq arguments. It is an interesting phenomenon.
It's NSG... That's probably all the explination you need. ;)

If the government can legitimately and reasonably guarantee that ALL guns will be banned and removed from the country and that I WILL be safer, then I'll let them ban them. But since criminals can get guns elsewhere, I'd much rather take my chances. Considering that they can't keep illegal drugs, immigrants, or anything else out of the country, I'd love to see them trying to keep guns out.

Edit: And yes, it is "allude," I apologize for the oversight.

The Soviet Union is a perfect example of where gun control worked.

yes that is odd
but if they throwing around that we ban them i like to know if they know why we did
Port Arthur Massacure, wasn't it?

Or am I confused? :confused:

Port Arthur Massacure, wasn't it?

Or am I confused? :confused:

it was

It's NSG... That's probably all the explination you need. ;)

Very true.

The Soviet Union is a perfect example of where gun control worked.

*backs slowly away from that post*

Port Arthur Massacure, wasn't it?

Or am I confused? :confused:

Yeah, that's why they banned automatic weapons in Australia, it's actually the one policy I supported Howard one, he got bipartisan support from the states and the like.

You know, we didn't like people going to tourist destinations with an M4 and opening up on crowds of people on holidays, burning down houses, and running down little children and slaughtering them. Certainly not in my state.

We have liberty, but we make a trade off with the State for some of that liberty in order for our protection.

The Soviet Union is a perfect example of where gun control worked.

It worked because anyone who dissented was sent away to a prison camp or killed. I guess if that's how you want your country to be then, yeah, I can understand supporting anti-gun legislation.

It worked because anyone who dissented was sent away to a prison camp or killed. I guess if that's how you want your country to be then, yeah, I can understand supporting anti-gun legislation.

You obviously know nothing about Destalinsation and post-50s USSR then.

You obviously know nothing about Destalinsation and post-50s USSR then.

Obviously, tell me about it.

It worked because anyone who dissented was sent away to a prison camp or killed. I guess if that's how you want your country to be then, yeah, I can understand supporting anti-gun legislation.
don't think that would happen here

Obviously, tell me about it.

Just go on wiki.

The Soviet Union is a perfect example of where gun control worked.
Go go Gadget Blanket-ignorance!

don't think that would happen here

Even if it did, no one outside of Australia would know about it since the internet would be completely banned by then, and no one would be allowed in or out of the country.

Even if it did, no one outside of Australia would know about it since the internet would be completely banned by then, and no one would be allowed in or out of the country.

thats more ways then the net to get infor out of a place

I guess in one of those "If it happened and my life was severely involved in it" I would cold heartedly beat the living fucking feces out of those responsible, involved, and those who just didn't care to get involved and try to stop it.


I'd have a hard time disagreeing. These girls should get life imprisonment. Or to save time and money, a hanging.

People are forgeting the important variable here, the mind. These girls, and certain people in general, have and still hide latent desires to harm others. Nobody does anything as serious as murder on a whim, it's not like getting a mohawk. Disturbingly there are few ways on picking up on intent, some people are loud and roudy, some are loners, both any many other types of people have spawned murderers.

Disturbingly there are few ways on picking up on intent, some people are loud and roudy, some are loners, both any many other types of people have spawned murderers.

True, it's hard to pick out those aspects sometimes. The only thing that is practical however is making sure they can never do it again. Mandatory death sentences would go a long way to making sure of that.

True, it's hard to pick out those aspects sometimes. The only thing that is practical however is making sure they can never do it again. Mandatory death sentences would go a long way to making sure of that.

So would life without parole.

Daft question, were they goths?:rolleyes:

True, it's hard to pick out those aspects sometimes. The only thing that is practical however is making sure they can never do it again. Mandatory death sentences would go a long way to making sure of that.

My point Being, No matter where you live, complete safety is an illusion. Although, living in complete fear is inadvisable. The fact is: every tool can (and probably has) be a weapon. Counseling for every Person is Impossible, both ethicaly and monetary. I'm not stating my stance on capitol punishment, I'm just saying there is no way in any complex system is there ever complete control. It's called the chaos theory I believe.

So would life without parole.

That works, but doesn't that cost more than a hanging? There's also no chance of escape with a death penalty unless you've got a necromancer friend...

Could only happen in America.

Bloody Yanks. You're all mad. :rolleyes:

True, it's hard to pick out those aspects sometimes. The only thing that is practical however is making sure they can never do it again. Mandatory death sentences would go a long way to making sure of that.

other than the unconstitutionality of it....

That works, but doesn't that cost more than a hanging?

On average in the united states it is more expensive to execute someone than it is to house them for life.

That works, but doesn't that cost more than a hanging? There's also no chance of escape with a death penalty unless you've got a necromancer friend...

Two things to say to that. The first is that in the US, once you factor in the costs of automatic appeals, extra security, etc., it's very close, if not cheaper, to leave the average prisoner in for life without parole than it is to execute him or her. Of course, the age of the prisoner has something to do with that, but averaged out, it's the same or cheaper.

The second, and more salient point to me, is that there's too much of a chance of executing an innocent person in the US. Certainly there are exceptions--situations where the guilt is beyond dispute--but unfortunately, the US system isn't very good at making sure everyone on death row is actually guilty, and if the choice is between executing an innocent person or putting a guilty person behind bars for the rest of his or her life, I'll take the second option.

Could only happen in America.

Bloody Yanks. You're all mad. :rolleyes:
Uh, no. This was Australia. You know, bloody Ozzies.

Could only happen in America.

Bloody Yanks. You're all mad. :rolleyes:

Since when is Australia part of the Americas?

Daft question, were they goths?:rolleyes:

Daft? Like there hasn't been that guy everybody was absolutley convinced had it all together.... Until he decapitates his wife.

Two things to say to that. The first is that in the US, once you factor in the costs of automatic appeals, extra security, etc., it's very close, if not cheaper, to leave the average prisoner in for life without parole than it is to execute him or her. Of course, the age of the prisoner has something to do with that, but averaged out, it's the same or cheaper.

What about junking automatic appeals in clear cut cases of guilt? Seems to me that's the biggest bill for the costs of executions. Also the biggest delay. Much easier and faster to just hang them and be done with.

Would also cut down on how long you'd need to use the other bills like security and what not.


The second, and more salient point to me, is that there's too much of a chance of executing an innocent person in the US. Certainly there are exceptions--situations where the guilt is beyond dispute--but unfortunately, the US system isn't very good at making sure everyone on death row is actually guilty, and if the choice is between executing an innocent person or putting a guilty person behind bars for the rest of his or her life, I'll take the second option.

That's a problem with the court system than the death penalty I think. Maybe if compulsory lie detection and hypnotic interrogations were combined with truth drugs.

What about junking automatic appeals in clear cut cases of guilt? Seems to me that's the biggest bill for the costs of executions. Also the biggest delay. Much easier and faster to just hang them and be done with.

Would also cut down on how long you'd need to use the other bills like security and what not.
And how would you define clear cut cases of guilt though? Unless you have them on film doing it with no doubt to their identity at all...

That's a problem with the court system than the death penalty I think. Maybe if compulsory lie detection and hypnotic interrogations were combined with truth drugs.
Lie detectors, hypnosis, and so called truth drugs are not accruate, one of the reasons why they are unadmissable in court.

As I understand it, with every gun you own it adds an imaginary inch to your dick.

So where do female gun nuts fall into this?

But then some people actually don't fall into a gun nut stereotype so it isn't always an "overcompensation" thing.
So it depends. ;)

http://xkcd.com/c194.html

And how would you define clear cut cases of guilt though? Unless you have them on film doing it with no doubt to their identity at all...


This one seems to be fairly clear cut of guilt. The Port Arthur Massacre was another one. Lots of witnesses, admission of guilt, matching prints and ballistics, there's enough that can be put together to create an accurate depiction of what happened and how.


Lie detectors, hypnosis, and so called truth drugs are not accruate, one of the reasons why they are unadmissable in court.

DK used to go on for hours on end about how accurate the latest batch of truth drugs were. If these things were ever proven in the public sphere to match the accuracy requirement, would you allow them in court?

Also, I suggested all three. Not just one of them. I don't believe in putting all the eggs in one basket.

This one seems to be fairly clear cut of guilt. The Port Arthur Massacre was another one. Lots of witnesses, admission of guilt, matching prints and ballistics, there's enough that can be put together to create an accurate depiction of what happened and how.
In this case, yes, but such cases are rather rare.

DK used to go on for hours on end about how accurate the latest batch of truth drugs were. If these things were ever proven in the public sphere to match the accuracy requirement, would you allow them in court?

Also, I suggested all three. Not just one of them. I don't believe in putting all the eggs in one basket.
If you can get something that is 99.9%, then yes. But I want it held to the same standard DNA analysis is held to.

I'm from Australia. This story is consistent with the experience of living there, insofar as most things are done "to see what it was like"...

why don't you guys take your gun control argument somewhere else


i think these girls should get a long sentence in a mental institution not a prison

Um, a mental institution doesn't use a "sentence", it's therapy. Hows about we just shoot them? Obviously, being sociopathes it would be impossible to cure them, as they can mimmic emotions to a tee.

Um, a mental institution doesn't use a "sentence", it's therapy. Hows about we just shoot them? Obviously, be sociopathes it would be impossible to cure , as they can mimmic emotions to a tee.

So when did you get your doctorate in psychology?

Please don't make a comment about Australia's penal history.


Why? What were your ancestors guilty of?

Hows about we just shoot them?

Too quick, too painless.

Too quick, too painless.

It is cheap, however.

You obviously know nothing about Destalinsation and post-50s USSR then.
Clearly post-50s USSR was a shining beacon of freedom and prosperity. :rolleyes:

It is cheap, however.

The Federal Budget is in surplus, I say splash out a bit.

Since when is Australia part of the Americas?

Hint: :rolleyes: often represents sarcasm.

So where do female gun nuts fall into this?

They have weird father complexes.

They have weird father complexes.

An Elektra complex, IMS.

The Federal Budget is in surplus, I say splash out a bit.

Maybe it could be a creative outlet for some folks...

For a deliberate, unprovoked, brutal murder by garrotte they only get 15 years in prison? That means when they are 32 they will be out in the world once again. Sure they'll be sorry then. But not for the right reasons, they will be sorry because they have no education, no marketable skills, and no way to get a decent job to make a living... and hell since they have already killed someone (one of thier fucking freinds) they will have no problem killing ofr personal gain. That isn't justice... not even close. They basically just sealed the fate of some other poor helpless victim.
They need put away for life, or just put in a hole in the ground. Anyone who can be that malicious for no reason will be willingly that malicious again and can be even more dangerous.

You planned and executed the murder of a 15 year old girl... *slaps wrist* you are a naughty naughty person, now go sit in your room for 15 years. I find the punishment to be almost as bad as the crime.

For a deliberate, unprovoked, brutal murder by garrotte they only get 15 years in prison? That means when they are 32 they will be out in the world once again. Sure they'll be sorry then. But not for the right reasons, they will be sorry because they have no education, no marketable skills, and no way to get a decent job to make a living... and hell since they have already killed someone (one of thier fucking freinds) they will have no problem killing ofr personal gain. That isn't justice... not even close. They basically just sealed the fate of some other poor helpless victim.
They need put away for life, or just put in a hole in the ground. Anyone who can be that malicious for no reason will be willingly that malicious again and can be even more dangerous.

You planned and executed the murder of a 15 year old girl... *slaps wrist* you are a naughty naughty person, now go sit in your room for 15 years. I find the punishment to be almost as bad as the crime.

Yeah, annoying isn't it?

You planned and executed the murder of a 15 year old girl... *slaps wrist* you are a naughty naughty person, now go sit in your room for 15 years. I find the punishment to be almost as bad as the crime.

That's right, if they killed someone that quickly and remorcelessly, they most certainly might when they realise that their life's fucked up when they come out of jail.

It's not just annoying to me it strikes me as completly injust. I know of people that have gotten worse for marijuana. Granted USA and Australia are not the same country but only the most bleeding hearted lunatic or raving dumbass would sentence two brutal murderers to 15 years in prison; I don't care if they are 'children' anyone who can commit a deliberate murder like that should be faced with more than that.

Some people may even see it as an argument FOR murder.

Now they have a decent standard of living for 15 years... on the taxpayers!
They will be out soon enough to have the possibility of a normal life.

I think the judge who declared the sentence should be imprisioned!

It's not just annoying to me it strikes me as completly injust. I know of people that have gotten worse for marijuana. Granted USA and Australia are not the same country but only the most bleeding hearted lunatic or raving dumbass would sentence two brutal murderers to 15 years in prison; I don't care if they are 'children' anyone who can commit a deliberate murder like that should be faced with more than that.

Some people may even see it as an argument FOR murder.

Now they have a decent standard of living for 15 years... on the taxpayers!
They will be out soon enough to have the possibility of a normal life.

I think the judge who declared the sentence should be imprisioned!

Perhaps Australian law stipulates a maximum sentence of fifteen years for a minor, regardless of the offence, so the judge would be unable to hand over a harsher sentence.

Perhaps Australian law stipulates a maximum sentence of fifteen years for a minor, regardless of the offence, so the judge would be unable to hand over a harsher sentence.

In most Western nations, if you're going to do something heinous, do it when you're a juvenile. That way, you'll probably walk out of prison when you're 18.

Perhaps Australian law stipulates a maximum sentence of fifteen years for a minor, regardless of the offence, so the judge would be unable to hand over a harsher sentence.

It said minimal sentence in the article.

Who knows, now that guns are banned in Australia. Maybe they had to use wire because that's all they could get hold of...

Those two girls should be subjected to the same treatment.

This is a horrible case but seriously dude....

Shut up already. You are the perfect advert for why normal people think that people like you shouldn't own guns, because wire doesn't generally figure in mass killings and even a silly person could work that one out.

But to say that wire=guns when it comes to killing people is stupid because when a person used a gun to kill, that person is using that tool for the purpose it was designed for. Not so with wire.

That's ridiculous. It doesn't matter what it was "designed" for.

Look, I'll explain this to you.

1. Guns are used to kill people.
2. Killing is wrong.
3. Therefore, guns should be banned.

That is one anti-gun argument. So...

1. Wire is used to kill people.
2. Killing is wrong.
3. Therefore, wire should be banned.

See the similarity? People don't say,

1. Wire is used to kill people.
2. Killing is wrong, unless it is done with an object not designed to kill.
3. Therefore, wire should not be banned.

The whole point of this is to reveal the flaws in argument #1, not to say that "wire = guns."

But you just want to mock and mock. Tell me about how someone shit in my cereal, how my reasoning is "intellectually questionable," yadda yadda yadda. Take that self-congratulatory crap elsewhere.


This is an even dumber example than the one you're defending, because you're saying that nuclear fission is a tool.

It is. A tool is nothing more than a means to an end. But OK, it's dumb, I'm dumb, you're smart, you're right, etc etc. ;)

You know, until your reasoning skills return, you might want to start calling yourself Lesser Trostia. It's more apt.

Oh LOL that was funny! Now go to the back of the class and remember that penis is not a toy.

And here I was under the impression eating ice cream and seeing whose boobs are bigger is what went on at these sleep overs.

It said minimal sentence in the article.

True. After rereading the article, though, I think they mean life sentence with minimum 15 years before chance of parole.

That's ridiculous. It doesn't matter what it was "designed" for....It is. A tool is nothing more than a means to an end.

I am curious to know what sort of gun is not designed to kill. Most of the situations in which I would imagine myself using a gun would be to kill. Hunting, protecting the life of my family, last ditch militia effort against invading army/oppressive government...

Of couse, there is always target practice. But that is practice for the moment when the real target is the person or animal that needs killing.

I have no problem with guns, and I do not believe that gun control is worthwhile. I just want to know what sort of gun is not designed to kill?

I guess I'm also sort of curious as to why you would want to buy one.

And here I was under the impression eating ice cream and seeing whose boobs are bigger is what went on at these sleep overs.

Thats only in porn films.

I am curious to know what sort of gun is not designed to kill.

Taser gun
Glue gun
Pop gun

You issued the challenge and I rose from the ranks of the peanut gallery to stand up and answer it!

Murder without gain or an specific reason is worthless

Well sure. The idea of killing someone without some kind of benefit seems rather silly doesn't it?

Oh yeah...

Phaser gun - Set it to stun!

I am curious to know what sort of gun is not designed to kill. Most of the situations in which I would imagine myself using a gun would be to kill. Hunting, protecting the life of my family, last ditch militia effort against invading army/oppressive government...

Of couse, there is always target practice. But that is practice for the moment when the real target is the person or animal that needs killing.

I don't own a gun, but I am told the act of shooting the gun itself is the fun part. Target shooting is thus not practicing for future homicide, but what one does with a gun. It's a bit of fun and competition, rather like throwing darts.

Thats only in porn films.

porn films are the only place i can see woman in pillow fights

Taser gun
Glue gun
Pop gun

You issued the challenge and I rose from the ranks of the peanut gallery to stand up and answer it!

Water guns!!!!! That is unless you run up to someone and pwn them over the head with it. :p

I don't own a gun, but I am told the act of shooting the gun itself is the fun part. Target shooting is thus not practicing for future homicide, but what one does with a gun. It's a bit of fun and competition, rather like throwing darts.

Most target guns are not designed to kill people.

Most of them are rather bad at it - but quite good at hitting targets.

Taser gun
Glue gun
Pop gun

You issued the challenge and I rose from the ranks of the peanut gallery to stand up and answer it!

I'd say that we all know full well what we was trying to say. No need to reduce yourself to the realm of ridiculous.

Glue gun.... :rolleyes:

Most target guns are not designed to kill people.

Most of them are rather bad at it - but quite good at hitting targets.

Sort of like an exercise bike for people who like pedalling, but don't really want to go anywhere. That was my first thought, but thanks for clearing that up.

I would assume that a target gun is one that is specifically designed solely for shooting paper silhouettes, etc. and not for actually stopping someone or something in their tracks. Is this a really specialised part of gun culture, or do most guns seen at target ranges fit into this category?

I'd say that we all know full well what we was trying to say. No need to reduce yourself to the realm of ridiculous.

Glue gun.... :rolleyes:

Reduce myself? I dare say I live there... its called earth.

Sort of like an exercise bike for people who like pedalling, but don't really want to go anywhere. That was my first thought, but thanks for clearing that up.

I would assume that a target gun is one that is specifically designed solely for shooting paper silhouettes, etc. and not for actually stopping someone or something in their tracks. Is this a really specialised part of gun culture, or do most guns seen at target ranges fit into this category?

It is both.

If you're interested in target shooting (and most civilians use their guns in this way), you end up with just any gun for starters, because they cost less than target models.

There are highly specialized target models for each type of shooting competition.

They cost a LOT of money, and are usually modified to the point where they would be useless for anything else - too heavy, too unwieldy, etc.

"Race guns" fall into this category. The trigger is generally far too light, the specially designed holster isn't suitable for anything except standing still at the firing line (otherwise, the gun can fall out), and the gun has extra sights that make it impossible to holster in a normal holster (or to conceal it).

Benchrest rifles aren't made to be carried - and they can end up weighing up to five times as much as an ordinary rifle.

But, if you like target shooting, you'll spend the money on the target models.

Contrary to popular belief outside of gun circles, most guns are bought for target purposes and nothing else.

In fact, there are shooting sports that involve blanks...

http://www.bobmunden.com/legends.htm

And here I was under the impression eating ice cream and seeing whose boobs are bigger is what went on at these sleep overs.

If the internet has taught me anything, it's that when girls have a sleep over they always end up having sex.

1. Wire is used to kill people.
2. Killing is wrong.
3. Therefore, wire should be banned.
I'll repeat myself...
Will wire be used as a murder weapon in about 59 cases in Australia this year? And 8,200 in the US? 20,000+ in Columbia and 30,000+ in South Africa?

When it passes 80,000 worldwide a year (remember, this is only murders, not accidents, war or suicides) than you can bring that idea back to the table.

darnit. i thought the grass'd be greener over there than here in mean old USA. :(

darnit. i thought the grass'd be greener over there than here in mean old USA. :(

PLUTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

:fluffle::fluffle:

Sorry.

But jeeze, you're right. Though in my memory, nothing like this has happened inthe USA (other than school shootings).

PLUTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

:fluffle::fluffle:

Sorry.

But jeeze, you're right. Though in my memory, nothing like this has happened inthe USA (other than school shootings).
I love you too. :p :fluffle:

(not like that, sicko. :p)

(not like that, sicko. :p)

no he got DOS again

no he got DOS again

I'm deat-on-sight? :confused:

I'm deat-on-sight? :confused:

not you the sicko that gived pancake a hard time some time back

I'll repeat myself...

Thanks for repeating yourself unnecessarily in a way that doesn't actually address what I've said.

not you the sicko that gived pancake a hard time some time back
Ouch. :( Poor girl. :(

no he got DOS again

Ouch. :( Poor girl. :(

YEah, that October3 guy. He was a pedophile... seriously. I got into a flamewar with his puppet account, then he started trolling the mod forum about hte same time Ifreann reported us for flaming, then when I started cleaning up my posts he started saying stuff like "oooohhh you're 15 only one more year..." :(

Ouch. :( Poor girl. :(

indeed

YEah, that October3 guy. He was a pedophile... seriously. I got into a flamewar with his puppet account, then he started trolling the mod forum about hte same time Ifreann reported us for flaming, then when I started cleaning up my posts he started saying stuff like "oooohhh you're 15 only one more year..." :(

best not say a thing

YEah, that October3 guy. He was a pedophile... seriously. I got into a flamewar with his puppet account, then he started trolling the mod forum about hte same time Ifreann reported us for flaming, then when I started cleaning up my posts he started saying stuff like "oooohhh you're 15 only one more year..." :(
Ouch. sorry. :(

Ouch. sorry. :(

Yeah... bad memories... :(

Thanks for repeating yourself unnecessarily in a way that doesn't actually address what I've said.

You're welcome. Too bad you don't see the connection though. Not to worry, I can probably pop by later to point it out to you again.