He does sound a little gleeful, doesn't he?

One kid is in critical condition and required two surgeries, and the other is listed as "stable."

How do you define "non-life-threatening?" You live long enough to make it to the hospital?

The articles I read said the surgeries were on the shooter. So, it was probably a mistake.

When twelve year olds attack, Gmork will be the only one ready for them, and _then_ he'll have the last laugh!

So far Gmork has only proved that he can broadly coat things like a pseudo-intellect shit bag.

There's nothing else revealed in this story on any news sites you fucking chode.

As of Thursday Jan 16th 3:30 P.M. here in the mid-west.

I do believe you're a moron and a hypocrite, Joe. I'm discussing the pervasive attitude of blanket-judgement that people like you impose on anyone with the slightest interest in guns.

It would be funnier if you weren't serious about it.

Also here comes Oscar with the (still incorrect) assumption that I own a firearm, or would have a conceal and carry license if I did (I wouldn't). I still think people should be allowed to - the amount of trust placed in drivers of cars not killing other people (and making gun-related deaths seem like lightning-strikes by comparison) is all the mirroring necessary for an intelligent person to conclude that your fascist attitude toward gun control is full of glaring hypocrisy. If your argument is based on hating the person and assuming things about them, it's no wonder you are so obviously bitter every time you respond to me. You actually believe your own delusion about people who own guns needing to have anything in common. They're all rednecks, they're all racists, etc. Pretty gradeschool stuff, Joe. Gee, sounds strikingly similar to what you were accusing me of, the only difference is that you are actually being prejudiced whereas i'm taking things on a case-by-case basis.

Anyone you argue the inanimate object is the greater evil, and not the person wielding it irresponsibly, you're an idiot.

Now would be a good time to clarify what your position is, because that's what you're putting out there - pseudo intellectual garbage based on nothing except your own prejudice.

If it's all about statistics and facts, you should be far angrier at the senseless death cars inflict. But you love cars, not guns, so hooray for selective, insular thinking!

*Anyone you argue = Anytime you argue

Why you gotta be so mean all the time, Gmork?

I'm with you on the gun thing, but you can disagree with people and still be friends! Maybe if you didn't call Mr Wildcat and Mr Shoebox morons all the time, they would be less inclined to dismiss you as a violent, gun-waving sociopath.

Selective insular thinking?

Jesus fucking Christ Gmork, you just did that shit not too long ago in the fucking CWC video on the matter of a feces contaminated Keurig catching fire.

You're calling me a moron when no background of the kid and/or family has even been given out. For all that could be known is that story could actually BE THE VERY GOD DAMN ANSWER YOU HAVE BEEN HOPING FOR TO VALIDATE of people being bad in general. He warned kids on his way there and showed no intended target.

As for your response to Oscar. Holy shit. Oscar is less damn threatening compared to me and you gave him a wall of text about your opinions/stances. God damn. Do you need someone to hug you that the good ol' days of POE RED are over?

Oh holy shit, just noticed that paragraph turned back towards me.

Are you alright Gmork? Are you on some sort of medication?

Are you going on a bender?

*Noticed Gmork's paragraph aiming towards Oscar Wildcat takes a sudden turn towards me.

That gun was an honor student until it picked up that kid and shot at people!

Children aren't mature adults. If you weren't so socially stunted in manchild Internet/videogame world that you're in direct social (and mental) competition with them, you'd see that.

Holy shit, I think Gmork is projecting his own world into his arguments.

Yeah, Gmork, I called you "prone" to racism a long time ago. You can still be a socially dislocated twat and believe in equality, but that just means you'll come off as a pretentious chode. It doesn't mean that you're bad, because you're still going with a humanitarian bit, no matter how fragile it is when entered into the helter skelter, confusing and often contradicting bits of life.

Gee, I wonder where I heard that concept?

P.S. stop putting words in my mouth, chode.

Know what I just realized?

The CHARACTER of a driver who takes technology and engineering for granted (and in possibility of their own life style, social consciousness towards their state of wealth versus others) vs the CHARACTER of a severely distraught person who wants to go out with a bang is actually the same!

They're just reckless, y'know?

Gmork, you are the AK-47 of words! But if I had any extra stars, I'd send them to you for your wonderful exegesis on shit particles on toothbrushes. It put me to mind of a childhood mindfuck, like when you tell someone "Don't be aware there is a tongue in your mouth". In fact I remember using "when you smell shit, that means little particles of shit are sticking to the INSIDE OF YOUR NOSE!" at some point way back when. That must have made a great impression on you, that one.

All kidding aside, I don't think you are a gun waving sociopath, just a little too concrete in your thinking. If you think about it, the little story above and the issue at hand are related in that way.

Phyllis Diller being eaten out by Pikachu.

You're welcome.

Shoebox you apparently didn't read what I said, because you missed the part where not a single part of anything i've said is a commentary on the contents of the video or events surrounding it. My commentary was solely on the prevailing attitude of hating gun owners instead of hating specifically the irresponsible ones. Nobody, especially not me, is condoning being irresponsible with deadly weapons. Is that what you honestly think my position is? More guns = better? You think I advocate conceal and carry for every tom dick and jane? You can't believe i'm that delusional, just like I would rather believe you are operating on a knee-jerk reaction you've been brought up with - the automatic assumption anyone with any interest in guns is bad. That is the only shitty assumption i'm here to rebuke.

So you're saying you want more guns? Why do you want that?

See, evilhomer gets how this works - a nice jab at me that isn't insanely bitter-sounding like Joe's first response, but is based in obvious exaggeration. Evilhomer knows he's putting words in my mouth that I am not actually saying or in support of. He draws a charicature of me with words, but I know he doesn't actually waste energy hating me. I don't know if I can say the same for Shoebox, Meme, etc. Even oscar gets a little bitey sometimes. Meme's glaringly obvious bait (for me, most likely) worked, but I'm happy to debate it in a real way that doesn't immediately involve attacking another person's character. After all, my entire argument here is that I find the prejudice against anyone with an interest in guns fascinating because it's the same kind of blanket-statement bullshit that usually you guys call OTHER people on.

It seems, to me, that you want to make the conversation some competition between me and you instead of a relevant discussion about what problems you have with my ideology (when you aren't making assumptions of what that ideology is, anyways). I'm going to lose interest every time if it devolves into defending myself by entering a stupid insult exchange session with you. I'm not trying to be all morally superior, taking the high road, i'm just honestly bored of that type of drama. I come to poetv to challenge thoughts and ideas with people of like mind. I come here to explore the crazy side of the world and universe, not get into petty slapfights.

I'm more than happy to talk about why you think I'm wrong for supporting (responsible) gun ownership, as long as you'll stop taking your word about what I believe over mine. _I_ can hardly get a word in edgewise with all the time invested in explaining why the words you put in my mouth are not ones that resonate with me at all.

Basically Joe, meme, etc, calm the heck down. I know i'm one of the only people who's suicidal enough to even advocate gun rights on PoETV, but you could at least dish out your gripes in the form of jocular exaggeration and clever quips. This bitterness is unbecoming of the both of us!

This is about kids shooting kids with guns they got from manchildren who shouldn't have had those guns (since they're incapable of keeping them from kids) to begin with, Gmork, not about you. God damn you're a narcissist. I have no reason to humor such shit.

and that's the problem with flippant, one liner remarks gmork

The video is definitely about that subject, Meme. Good thing I wasn't making a single statement in relation to that specific incident. If I had, i'm sure you'd think I'm somehow on the side of the kid or his negligent parents. Obviously I'm just as saddened about events like these as you are, and you'd really have to be kidding yourself if you think i'm trying to make light of any of that.

Meme, you're calling me a narcissist for responding to your pointedly-worded title and description for this video. I saw it for what it is - bait.

Are we now going to go through the motions of you denying it was aimed at one of the few people on this site who occasionally step up to the plate with unpopular opinions on guns, so you could participate with a few others in a bukkake-style anti-gun gangfuck?

Sorry I'm just not buying it, the devotion you have for making these negative encounters occur belies your investment in it. You could have easily worded the title and description of this video normally, but instead you went with the submission equivalent of, in your words, a flippant one-liner.

But not a lighthearted, knowing EvilHomer response. You're deadly serious about actually believing the worst about me. That's disturbing.

You know, I want to explore this idea of "gun rights" some more. Do guns, in fact, have rights? I suppose had the founding fathers thought more deeply on the subject, they would have given guns the same rights to citizenship that corporations currently enjoy. I think you could get the Left to agree with this, by explaining that when guns are citizens, they _can_ in fact be said to kill people. Then there is the whole issue of divorce, and who would have to care for the guns. Can guns get tired of their owners, and petition to be allowed independent living arrangements? Can my gun take out a loan? Can I.... shoot and kill my gun? With another gun? Who's responsible then. Gmork! WHO!

The mind reels....

If only some kid in the stands had been armed with a knife, because, y'know, all weapons are equivalent.

And what kind of gun did the teacher use to stop the kid?

Why are you people engaging it like it's a human being?

Guys. Guys. Gmork agrees with the politics of 99% of the userbase of this website. Did you know that? I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned that yet.

I mean, it's impossible, but he's been pretty insistent about it before. He's also unaware that most kitchen sinks are full of fecal bacteria because he thinks you'd have to shit in them for that to happen. I guess what I'm saying is that you can lead a dork to logic, but you can't make him think.

AHA! Perhaps Gmork _is_ a gun. This would explain his reflexive advocacy, yet he claims not to own one?

OK, as you bitches are all in one place, here's one of many Oscar Wildcat gun stories.

I'm out visiting my Brother Magnus Wildcat at his palatial home in rural Transylvania. It's Sunday morning, and we're in his backyard with a table full of various weapons that need to be sighted in. We put up some targets, and start blasting away. Just then, a car pulls up and two middle aged hausfraus pop out, looking anxious as they cross the grass lawn. My brother sez to me "Jehovah's witnesses" sotto voce, and calls out helpfully to them "Watch out ladies! There are Lyme ticks in the tall grass there!". And there we stand, with all the hardware around us, expectant. They mutter something about tracts, push a few towards us knocking stray ammunition about the table, and beat a hasty retreat. Car pulling out sharply on the stone driveway, tires spit some gravel on the bend.

"So" I say "what have we here? Let's use this as a target." And yes dear friends, it's a picture of the big guy. The Nazz.

I take him and tack him to the wood pile, and armed with a small calibre handgun, held gangsta niga style, pop off all the rounds. When the smoke clears from destinies spear, we look and see that I've somehow put a neat round halo around the Big Guy's head! Yes, just like a religious icon. I'm thrilled; then annoyed. "Damn it Nazz, you've used your magical Jesus powers to fuck up my aim." But I thought, There is Something To This. And save the target for future contemplation.

I showed this target to a well known artist friend of mine, who opined "You know Oscar, Jesus has a job to do. That is to forgive sin. If we do not sin, then Jesus can not do his job. Yes?"

I said "The Buddhist's have an aphorism, 'If you see the Buddha in the Road, Kill him'. This means, you cannot let the idea of the perfected man stand in the way of your own development."

Your story is bad and you should feel bad.

@GMork, I don't think I can take you sincerely when the moment you took Oscar Wildcat lightly was when I stated about how my hostility was worse than his.

It just astounds me that you go in as a martyr and begin crying how everyone is ganging up on you. You act as if the context of the reckless ownership of a gun would be dropped. You act as if "cars being dangerous" is a valid tie-in to statistics and facts. You literally call out this video as an example of "a bad person" with out any direction, as if there was a direction visible enough to go with. You did this as well in the Zimmerman art for sale video.

Sorry, but I just think you're a megalomaniac for devil's advocacy.

If you're still stuck up on this. Good. No one needs you. You fucking autistic, confederate skin felcher. I would gladly debate gun control/rights with you, but you're going to have to give me a lead that isn't a disassociated, smug, pointlessly self-serving bit that pays no attention to society and is more tragically conjoined to "survival of the fittest" rather than "everyone has the right". Because as much as freedom from predators/bullies/any opposing threat that gun rights would love to see a reality, it's such an unfiltered statement. Easily misused and easily abused.

There is way too much stupid to deserve addressing. Not one of you came close to saying anything that insults any belief of mine. I see a whole lot of colorful self-indulgent (and not even slightly clever) bullshit, but I don't see anything that isn't attacking words you put into my mouth.

I could name examples, but there are a great many things you have idiotically assumed. Here's a few recent ones:

SPK states "Gmork thinks all weapons are equivalent" (wrong)
BS states "Gmork thinks a kitchen sink must be shat in to contain any amount of fecal matter" (wrong)
Joe's rambling incoherent mess about reckless gun ownership (not something i'm in support of)
Joe's notion cars (not meant as weapons) being higher on the list than guns (meant for killing) in the yearly death toll isn't relevant. (wrong) People are more irresponsible and deadly with their ordinary mode of transport than all the gun nuts combined every year.
Anyone dumb enough to think I'm a gun nut, survivalist, anarchist, etc etc ad nauseum. (wrong)
Joe calls me "autistic, confederate skin felcher" which sounds neat, but doesn't really mean anything considering i'm not any one of those four words. Confederate? I live in the bay area, california. Yeah, kind of a stretch to call me a confederate. I have no love for "redneck" culture. I'm about as new-age tolerance as it gets. Swing and a miss, and that's quite a few for you today alone, Joe.
Joe implies I'm an advocate for "survival of the fittest" as if it applies to human beings living in human settlements in these times. Yeah, not so much. I know you wanted to build this gun nut fantasy up in your head of me, but you're tilting at windmills if you go down that road with me. That's just dumb, and honestly makes me wonder if you have either a listening problem, or a selective memory.
Joe states "You literally call out this video as an example of a bad person" - wait, WHAT? Hey retard, you are no longer making sense. I never said "this video (which isn't a person, but rather a series of moving images and sounds) is an example of a bad person". I never even said anyone IN the video was a bad person! I inferred there was negligence, and obviously the parents' inability to keep the weapon away from the child could be viewed as negligent. My entire reaction to this video, considering NOTHING UNTIL NOW WAS EVEN IN REFERENCE TO IT, is "I'm glad nobody got hurt and I hope the kid and parents learned their respective fucking lessons".

So unless you have a problem with my relief that nobody was injured, I'm not sure exactly what about me you're attacking. That I dared to say something about guns in response to meme's obvious troll-title and troll-description? Whoopty-fuckin' do. Get over it.

Honestly, Joe, you are kind of embarrassing to be around, you are way more emotionally invested in disliking me than I could ever be with you. The lengths some of you go to delude yourself into feeling superior - really quite a feat of mental gymnastics. You really want to make me into this charicature you've got built up in your head and it's pathetic.

I see where you got stupid, Joe, you assumed the original post "we've proved people are bad" was aimed at someone in the video. I was actually stating that in general people are the driving force behind people killing other people, and although guns are efficient at killing the removal of them does not somehow intrinsically negate people from going crazy and killing them in one of the many tried and true methods that don't involve guns.

So again, another assumption of yours amounted to nothing but you projecting what you HOPED I meant, forever searching for that actual rabid gun-nut to argue with. The princess is at another castle you bitter, bitter thing. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Grow the fuck up and listen to some happy music you dour venom-filled husk.

Wow, where to begin this go-round?

***SPK states "Gmork thinks all weapons are equivalent" (wrong)

You're the one who thinks car deaths mean guns are somehow okay or not a problem. I'll admit to some snark, but I was trying to preempt the usual argument of "if guns are banned, murders will continue." Somehow, if this gun hadn't been present, I think the kid wouldn't have done as much damage as he did. You claiming that nobody was hurt is rather odd, seeing as one kid is in critical condition and the other is stable, both in a hospital.

***Joe's notion cars (not meant as weapons) being higher on the list than guns (meant for killing) in the yearly death toll isn't relevant. (wrong)

It's apples and oranges. You're comparing a mode of transportation used by over 240 million people that involves large objects moving at high speeds in all weather conditions to a tool designed to kill. What is interesting is that there's no movement to have anywhere near the amount of regulation for guns as there is for owning/driving a car.

*** People are more irresponsible and deadly with their ordinary mode of transport than all the gun nuts combined every year.

By that logic, we should just send a bunch of reckless drivers to Afghanistan. Armies everywhere should just have a bunch of poorly-maintained cars driven by drunken louts or inexperienced teenagers, right? It makes you wonder why the Pentagon hasn't thought of that one. You're really wasting your genius here when you could be advising them on policy.

More people use cars than guns every day, so even a child could figure out that there's a higher risk involved, the same way that eating makes it more likely you'll choke on your food at some point. At least that irresponsible driver had to, at some point, demonstrate they could operate a vehicle, whereas gun ownership doesn't require that. There are also insurance policies required to be held by drivers in the case of an accident, and if someone is uninsured, we have no-fault for cases like that. It'd be nice if the rootin' tootin' hip-shootin' set had to do the same, but that's impingin' on their FREEDUM!

In case your next bloviation involves "why not regulate knives, then?!" the answer is WE DO. Kitchen knives are a-okay. Switchblades and blades of a certain length? Not so much.

***I was actually stating that in general people are the driving force behind people killing other people, and although guns are efficient at killing the removal of them does not somehow intrinsically negate people from going crazy and killing them in one of the many tried and true methods that don't involve guns.

12-year-old with a knife, club, or chain saw. 12-year-old with a gun. Which do you think is the more dangerous assailant? Which one could you get away from more easily? Which is capable at causing more death at a higher rate with more effectiveness? Nobody is claiming murder will stop, but you seem to ignore the idea that guns don't make it a shitload easier and more successful, even for a CHILD to manage.

Gmork, now that I thought about it, you are correct. I DO believe the worst about you. I honestly, no shit, think you're a racist, violence loving, fearful, emotional cripple living in a delusional little world of your own making, and that you'd see every kid in America dead to prevent that world from ever being challenged. I think you're a terrible person who makes civilization worse.

Gmork has never once addressed his continued insistence that he agrees with 99% of the politics of this site. I find that telling, and hilarious.