quote:

Originally posted by Aloysius:

from deadspin

File another one in the round file.

quote:

Originally posted by shepwrite:
Dude, I'm chuckling because you know that doesn't make any sense. It has the sad stench of desperation... even you knew it wouldn't fly around here.

Yeah. That's how I get attention. By posting an update about Harrison on my Browns Board. I see your point and it's valid.

Or... and hold on, because this is really radical... I posted it as an update in a separate thread because the other one had hundreds of posts and was getting stale?

Nah. I really need attention in my life, and after a lot of thought, I decided this was gonna really turn things around for me.

Dude, you're just digging in deeper and deeper. As Plat said, you're coming off like a petulant child.

Just try, "Thanks for the update, Shep. Sorry for being a douchebag with an axe to grind. Again."

Shep....you attention whore.....

Thanks for the update

This is where I come for my NFL news in an easy to read format.

quote:

easy to read format.

I shoot for truthy, via paraphrasing and out-of-contexting.

quote:

Originally posted by shepwrite:
I would be shocked if this ISN'T shocking. As Tom kinda said, who thought Marvin Harrison would own a super special Belgian gun capable of piercing armor?

Loaded? On his person?

A gun that was fired six times at a guy... and then returned to Harrison's possession?

Yet he ISN'T the shooter? It can only get weirder.

I just don't buy the noble gentleman thing if any of this is true. The two don't mesh for me. Quiet? Sure.

Um Shep... I know your from California and all, so your understanding of handguns is probably about the same as a 2nd graders understanding of Thermodynamics... however, a Handgun is

NEVER... NEVER NEVER

Armor piercing. It is the ROUNDS placed IN the gun.

You can buy many normal guns, and then get armor piercing rounds for them.

so the type of gun really doesn't matter. It is only the rounds.

Just trying to help out.

you dont have to know anything about guns to know they;re bad....m'kay?

Gun people always say "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Which I agree with. But of all the gun-owners in this country, why do I feel like very few are actually "responsible"? It's the actions of the reckless, careless, and criminal that force me to take the (anti-gun) stance I take.

Since I believe morons shouldn't be able to own lethal weapons, and since I believe most of this country is populated with morons, I believe that people in this country shouldn't be able to walk around with weapons. Call me liberal, call me a fag, call me what you want to call me, but I strongly believe this.

quote:

Originally posted by mz:
Gun people always say "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Which I agree with. But of all the gun-owners in this country, why do I feel like very few are actually "responsible"? It's the actions of the reckless, careless, and criminal that force me to take the (anti-gun) stance I take.

Since I believe morons shouldn't be able to own lethal weapons, and since I believe most of this country is populated with morons, I believe that people in this country shouldn't be able to walk around with weapons. Call me liberal, call me a fag, call me what you want to call me, but I strongly believe this.

Most liberals think everyone that doesn't think like them are morons so it is no surpirse you take the stance you do. Millions of Americans own guns, quite literally less than 1% of those owners have negligent discharges, improper usage and storage, and other accidents.

Compared to drivers on the road gun owners have a spotless record. We're not confiscating peoples cars because they are "needed for transportation."

Doesn't matter anyway. The 2nd Amendment is not going away.

Funny how we had a terrorist attack in this country and still liberals want to take away guns from good people.

Says a lot about liberals and their understanding of the issue. Knee jerk reactions to everything.

quote:

Originally posted by choco:
you dont have to know anything about guns to know they;re bad....m'kay?

So is ignorance. Tell ya what, lets round up all the weapons in the world, have a bonfire and sing koombaya.

with one in the chamber.....i love fireworks...lol

quote:

Originally posted by DesertDawg:

quote:

Originally posted by mz:
Gun people always say "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Which I agree with. But of all the gun-owners in this country, why do I feel like very few are actually "responsible"? It's the actions of the reckless, careless, and criminal that force me to take the (anti-gun) stance I take.

Since I believe morons shouldn't be able to own lethal weapons, and since I believe most of this country is populated with morons, I believe that people in this country shouldn't be able to walk around with weapons. Call me liberal, call me a fag, call me what you want to call me, but I strongly believe this.

Most liberals think everyone that doesn't think like them are morons so it is no surpirse you take the stance you do. Millions of Americans own guns, quite literally less than 1% of those owners have negligent discharges, improper usage and storage, and other accidents.

Compared to drivers on the road gun owners have a spotless record. We're not confiscating peoples cars because they are "needed for transportation."

Doesn't matter anyway. The 2nd Amendment is not going away.

Funny how we had a terrorist attack in this country and still liberals want to take away guns from good people.

Says a lot about liberals and their understanding of the issue. Knee jerk reactions to everything.

The problem in this country isn't TOO MANY guns... it's TOO FEW guns.

In true socialist style issue every citizen a sidearm, an assault rifle, and mandate extensive weapons training. See how many people try to rob, rape, or murder someone after that.

Until someone kills somebody by throwing a bullet at them -- armor piercing or not -- I'm gonna keep blaming guns.

I know the bad shit people are capable of, but I can't convince anyone that we need to eliminate them. So I guess we'll have to go after the guns.

great plan.....just how do you get criminals to hand over guns? more jail time?

what a crock....

quote:

Originally posted by shepwrite:
So I guess we'll have to go after the guns.

Ooooh, so scary. Good luck with that. No really. Good luck. Never gonna happen. LMAO.

quote:

Originally posted by shepwrite:
I would be shocked if this ISN'T shocking. As Tom kinda said, who thought Marvin Harrison would own a super special Belgian gun capable of piercing armor?

Loaded? On his person?

A gun that was fired six times at a guy... and then returned to Harrison's possession?

Yet he ISN'T the shooter? It can only get weirder.

I just don't buy the noble gentleman thing if any of this is true. The two don't mesh for me. Quiet? Sure.

ALOT of night club OWNERS own handguns with good reason. ALOT of night club owners employ bouncers. I've read ONE bouncer in Vegas wasn't superior to the bullets of a thug so he'l live the rest of his days in a wheel chair.

Shep, I'm pretty good at telling the difference between a Pac Man Jones and people that RESPECT others. When Pac Man shoots a gun I believe it.

What I can't tell from ANY of the stories written - is whether or not ANY of Harrison's hired Bouncers had the green light to use a gun when there was a threat of physical harm. Nobody knows that whether it's ESPN writers more skilled at talking sports than private investigations or you and me.

Of course the story has juice because it's Harrison's gun. I'm not at all shocked a Night Club owner also owns a gun. That doesn't mean I'm willing to see Marvin Harrison as a threat to the streets of Philly just yet.

The ONLY reason Harrison is in deep shit is because Philly has a law that gun OWNERS are personally responsible for their gun from they day they purchase them on. THEREFORE, if Harrison's gun is fired by him or someone else - it's the LAW that doesn't yield to grey area. I think it's a GREAT law because that ALSO means you're even responsible for WHOM that gun gets sold to in the future. More cities/states should have it. That said, it doesn't mean I believe Harrison decided to play some splat ball with real bullets because he has a bad temper. I've been wrong before - but Marvin doesn't seem to fit the character of a criminal mind or sociopath. He's been a success rumored to be well-liked whereever he's worked. Maybe it's just me - BUT I'll feel REALLY bad if Harrison was never anything more than another Pac Man Jones. He hasn't been nearly as obvious though.
- Tom F.

quote:

what a crock....

And yet tough handgun laws keep working in Europe. Did you know 23 people get killed by guns in Scotland, Ireland, and England combined... EVERY YEAR?

25 get killed in the U.S.

Every day.

Then again, Canada has more guns per person than the U.S. and they never shoot each other. But the guns are for hunting, not "protection." Said with EXTREME sarcasm for suburbanites who are 800 times more likely to have something bad happen with that gun than to ever need it.

I loved the idea of giving everyone a gun. I know it worked in the Old West right? You saw the documentary series, right? It was basically hell.

People simply don't need a device that makes them deadly. You know that, I know that, we all know that. It isn't even a worthy debate. Let's move on to something that actually has two sides to the argument.

Tom... love ya, my brother. All we know so far is that Harrison owns a pretty fly gun, it was used to shoot a guy he fought with, and then Harrison had the gun again.

But that seems like a lot to me. And you know Marvin Harrison about as well as I do. It's like Hollywood actors people think are "nice."

I don't know if it's a case of whether Marvin is a "Pac Man/Chris Henry" kind of thug or not, it could just be the dude lost his freaking temper one night at some big time aholes. This correlates to Shep's opines on why guns are dangerous.

Mike Doss was in downtown Akron just a few years back firing shots into the air drunk off his ass at 2:00am. By all accounts he was a good guy up until then, although he wasn't actually shooting at someone.

quote:

Originally posted by shepwrite:
Tom... love ya, my brother. All we know so far is that Harrison owns a pretty fly gun, it was used to shoot a guy he fought with, and then Harrison had the gun again.

But that seems like a lot to me. And you know Marvin Harrison about as well as I do. It's like Hollywood actors people think are "nice."

I have the utmost respect for you and your opinions Shep. For some reason, I always find myself reflexively sticking up for former Syracuse players. I was one of the few that LIKED KJ. They were the local team in Upstate NY so that's why I tossed you the Matt Leinart thing at you on 1 of the threads so you'd see how you always reflexively want to say "he's a good kid so you need more of the story telling you otherwise to CHANGE your opinion of him" kind of a thing.

All this said, I LOVE that law about being responsible for the gun. If he gave the gun to some roided up rage head - well, that'll represent MORE of that story I need to read before I cast the judgement of guilty on him. The law already says he's in deep shit.

Luckily noone is dead so any REAL victims can actually be rewarded with lawsuits. This where the story requires a great deal of clarification. We need more than 1 or 2 witnesses that aren't in the position of monetary gain from "I saw Marvin shooting at me." Marvin seems confident those aren't going to be his fingerprints that were last found on the gun being investigated so what's cloudy is how much he will be dishing out in terms of community service/jail time/money sued for. There's still quite a few unanswered questions.

For instance, if the car I own gets stolen from me and ends up in a hit and run incident before it ends up back on my property - damaged. There's a couple things I have working for me. I wasn't the last person touching the steering wheel and it wasn't returned to the same spot it was stolen from with the same number of miles on it. My responsibility for the car would change quite a bit via my control or lackthereof, if I lent it to someone I knew was liquored up. If this was as easy as the ESPN authors make it sound - lawsuits would already be wrapped up and tax dollars spared. I think there's going to be some substance to this nobody is considering. Then again, my wife just told me the bad news there wasn't REALLY a fat guy named Santa Claus last year so take it easy me if this doesn't turn out the way I see it going.
- Tom F.

Oh, that's right! SYRACUSE!!

I won't be surprised if there's something surprising, as you suggested. It's really a weird case.

quote:

Originally posted by mz:
Gun people always say "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Which I agree with. But of all the gun-owners in this country, [why do I feel like very few are actually "responsible"? It's the actions of the reckless, careless, and criminal that force me to take the (anti-gun) stance I take.

Since I believe morons shouldn't be able to own lethal weapons, and since I believe most of this country is populated with morons, I believe that people in this country shouldn't be able to walk around with weapons. Call me liberal, call me a fag, call me what you want to call me, but I strongly believe this.

Because the responsible ones aren't very newsworthy.

There is a reason guests on the Maury Povich show are on the Maury Povich show.