# Murdered Snowboarder on America's Most Wanted.



## RidePowder (Oct 30, 2008)

Jesus, it sounds like the guy currently in prison knows something. Events like this really make me cringe and I wish there was something I could do personally.

RIP


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2009)

I caught the show randomly the other night. Horrible story, and I hope that they do find out what happened. Did anyone notice that the one rider they interviewed was Jessie from last season's bachelorette? Yeah, I know, I got roped into watching it with the old lady, but it was good to see a fellow rider win!

I've never seen one of these boards in person, but I'll be looking out for it...


----------



## Technine Icon (Jan 15, 2009)

Wow, that sucks. That board looks sick though.


----------



## m60g (Feb 27, 2009)

Was there ever any idea to motive?


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2009)

this is why hitchhiking is bad 

Damn that sucks, I hope the mofo that did this to him is found!


----------



## VenomousSVT (Feb 17, 2009)

thanks for sharing that story..... i hate to hear things ike this, especially when you can relate to the same passion as the victim. I truly hope they find and hang the bastard that did this.


----------



## m60g (Feb 27, 2009)

Snowolf said:


> Yeah I remember when this story first broke. Sad we live in a world that has these sick people in it. Because I do so much solo travel this is why I have my CCW permit and pack a gun.



Amen brother. Since I'm moving to CO at the end of march, I have to get my CO CCW ASAP, since my VA CCW isn't recognized.



My grandfather told me a story about him and his two friends hitching from NC to CA and back with a 100.00 between them back in the 30's. 

He said sometimes the people he was riding with would leave them three in the car while they went into a store or what not.

Can't do that shit nowadays


----------



## SB4L (Jan 12, 2009)

Terrible story - will be sure to keep an eye out for that board up here in Canada.

What is a CCW ??


----------



## markee (Jan 1, 2009)

Concealed Carry Weapons permit?


----------



## nzboardlife (Mar 25, 2008)

America needs a ban on guns made with the sole purpose of killing HUMANS.


----------



## RidePowder (Oct 30, 2008)

never gonna happen. in WI you can legally open carry. I could have a holstered firearm on my hip in plain sight, no classes/checks


----------



## m60g (Feb 27, 2009)

markee said:


> Concealed Carry Weapons permit?



Yes, That's it


----------



## m60g (Feb 27, 2009)

nzboardlife said:


> America needs a ban on guns made with the sole purpose of killing HUMANS.



Yeah, That works


Just ask the Germans, Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, and multitude of other countries that have banned guns over the years how well that works. Hell even ask the British, They're screaming to get their guns back.

An armed Society is a free society. I want to be able to defend myself and not have to wory about if the police or gov. is gonna do it for me.


----------



## m60g (Feb 27, 2009)

RidePowder said:


> never gonna happen. in WI you can legally open carry. I could have a holstered firearm on my hip in plain sight, no classes/checks




That sucks for you all in WI, I know it's a rights denied state like IL. Neither of those states offer CCW's


----------



## jmacphee9 (Nov 11, 2008)

nzboardlife said:


> America needs a ban on guns made with the sole purpose of killing HUMANS.


i dont know about that...and its a constitutional right..


----------



## nzboardlife (Mar 25, 2008)

m60g said:


> Yeah, That works
> 
> 
> Just ask the Germans, Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, and multitude of other countries that have banned guns over the years how well that works. Hell even ask the British, They're screaming to get their guns back.
> ...


Works here... I've never seen a live automatic wep or pistol except for when i visited china.

The only reason you need guns is because the 'bad' people in your country have guns. If it were possible to eliminate guns all together i guess i may have a valid point, or maybe not.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

m60g said:


> Yeah, That works
> 
> 
> Just ask the Germans, Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, and multitude of other countries that have banned guns over the years how well that works. Hell even ask the British, They're screaming to get their guns back.
> ...


At almost 6 gun related homicides per 100,000 people in the US vs less than 2 per 100,000 people in Germany, pretty much shows it is working. Argue it however you want, but their laws are causing much less heart ache than ours.

I doubt Ben would be alive if he was carrying a gun. Unless he had his gun out the whole time. In that case he'd probably be alive, but he'd still be trying to get a ride in Fraser or in jail for menacing. At least he'd be around. Catching the fucker(s) who did this would be a good thing. 

Guns are what the are. Don't pretend it's safer in America because we can carry them. As a matter of fact we are not. Not only can the good people get them, but same with those people who have less of an issue using a gun on someone else.


----------



## m60g (Feb 27, 2009)

I'm not talking about being safer I don't pretend that America is safer, I'm talking about an armed society is a free society. And that I do have the right and ability to protect myself.

Also, I'm sure all the Criminals in Europe are abiding by the laws not to have guns.

All strict gun laws do is hurt the honest guy. So the good people in Europe can't protect themselves from the bad. That works out great if your a criminal.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Most of the criminals in Europe don't have access to guns either. Did you see the numbers? Way less per capita than the good 'ol USA. 

No matter how you cut it. Armed America has more heartache and tragedy than unarmed Germany or England. 

The problem I have is we sell guns that the only purpose is for killing humans. Not for hunting, or recreation, but killing people. I really don't think those are needed in our general society.

The "well the criminals aren't going to abide by it so why should I" argument is old and tired and doesn't hold water. It screams of the little kid who was bullied and must get back at someone. Certainly there is a better argument than that. 

Guns are not going away. Maybe you won't be able to get your assault rifle with the 60 round mag so you can hunt deer effectively. Well at least for the next four years. So far it hasn't happened, and if it does, it'll be temporary anyway.


----------



## m60g (Feb 27, 2009)

Come on man, nobody deer hunts with an assault weapon. If they do it's a small fucked up minority. I'm a hunter and a gun enthusiast. I own AR15's, AK47's etc. Numerous handguns. I enjoy shooting them all. I hunt with my .300WSM Bolt Action Rifle. 


My point is that an armed Society is a free Society. Our right to own guns keeps all the other Constitutional Rights free.

"well the criminals aren't going to abide by it so why should I" That does hold water because it's true. Why shouldn't I be allowed to protect myself from violence.

And I'm sure all the Organized Crime folks in Europe are using Squirt Guns


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2009)

nzboardlife said:


> America needs a ban on guns made with the sole purpose of killing HUMANS.


 Not a gun person but its not Guns, its sick misanthropic indviduals in the sick society we live in. The good ol USA. Canada proves this point to me.

More gun owners per capita, less gun related crime.


The Armed society is a free society argument only holds water if the gun user is a rational sane individual.


----------



## jardo56 (Mar 6, 2009)

US: Liberal when it comes to guns.
Canada: Strict gun laws.

US: Lots of gun related crime
Canada: Not alot of gun related crime.


Take away guns and you get less gun crime? Go figure! 

Infact, if you ignore the gun related crime in Canada enacted by guns smuggled in from the US, it would be much less. Seriously.. the French arne't coming, America. Put away your guns.


----------



## m60g (Feb 27, 2009)

jardo56 said:


> US: Liberal when it comes to guns.
> Canada: Strict gun laws.
> 
> US: Lots of gun related crime
> ...


I'm sure all the people in Canada who are victims of gun crimes really appreciate the fact that they couldn't defend themselves due to the strict gun laws


----------



## nzboardlife (Mar 25, 2008)

m60g said:


> I'm sure all the people in Canada who are victims of gun crimes really appreciate the fact that they couldn't defend themselves due to the strict gun laws


Im sure if that were the case they would move to america.

Well im sure they live in much less fear of being shot, sounds like a healther way of living to me.

I am never afraid of being shot in my country and i never have been and yes organised criminals here do have guns. The difference is that organised criminals are usually not crazy murderer types, they are instead a problem to the law for matters like drugs/robberies, not Joe Smoh walking down the street. In reality they use guns more on each other in such things as drug feuds then on regular people. Where in america you seem to be able to quickly gain access to a gun intended to kill humans. Making it extremely easy for someone who say; lost their job or is falling through hard times or is just generally insane to get hold of a fire arm and take lives.


----------



## m60g (Feb 27, 2009)

Gun Cat SEEZ, I'll take an ASSAULT RIFLE any day over not having one


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Yeah, because you are going to do what with that rifle?

Kewl gun though.


----------



## VenomousSVT (Feb 17, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> Yeah, because you are going to do what with that rifle?
> 
> Kewl gun though.


i'd shoot squirrels.. but i AM a dumb ******* :laugh:


----------



## Daddies (Nov 11, 2008)

Good to know (about the NS Split board production #55) We get a lot of people with older Never Summer boards since we are a really old NS retailer and collect some older boards. I will let Melanie and the boys know to always keep an eye out for that board. Rest In Peace Ben, I am sure there are a lot of Never Summer riders that still take a turn for you each winter.


----------



## m60g (Feb 27, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> Yeah, because you are going to do what with that rifle?
> 
> Kewl gun though.




That is my HOME Defender

My CQB Rifle:thumbsup:


----------



## boarderaholic (Aug 13, 2007)

I'm just going to pipe up here. From what I've seen, most gun related crimes are also related to drug/alcohol abuse. A gun happens to be the weapon of choice at that given moment, rather than a knife or what have you. Just what I've noticed from reading news papers and such.


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

I learned how to defend myself at a young age. I'm confident that I could handle someone with a gun or knife at close range. If someone wants to pop me in the back of the head without warning, even having a gun isn't going to stop them.

I don't have a gun. I don't want a gun. I don't hunt because the thought of taking a life is still something quite scary to me. The same is true for carrying a gun. I could never kill another person unless it was an absolute last resort. I suppose that is why I decided not to become a police officer after a couple years of law school and why I could never be in the army.

I'd be all for taking every single gun off the street and not allowing any civilians to have them. There is no need. People think they offer protection, but I think that's incorrect. They cause more trouble than they fix. I hardly ever hear of a person successfully defending themselves with a gun. Usually it is just violence and accidents. I don't have statistics because it is my opinion and I don't care to argue about it, nor have I ever needed to.

Guns will always be available and there is 0% chance of getting them off the streets. You just have to deal with the fact that people are going to use them for insidious reasons. :dunno:


----------



## justdust (Jan 27, 2009)

I don't have a gun because I have a temper. I got rid of my shotgun and convinced my wife not to buy a handgun because, if I didn't, I'm pretty sure one of us would have shot the other one by now.  The older I get, the more aware I become that we all, from time to time, act in ways that surprise even ourselves. Snowolf, you are right...gun violence is a problem because we have a sick society. But having acknowledged that society is sick, why don't you admit how easy access to guns magnifies the problem? In fact, referring to weapons as "sexy" as you do illustrates the fact that you are alredy a crazy motherfucker.:laugh:


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

I find that too many people like things without respecting them. Love without respect is nothing. With snowboarding, it will get you hurt. With women, it will get you slapped. With guns, it will get you killed.


----------



## VenomousSVT (Feb 17, 2009)

Flick Montana said:


> I could never kill another person unless it was an absolute last resort. I suppose that is why I decided not to become a police officer after a couple years of law school and why I could never be in the army.


i agree with this 100%.. I would never pull a gun on anyone unless i was prepared to use it. And I would never shoot at someone unless I had the intentions on killing them. There is a lot of "unless" statements in that for me. I would never want to take a life and have no intentions on it either. I don't like killing animals either.


----------



## m60g (Feb 27, 2009)

Snowolf said:


> What more could a guy ask for? Pussy and kick ass gun.......:thumbsup:
> 
> What peice of hardware is that? I am guessing an AR-15??? I`m not up to speed on these peices, but I would love to shoot a a 100 round clip though that beauty though. That is a very sexy weapon to be sure....



Thanks
Yeah, it's an AR-15 m4 Clone:thumbsup:


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2009)

I don't really know how it is in the US. But where I'm from, when someone is looking for trouble, and agressing people, he'll have at best a knife, because they can't find guns easily. I'm talking about all those annoying people beating you to get your cellphone, your money or even your shoes. If they had an easier access to guns, things could go wrong so fast...

In the US, you have in front of you people that can assault you with a gun, so you need to be able to respond to the threat with an equal or bigger weapon.

No guns won't make the criminality vanish, but it might make it "less dangerous", a knife or beating can kill, but may be not as easily.


----------



## VenomousSVT (Feb 17, 2009)

miho said:


> I don't really know how it is in the US. But where I'm from, when someone is looking for trouble, and agressing people, he'll have at best a knife, because they can't find guns easily. I'm talking about all those annoying people beating you to get your cellphone, your money or even your shoes. If they had an easier access to guns, things could go wrong so fast...
> 
> In the US, you have in front of you people that can assault you with a gun, so you need to be able to respond to the threat with an equal or bigger weapon.
> 
> No guns won't make the criminality vanish, but it might make it "less dangerous", a knife or beating can kill, but may be not as easily.


there is definitely 2 ways to look at it... if there are no guns then if a thief sees that they are bigger or possible stronger than you then they know immediately that they stand a good chance that they can rob you... their only reservation would be whether or not you were a better fighter than them. However with guns yes they do have a gun to rob you, but how do they know you're not packing heat as well... either way when they rob you they do assess a certain amount of unknowing.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2009)

Sure but if the guy got a gun, and you too, who's the 1st to shoot and may be kill the other one?
I'm not saying people in the US shouldn't have guns, but don't they make everything more dangerous?

And what amount of "courage" do you need to pull a trigger comparing to stabbing someone?

Well it's getting gore now


----------



## jpfaherty2 (Aug 13, 2008)

Out lawing guns will only stop law abiding citizens from having them. Criminals will find a way, legal or not.


----------



## VenomousSVT (Feb 17, 2009)

jpfaherty2 said:


> Out lawing guns will only stop law abiding citizens from having them. Criminals will find a way, legal or not.


so will us dumbass ********.. so i am still not worried


----------



## daysailer1 (Nov 9, 2007)

I didn't know Ben Bradley but he was also a snowmaker at Winter Park Resort. A friend of mine was dating Ben's best friend when he was murdered. Ben was also their room-mate. It would be great if his murder could be solved.


----------



## Prophecies (Oct 1, 2009)

justdust said:


> I don't have a gun because I have a temper. I got rid of my shotgun and convinced my wife not to buy a handgun because, if I didn't, I'm pretty sure one of us would have shot the other one by now.  The older I get, the more aware I become that we all, from time to time, act in ways that surprise even ourselves.


If only everyone had your wisdom.


----------



## roremc (Oct 25, 2009)

Really sad story about that guy. Surely that board must have turned up somewhere? Its a pretty rare sort of board. 

After reading all 6 pages of this forum I am still amazed at Americans views on guns. If you Google gun related deaths and take out any studies produced by the NRA or anti gun movements the numbers speak for themselves. 

I'm not sure if Americans realize that many countries look at the US as a whole and can't understand the gun issue. The US has similar gun death stats to that of countries like Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. I have a book on crime issues in South Africa and it talks about Washington DC being second behind Johaneesberg in gun death numbers. The book is about 4 years old so the info may be slightly off now. If anyone has been to JOberg you will see how crazy it seems to me that a city in the US and a city in Sth Africa are even talked about in the same book! 

Yet people continue to fight gun control. Sure countries like England, Germany, Australia still have problems with crime but gun deaths are no where near that number. Not to mention the people that die due to the mis use of guns.

Also please explain to me how having a gun has anything to do with freedom? I have never had a gun and I am free to do what ever I want! (within reason)


----------



## VenomousSVT (Feb 17, 2009)

roremc said:


> Also please explain to me how having a gun has anything to do with freedom? I have never had a gun and I am free to do what ever I want! (within reason)


you are free.. until someone pulls a gun or knife on you and takes that freedom away from you.. and you wont have anything to fight back with to earn that freedom back. my whole argument is that i dont want the illegals to have an unfair advantage over me, they are gonna get guns whether they are legal or not.


----------



## m60g (Feb 27, 2009)

roremc said:


> Really sad story about that guy. Surely that board must have turned up somewhere? Its a pretty rare sort of board.
> 
> After reading all 6 pages of this forum I am still amazed at Americans views on guns. If you Google gun related deaths and take out any studies produced by the NRA or anti gun movements the numbers speak for themselves.
> 
> ...


Yeah, your free, until your Goverment decides your not


----------



## roremc (Oct 25, 2009)

VenomousSVT said:


> you are free.. until someone pulls a gun or knife on you and takes that freedom away from you.. and you wont have anything to fight back with to earn that freedom back. my whole argument is that i dont want the illegals to have an unfair advantage over me, they are gonna get guns whether they are legal or not.


The illegals? I'm not sure what you mean by this term?



m60g said:


> Yeah, your free, until your Goverment decides your not


You really think the US government is going to turn against the people? We are not in the 1800's anymore! What on earth would the government gain from turning against the people? And lets say they went mad and tried that do you think the army would follow those orders? Again lets pretend for a second they did what would your gun do against the might of the army? 



Snowolf said:


> Gun crime in this country while astronomically high really has more to do with Americans as a people than it does with guns. I don`t know whether you realize it or not, but Canada has more guns per capita than America. If guns were the problem Canada would would have a higher gun crime rate than America.
> 
> I am that rare exception; I am a bleeding heart liberal but I am also a pro gun. What many of my righty friends don`t get about Michale Moore`s movie "Bowling for Columbine" is he really points this truth out. It is not the gun, it`s our sick culture here. I don`t fell like I need a gun when in your country, nor in Australia or Britain, but there are places in America where I absolutely think that having a gun is a good idea.
> 
> ...


So if the culture is so sick why not not make the guns harder to get so less people end up dead? It seems that if someone has a problem with booze or drugs you don't give them more?v


----------



## arsenic0 (Nov 11, 2008)

roremc said:


> The illegals? I'm not sure what you mean by this term?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Booze and drugs arent consitutional rights, the first president who attempts to remove the right to bear arms will be out so fast it wouldnt even be funny lol...

I always found it funny when people stocked up on bullets when Obama became president like hes got the balls to do something that huge...or politically suicidal.


----------



## m60g (Feb 27, 2009)

roremc said:


> The illegals? I'm not sure what you mean by this term?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




An armed Society is a free society. People shouldn't fear the government, the government should fear the people. Our 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution so the PEOPLE could oppose a Tyrannical and Dictatorial government if the need ever arises. The 2nd Amendment is not just there so you can own your deer rifle to hunt with it.

Our founding fathers new something about oppressive regimes and gave us the means to protect ourselves from one.

If you look at all the Totalitarian States that have ever arisen, Russia, NAZI Germany, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc., they all had huge sweeping gun bans, and got the people to give up there guns.

Once that happens, you as a society are at you Governments mercy.


If any asshat ever wants to take away our right to bear arms, I have one thing to say;

MOLON LABE:thumbsup:


----------



## Jenzo (Oct 14, 2008)

Flick Montana said:


> I find that too many people like things without respecting them. Love without respect is nothing. With snowboarding, it will get you hurt. With women, it will get you slapped. With guns, it will get you killed.


It's not they guns they like, its the feeling of power. 

Sorry but no matter how "normal" you claim to be.. I think carrying a small arm gun is more dangerous by far, than helpful. Coming from a country that only really allows guns for hunting, it is so bizarre to hear how many people seem to carry them down south. Makes me want to go down there even less. however having said that I have been to parties a few years ago, here in Canada, where idiot drunk ******** were shooting shotguns. I can't imagine those people getting themselves handguns easily... erk...


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2009)

Snowolf I'm with ya on almost everything. However, weapons geared for personal defense are NOT specifically designed to kill people nor are military guns. Military guns and ammo (full metal jacket rounds), for the most part, are designed to wound. 50cal, 416 Barrett, armor piercing rounds, etc. area few exceptions and are usually special purpose. Personal defense weapons are also designed to neutralize a threat or help you DEFEND yourself safely against a threat. Death is sometimes an unfortunate result of defending yourself. The way I look at it, if it's my life or theirs, I'd like to know that I have at least a fair (if not unfair) advantage in defending myself. I think it is a personal RESPONSIBILITY for people to be able to defend themselves if necessary. (Much like brushing your own teeth, wiping your own ass or strapping in to your own bindings) If not, you are as much of a problem as the whackos that go on shooting sprees. You will be a helpless victim. 
To the ones screaming ban guns, we'll be safer. You're living in Never Never Land or in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood. Explosives are illegal, but guess what, there will ALWAYS be whackos that build them and either strap them to themselves or plant them with the intent of taking lives. Much like there will ALWAYS be whackos that go off and shoot up schools and malls. YOU CAN NOT PREVENT THIS SHIT FROM HAPPENING! Let me repeat that. YOU CAN'T PREVENT WHACKOS FROM BREAKING INTO YOUR HOUSE OR GOING ON SHOOTING SPREES. All you can do is pray that it won't happen to you, and if it does, pray that you have a fighting chance of getting out alive. IN THAT MOMENT, YOU can bet your life on gun control to get you out of that situation, I'LL bet mine on my Kimber 45ACP. Like Snowolf said before, there are MANY higher causes of death than guns. What if the government tried to take away YOUR Subaru or KIA, God forbid. You Libs would be kicking and screaming. Owning a car isn't even a Constitutional Right but it kills hundreds of thousands more people every year in America than guns do. "Well, WE, as a government feel America would be safer if we all just rode the bus because there's some whackos out there behind the wheel that lose their falkin minds and run people off the road." See any resemblance? 
The gun control push is in large part a result of the media, as are most problems in this country. We have empowered them to the point that WE (the proverbial WE) can't get through a day in our lives without the media telling us how WE should live, what we should buy, what health problems are REALLY plaguing us... (See Dateline, 20/20, 60 Minutes, etc. They can Make an epidemic out of ANYTHING). And this goes for both sides, Right and Left. There are people on both sides that are off their rockers. The problems is that WE, as "intelligent" human being aren't smart enough to take a step back and see through all the bullsh!t. 
The media also provides a means for the above-mentioned violent nutcases to get their agendas across, or to get the attention they've been begging for all their lives. The media turns these horrible events into movie-esque marathons with catchy titles and use them as leverage to push their own funded agendas. Again this is on both sides. For the Libs it's "Shooting sprees vs Gun Control". For Conservatives it's "Illegal-Alien Kills Mother of 5 vs Stricter Immigration Policies". I won't even go in to racial and minority agendas. It's all sickening to watch....

Long story short....

PEOPLE are the root of the problem, NOT guns.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2009)

Snowolf said:


> There is nothing wrong with a gun designed to kill people; it is a tool just as the deer rifle is a tool. It is how an individual uses that tool that matters. If I use my Sig Saur P-226 .9 MM handgun to kill an armed intruder who is intent on killing my family and raping my 14 year old niece, that tool has served a very good purpose and I would not have a second`s regret pulling the trigger.


I'm not disagreeing with you except for this: There are NO guns specifically designed to kill people. If you walk into Cabela's or any gun shop, I will give anyone a case of beer if they can find a "People Killing" isle. Self defense rounds are designed to delivery 100% of the bullet's energy into an assailant without passing through or breaking up. Some of the newer ones are designed to pass through heavy clothing and still deliver energy into a target. There were some "self-defense" rounds made of tungsten-carbide (I believe) that were taken off the shelf because the carbide bullets would break up into several jagged pieces inside a target and cause severe, uncontrollable internal bleeding. You pose some serious legal problems for yourself if you tell the DA you chose a specific bullet or gun "because it is designed to kill people." Some hunting rounds, such as ballistic tips, are designed to leave a large exit wound so an animal will bleed out and die. Armor-defeating rounds, designed to defeat personal body armor, ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO CIVILIANS. You know all of this I'm sure, it's more for the uninformed people reading. The media would have people believe that there are EVIL companies out there designing bullets SPECIFICALLY to kill people. Truth is, ANY of these bullets WILL kill, but that's not what they are designed to do. 

Furthermore, our screening system DOES, in fact, work. Thousands of people a day are denied the right to buy a gun because of their criminal background or mental health. That's something CNN would never report. I worked in a Cabela's at the firearm counter and witnessed this first-hand every day. 

By some of these people's logic, this recent gun-buying frenzy should show up as a large spike on the magical, unbiased "Gun-Related Crime" graph.  

Snowolf, we're definitely on the same page. :thumbsup:


----------



## RidePowder (Oct 30, 2008)

A gun is about as dangerous as a sharp stick in the hands of the wrong person.

The moral dilemma with guns is as follows: how do we keep guns out of the hands of the wrong person, without restricting the rights of responsible citizens


----------



## VenomousSVT (Feb 17, 2009)

RidePowder said:


> A gun is about as dangerous as a sharp stick in the hands of the wrong person.
> 
> The moral dilemma with guns is as follows: how do we keep guns out of the hands of the wrong person, without restricting the rights of responsible citizens


:laugh: a sharp stick that can take someone out from a few hundred yards :laugh:


----------



## RidePowder (Oct 30, 2008)

in the wrong hands. being the key point of that sentence.


----------



## VenomousSVT (Feb 17, 2009)

RidePowder said:


> in the wrong hands. being the key point of that sentence.


:laugh:

just giving you shit


----------



## seant46 (Dec 8, 2009)

Snowolf said:


> Could`nt disagree more strongly. The number of lives saved by law abiding citizens carrying a handgun makes our Constitutional right very appropriate. Who know, this guy might be alive today had he been packing a .9 MM in a shoulder holster.
> 
> I carry a handgun designed for killing people because they are a bigger threat to my safety than bears.
> 
> ...


You cant carry handguns around in Canada...You are suppose to call the police to let them know if you are even driving with one to the gun range lol.


----------



## Veccster (Dec 31, 2007)

t-tung said:


> Snowolf I'm with ya on almost everything. However, weapons geared for personal defense are NOT specifically designed to kill people nor are military guns. Military guns and ammo...blah, blah, blah </snip>


Great post :thumbsup:


----------



## Felice (Jul 3, 2008)

The hula site is blocked in Canada; can anyone provide an alternate link?

Thank you.


----------



## ETM (Aug 11, 2009)

I live in australia and I saw this on the discovery crime channel last year.


----------



## Lives2fly (Feb 8, 2010)

I live in the UK so I am quite envious of US gun laws.

In Britain only the criminals are allowed to have guns - although cops with MP5's are a common sight at airports these days.


----------



## InfiniteEclipse (Jan 2, 2009)

Last thing I want is to worry about trigger happy wanabe thugs in Toronto... needless to say, I'm quite happy with our gun laws and rather leave you bleeding than dead. 

I would however purchase a model 500 S&W Magnum Revolver soon as a permit allowed me to in the US, than ya'll can brings guns and we'll play  jks


----------



## rasmasyean (Jan 26, 2008)

I think maybe citizen guns are good for places that are less populated. Like if you are constantly in an area that is open with no one around, you are a better victim. In contrast, in big cities, etc. there’s more of the witness, camera, lights deterrent and letting everyone have guns might be worse. First of all, city life is more stressful and people tend to flip-out etc. and having easy access to guns, (their own or someone else’s) means they can do a lot more damage. Especially if drunk, or careless like leaving it out for kids. While out in “rural” areas, if someone does flip out, they can do less damage on average.

Ultimately, it’s really not about your “rights”. It’s about making a stable society. Because in reality, you only have the rights that the government gives you anyway...whether or not it involves weapons. Governments expect that people will be victims, and will get killed, etc. But which laws will make LESS people get killed? And for many big cities, where they produce the brunt of the national economy…you don’t want to risk random shootouts and stray bullets, let alone someone flipping out during rush hour. Your “freedom” is really limited to what they believe will be better for the bigger picture.

And for certain individuals, like many city folk, giving them a gun to even defend themselves might be dangerous. Unless you’ve been around guns all your life or have been “properly trained mentally”, there is a good chance that you will get all freaked out and start blasting away like crazy when you are endangered. Many city folk are like corporate lemmings who barely know anything about stuff like this. And we want them that way because they are a gear that turns the engine really well without having to worry about these kinds of things. The cops are supposed to be the wolves who protect the sheep, right? Some sheep will hopelessly die, but that’s OK, because it’s a sacrifice made for the good of the whole. Division of labor produces specialists this makes the organization more potent.


----------



## jimster716 (Feb 11, 2009)

I'm a gun owner (Glock 22, Sig Sauer P229, SKS) but I can see the point of gun regulation if not outright illegalization like many other countries. With a sick society or economic woes, guns simply make it too easy to carry out day to day crimes and we see it every day. 

Could someone make an improvised explosive device if guns were illegal? Sure they could but it wouldn't be as easy as locked, cocked and ready to rock. How many lives could one easily take with a knife? I got 15 in the clip that says a gun would be easier to take as many or likely more. We have urban war zones in our midst that many developed countries see as unfathomable that this is allowed to happen here.

2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was based on colonial defense against tyranny and also due to the challenges of frontier life...a tangible part of life back then. Is this relevant today? When was the last time we were under threat that would require that citizens stand up and fight in place of existing strong and established armed forces? Perhaps protection against our own governmental tyranny? It would be a losing war for an individual for sure and I hardly think that the entire citizenry would be in agreement in this land of bipartisan politics.

Statistically speaking, Canada may have more guns with less crime but this does not detract from the fact that Americans are more willing to use them for whatever reason and the notion that the mentality can be changed can only come with more jobs, greater education, and more opportunities for prosperity things that we are challenged with every day. Maybe getting rid of guns would be the more likely route for a quick win in homicide reduction because I don't see any changes in how we budget for education or plan for economic growth that would apply to all.


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2010)

I'm rider from Russia)


----------



## sage (Jan 1, 2009)

I came across this article on Ben Bradley, A lonely way to die by Jason Blevins of The Denver Post. The article reveals more about Ben, his love for snowboarding, carefree spirit and sense for adventure.

"_Ben did his own thing. He was a free- spirited boy, and he was extremely trusting," said his father... "He had such a great heart, but he didn't see danger where I saw danger."

Maybe that lack of fear came from his snowboarding. He ripped on a snowboard, and his skills made him look fearless.

"He loved taking big drops. He wasn't afraid of any big cliffs," said Cory Matthews, a Winter Park buddy who worked with Bradley on the resort's snowmaking crew for several winters. "He was just extremely mellow and chill. A really good guy. Everyone loved him._"​


----------



## The Jake (Jan 19, 2010)

*how did*

i miss this thread?

i'm an attorney in new york, so my take on guns is admittedly liberal. however, i try to be practical as well. are we ever going to see guns made illegal in the U.S.? no, we're not. there are just way too many people in this country who love their guns, and it was written in the constitution. those were different times, of course, there was a need to join militias and fight off the Brits and Native Americans. we aren't exactly faced with barbarous, head-scalping warriors and redcoats nowadays, but that's neither here nor there. point being, it's a waste of time to argue that guns should be made illegal because it will never happen. 

on the other hand (in my opinion), guns should be more heavily regulated. it's WAY too easy to buy one, and it's very easy to get a permit. concealed carry permits are harder to get, but still too easy, in my opinion. i really don't see the need of carrying a gun into your local grocery store or into a movie theater. if you're going to be in a dangerous place, that's one thing, but people tend to overdo it.

finally, there is absolutely NO reason why certain weapons should be sold legally in this country, assault rifles and whatnot. you have your handguns, you have your hunting rifles. you can protect yourselves if necessary. you do NOT need a high-powered assault rifle with night vision, laser sight and hollow point bullets. that's just overdoing it. 

like with all great debates, there is a compromise to be made somewhere in the middle. and no, Barry Obama is not out to take your guns away. dude can't even pass healthcare with a majority of democrats in the Senate! i wouldn't worry, gun people.


----------



## ComeBack_Kid (May 27, 2009)

I was with you until this completely false and simplistic quote:


Snowolf said:


> The Military of the United States is tool designed for one purpose and that is killing people


I wont even begin to explain to you the infinite reasons that statement is completely incorrect; I will focus on the fact that I absolutely believe in your argument. Heres a solid example of why:

When I was 18, I had my arm sliced to the bone by a guy who had been trying to rape a female friend of mine when I intervened. I had been with my friend at a beach park at about 6:30 at night, and I was catching up to my friend as she was jogging back to the car. When I came upon her, the guy was on top of her on the ground and and had his forearm against her face, trying to keep her quiet. Not knowing what to do but knowing I had to do something, I ran up and smashed my fist into his face, knocking him off of her. She grabbed my arm and tried to have me pull her up and away from the guy, which threw me off balance. In that split second, the guy pulled out a knife and swung it sideways at me. I put my arm in front of me, and my arm split open like butter. He stepped back, said "Oh fuckin shit" and ran down the trail. So all things considered, my friend and I were lucky, but the at least 3 women he raped in the next 2 months before he was caught were not. 

So Heres the lesson: He couldve killed me and my friend if he wanted to, and because I wasnt able to harm him severely enough, he gave me a wound which would have been fatal had it been almost anywhere on my torso(as he was aiming for), and was able to rape at least 3 more women. *And you know what? I don't think anyone would have complained if I had a gun and had shot him.* 

Picture what you would do in a situation like this, and instead of my friend, make it your friend, or maybe your sister, brother, or your daughter... and anyone try to tell me that guns should be banned or outlawed, and that you wouldnt want to be able to defend yourself or the lives of someone you love. With proper training, licensing, and safety measures, guns are one of the best and most important tools a person can own


----------



## vanoot (Mar 17, 2010)

Snowolf said:


> Could`nt disagree more strongly. All it will do is create more potential victims to people who could care less about the law anyway.
> 
> That said, I do envy you living in a society where a gun is not remotely something people need.


That sums it up very nicely. If you are the type of person who would murder someone in cold blood, or use a gun to injure somebody, I don't think a handgun law would stop you from owning a handgun.


----------



## rasmasyean (Jan 26, 2008)

Snowolf said:


> I am glad you agree with me on the gun issue and you are correct in my opinion with regard to that incident. As for the military comment, I don't think we disagree. I served in the military so I say this from experience. Our military has one job to do and that is to wage war defending the interests of our country and that entails killing, plain and simple. That was the only point I was making and it was not a slight against our military.


Just face it, some people are meant to harm or kill other people. Aggression is part of human nature. The military gives these people an outlet to live their lives as they wish. No civilization as been brought up without someone killing another person to defeat another civilization in the struggle for whatever. 

That being said, if you allow guns everywhere, what you have is place like Peshawar, Pakistan. Exact your own justice, take sides, form gangs, and plot to take over the government. All the while, “defend” yourselves from one another the good old fashion way. Fortunately, some civilizations have evolved beyond that. But for those who like that lifestyle, you can always move there!


----------



## ComeBack_Kid (May 27, 2009)

Snowolf said:


> I am glad you agree with me on the gun issue and you are correct in my opinion with regard to that incident. As for the military comment, I don't think we disagree. I served in the military so I say this from experience. *Our military has one job to do and that is to wage war defending the interests of our country and that entails killing, plain and simple. That was the only point I was making and it was not a slight against our military.*


I understand you aren't taking a jab at our military, but you are so absolutely 100% indisputably wrong that its silly. As a former military member you should know that military doctrine, law, and rules all dispute what you are saying. Our military does not meant just for "killing people" as you say, but it's major functions include peacekeeping, civil and non-civil stability and support, and more importantly, *DEFENSE*, which makes up the majority of every military branch's budget expenditures.

Are they trained and able to kill? Yes, and they should be.
Is that their sole mission in the world? Absolutely not, and you have to have a very simplistic view of things to think so.. 

I guess my main question is: *Are you SERIOUS?!*


----------



## rasmasyean (Jan 26, 2008)

ComeBack_Kid said:


> I understand you aren't taking a jab at our military, but you are so absolutely 100% indisputably wrong that its silly. As a former military member you should know that military doctrine, law, and rules all dispute what you are saying. Our military does not meant just for "killing people" as you say, but it's major functions include peacekeeping, civil and non-civil stability and support, and more importantly, *DEFENSE*, which makes up the majority of every military branch's budget expenditures.
> 
> Are they trained and able to kill? Yes, and they should be.
> Is that their sole mission in the world? Absolutely not, and you have to have a very simplistic view of things to think so..
> ...


No YOU have a simplistic view of things. You try to use what’s written on a piece of paper and honor propaganda to describe reality like it’s a good vs. evil fantasy novel. Do you actually think that Iraq is purely “defense”? Why don’t we just “liberate” all the poor suffering people in Africa from evil dictators too? That’s gotta be a lot easier to take out tiny gangs. But what are we gonna gain? A couple of undug up diamond mines that might not even exist? 

Black Gold is the necessity of all modern civilizations. The deal is simply this… We bring “friendly” Iraqis into power in exchange for cheap ax oil in the guise of liberating them from an evil dictator. You know that not too long ago Saddam was out friend. We betrayed him last time because the Saudi’s and Kuwaitis gave us more black gold. We betrayed him yet again because we don’t think he will produce black gold at the rate that the current regime will in the years to come. Some people call it conquest, other’s call it trade…but only the really naïve call it heroism!


----------



## ComeBack_Kid (May 27, 2009)

rasmasyean said:


> No YOU have a simplistic view of things. You try to use what’s written on a piece of paper and honor propaganda to describe reality like it’s a good vs. evil fantasy novel. Do you actually think that Iraq is purely “defense”? Why don’t we just “liberate” all the poor suffering people in Africa from evil dictators too? That’s gotta be a lot easier to take out tiny gangs. But what are we gonna gain? A couple of undug up diamond mines that might not even exist?
> 
> Black Gold is the necessity of all modern civilizations. The deal is simply this… We bring “friendly” Iraqis into power in exchange for cheap ax oil in the guise of liberating them from an evil dictator. You know that not too long ago Saddam was out friend. We betrayed him last time because the Saudi’s and Kuwaitis gave us more black gold. We betrayed him yet again because we don’t think he will produce black gold at the rate that the current regime will in the years to come. Some people call it conquest, other’s call it trade…but only the really naïve call it heroism!


You might be retarted...Seriously. I cant even argue with anyone who thinks "killing" is all the military does, because you have the grasp on this of a 10-year-old with down syndrome. I, like most others think the Iraq/Afghanistan wars are a joke, but the majority of our military's time is not spent "killing" as you seem to agree with. I don't just look at words on paper, The majority of it the military's money is spent on DEFENSE projects and peacekeeping, which is why we have troops stationed in most of the countries around the world. 

If you were even slightly educated or intelligent you could understand that your retarted "Iraq is all about oil" argument is simply just you shouting out what you have heard before so you can feel smart(Fail). If you understood anything about the way the military functions or how it spends its money(hint: the majority is not in Iraq OR Afghanistan) then maybe you could start to understand the complexities of the situation. Until then, you are just another mindless idiot chanting the same "No Blood for Oil" speech with no idea whatsoever what you are really talking about, and no comprehension of what our military does. 

Good job "Rasmasyean", you just won snowboardingforum.com's FAIL-of-the-year award!


----------



## rasmasyean (Jan 26, 2008)

ComeBack_Kid said:


> You might be retarted...Seriously. I cant even argue with anyone who thinks "killing" is all the military does, because you have the grasp on this of a 10-year-old with down syndrome. I, like most others think the Iraq/Afghanistan wars are a joke, but the majority of our military's time is not spent "killing" as you seem to agree with. I don't just look at words on paper, The majority of it the military's money is spent on DEFENSE projects and peacekeeping, which is why we have troops stationed in most of the countries around the world.
> 
> If you were even slightly educated or intelligent you could understand that your retarted "Iraq is all about oil" argument is simply just you shouting out what you have heard before so you can feel smart(Fail). If you understood anything about the way the military functions or how it spends its money(hint: the majority is not in Iraq OR Afghanistan) then maybe you could start to understand the complexities of the situation. Until then, you are just another mindless idiot chanting the same "No Blood for Oil" speech with no idea whatsoever what you are really talking about, and no comprehension of what our military does.
> 
> Good job "Rasmasyean", you just won snowboardingforum.com's FAIL-of-the-year award!


You’re just trying to act like a peacelover carebear and have nothing to refute so you go… “OMG! FAIL!!!111!!!”.

You see, you can’t grasp the concept even as you try. It’s not a “No Blood for Oil” speech I just implied. It’s a “Blood for Oil” speech. In the bigger picture, a country needs food just like any other animal who uses their fangs to “defend” themselves. You notice how DEFENSE entails OFFENSE? When there is a threat to your survival and prosperity, you don’t just keep blocking. You strike. Sometimes strike first! This was always the role of the warrior class!

The “peacekeeping stations” you’re talking about are strategic bases for both political and military purposes…some of which is to strike quick when give notice. To go and destroy and kill a potential threat in a quick response. It’s basically a gun to your head.

You’re like one of those Russians who joined the Cold Afghan War because you saw pictures of troops building schools. LOL You know that most of them are dead right? Not by falling bricks….by other warriors who are DEFENDING themselves from an invader. And you know what we did with our DEFENSE budget? Give those farmers state of the art missles to blow them up. That's not killing at all. It's "peacekeeping"...yeah, thats it...


----------



## ComeBack_Kid (May 27, 2009)

rasmasyean said:


> Blah, blah, blah I have no point at all and nothing to back it up, so I'll just ramble on like an idiot and as for how you completely shut down my argument? Well fuck it, I'm gonna ignore every point you made that shamed me, because I can't stand to lose an argument with a stranger on the internet


I reworded your quote so that everybody could cut through the bullshit and understand what you are saying.. The main point is that you are too stupid to even argue with. You are defending the idea that all the military does is kill, and that their only purpose is as killers, and that they do NOTHING else...

If you can't see why thats completely, 100% irrefutably wrong, then you are beyond stupid. Good luck with that. :laugh:


----------



## rasmasyean (Jan 26, 2008)

ComeBack_Kid said:


> Blah, blah, blah I’m such a cuddly loving angle who pays taxes so that guys with big guns can help everyone in their path by growing flowers and shoot those nasty wild animals that trample them. Though, I sure wish I can ride those billion dollar UFO’s I help fund and push those relief rations out that sweet looking double door, but I understand it takes lots of skill and you have to prove yourself to be honorable of such a task.


......NT


----------



## ComeBack_Kid (May 27, 2009)

rasmasyean said:


> God I love sleeping with young boys! 14-year old asian boys are my favorite, but honestly I'll take anything I can get, because I AM a fat, ugly, shitty dork with no life...


Wow, too much info rasmayean, keep your hobbies and shittiness to yourself :laugh:


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Alright guys knock it off. I get that you two have opposing viewpionts but if the personal attacks don't stop I am going to drop the ban hammer.


----------



## ComeBack_Kid (May 27, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> Alright guys knock it off. I get that you two have opposing viewpionts but if the personal attacks don't stop I am going to drop the ban hammer.


Hahahaha ok, just havin' some cheap fun :laugh:

He can hop on the shortbus home now, and I'll call it a night myself


----------



## ComeBack_Kid (May 27, 2009)

Snowolf said:


> Well, Rasmasyean and I rarely agree on much..., but on this he is far more correct than you have any idea. I don't know how old you are (I am guessing 14 to 17 based on your "style" of debating) but you do indeed have a very simplistic view on this.
> 
> My point, which I defend and maintain, is that our military (and any other nation`s for that matter) has one job and that is to kill people and break thing. Now, before you go off on another tirade for which I will not show the tolerance Killclimbz has so think before you post; debate in a civil, mature manner if you choose to respond, let me elucidate further.
> 
> ...


Well your assumption, much like your argument, is flawed. I am 23, and have many friends and family members serving in the armed forces, but much like your service in the Air Force, that has nothing to do with this debate. You were in the Air Force? I am genuinely thankful and proud of your service. That said, I would argue that I'm much more qualified than you to understand the complexities AND the simplicities of the argument. Why? Because I'm a highly-intelligent, college-educated(UCLA) man who has actually studied the issue. If you genuinely think the military's only purpose is "to kill people and break thing", then I won't debate, argue, or even discuss this anymore, especially if you're just gonna call people immature and pull the Mod card. The world isn't black and white, and neither are the issues we face. I enjoy your snowboard commentary and quite a few of your posts but this is one thing we'll just have to agree to disagree on.. Peace


----------



## rasmasyean (Jan 26, 2008)

ComeBack_Kid said:


> Well your assumption, much like your argument, is flawed. I am 23, and have many friends and family members serving in the armed forces, but much like your service in the Air Force, that has nothing to do with this debate. You were in the Air Force? I am genuinely thankful and proud of your service. That said, I would argue that I'm much more qualified than you to understand the complexities AND the simplicities of the argument. Why? Because I'm a highly-intelligent, college-educated(UCLA) man who has actually studied the issue. If you genuinely think the military's only purpose is "to kill people and break thing", then I won't debate, argue, or even discuss this anymore, especially if you're just gonna call people immature and pull the Mod card. The world isn't black and white, and neither are the issues we face. I enjoy your snowboard commentary and quite a few of your posts but this is one thing we'll just have to agree to disagree on.. Peace


So what? If you want to pull academic resumes for some presumptive reason, then I’m a full scholar with an advance degree from a college consistently in the top 3 of various rank listings. People like me MAY have considered your school as a “safety application”…because they like sunshine. Not that it really helps the point as many of these classmates seem to have rich parents who paid for everything their whole lives and think like you.

Given your “life background” it’s not uncommon for one to have such romantic visions of military service. The real life scenario involves more economics, however. In reality, the capitalist class really controls what type of “honor” the warrior class fights for….which incidentally, are mostly part of the working class. While there aren’t really that many of these capitalists who focus their portfolios into green and eco stocks if you catch my drift. Even in the current conflicts, you can sum it up as a Southeast Asian live lab to use as a proving grounds for the defense industry. All the while there are ample people who willingly feel they need to “utilize their training” to help in the experiments. 

To them the military is nothing more than a security tool meant for offensive action in the name of “defense”. Its people are merely assets meant to secure other assets. Always has been that way. Whether you believe in freedom or god or country or more, is only relevant in that it makes you justify sacrificing your life or ending another.

Wake up and may you can hear…

”Thanks for your service... May you spread the cause and give your sons who wish to exercise testosterone instincts to secure my future (that is strongly tied to the country’s energy necessities). Uh…Peace…yeah…uh huh”. :laugh:


----------



## rasmasyean (Jan 26, 2008)

Snowolf said:


> Well, Rasmasyean and I rarely agree on much...


...like topics actually involving *snowboarding*!


----------



## ComeBack_Kid (May 27, 2009)

rasmasyean said:


> So what? If you want to pull academic resumes for some presumptive reason, then I’m a full scholar with an advance degree from a college consistently in the top 3 of various rank listings. People like me MAY have considered your school as a “safety application”…because they like sunshine. Not that it really helps the point as many of these classmates seem to have rich parents who paid for everything their whole lives and think like you.
> 
> Given your “life background” it’s not uncommon for one to have such romantic visions of military service. The real life scenario involves more economics, however. In reality, the capitalist class really controls what type of “honor” the warrior class fights for….which incidentally, are mostly part of the working class. While there aren’t really that many of these capitalists who focus their portfolios into green and eco stocks if you catch my drift. Even in the current conflicts, you can sum it up as a Southeast Asian live lab to use as a proving grounds for the defense industry. All the while there are ample people who willingly feel they need to “utilize their training” to help in the experiments.
> 
> ...


1.LOL @ UCLA being anyone's safety school. UCLA is one of the most prestigious public universities in the United States, and the most applied to University in the US by far, yet has an acceptance rate of 21%, lower than schools like USC, Notre Dame, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, NYU, etc My school and degree(still in progress) speak for themselves 

2.If you think in such simple terms as "The military is only for killing people" then not only do I call BS on your academic claims, but I doubt you even have the scholastic aptitude to have finished high school.

3.You can quote absolutely anything you want, but that doesn't make you any less wrong. The simple fact is that the mere threat of force is undeniably a much more powerful function than the actual killing done by ours or any military worldwide, so that entire argument of yours is absolutely worthless. 

4.Don't try to talk down to anyone; You know nothing of my life background other than:
a)I snowboard
b)I attend UCLA
c)I am 23 years old
d)I can call people out on their delusional, insane beliefs
So calm down old man, and stay on topic

5.Its genuinely sad that with all your quotes and your insistence in being correct, you simply cannot put forth any debate to show that "killing is the purpose of military", and when you read back, you'll see that you just wasted more time posting nothing to support your argument...How sad for you :laugh:


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

ComeBack_Kid said:


> Because I'm a highly-intelligent, college-educated(UCLA) man





ComeBack_Kid said:


> 4.Don't try to talk down to anyone


:dunno:

Why has this thread turned into an asinine personal attack playground? I think someone needs to take a break from the forum for a little while. Seems like most of the places you visit turn into conflict very quickly.


----------



## ComeBack_Kid (May 27, 2009)

Flick Montana said:


> :dunno:
> 
> Why has this thread turned into an asinine personal attack playground? I think someone needs to take a break from the forum for a little while. Seems like most of the places you visit turn into conflict very quickly.


Two quotes taken out of context, nice 
I didnt ask for an attack from Rasmasyean, read back and see him start this thing. Snowolf and I agreed to disagree, then guess who has to pop in again? Exactly. So Flick Montana, please either contribute to the discussion or leave


----------



## rasmasyean (Jan 26, 2008)

ComeBack_Kid said:


> 1.LOL @ UCLA being anyone's safety school. UCLA is one of the most prestigious public universities in the United States, and the most applied to University in the US by far, yet has an acceptance rate of 21%, lower than schools like USC, Notre Dame, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, NYU, etc My school and degree(still in progress) speak for themselves
> 
> 2.If you think in such simple terms as "The military is only for killing people" then not only do I call BS on your academic claims, but I doubt you even have the scholastic aptitude to have finished high school.
> 
> ...


How sad for YOU, you mean. Considering that a quick search shows the acceptance rate is like 23% (compared to the league of single digit ones that you imply to be part of) and you keep on trying to tell us how great you by this, and are by belittling peoples wits, supposed love preference, imaginary appearances, and size, among other things... to say that the military isn't a killing machine even though they train to do so... Who's "on topic"?


----------



## rasmasyean (Jan 26, 2008)

ComeBack_Kid said:


> Two quotes taken out of context, nice
> I didnt ask for an attack from Rasmasyean, read back and see him start this thing. Snowolf and I agreed to disagree, then guess who has to pop in again? Exactly. So Flick Montana, please either contribute to the discussion or leave


Flick Montana is just calling you out as a troll...who should prolly be doing his homework instead of wasting his parents money! :laugh:


----------



## ComeBack_Kid (May 27, 2009)

rasmasyean said:


> How sad for YOU, you mean. Considering that a quick search shows the acceptance rate is like 23% (compared to the league of single digit ones that you imply to be part of) and you keep on trying to tell us how great you by this, and are by belittling peoples wits, supposed love preference, imaginary appearances, and size, among other things... to say that the military isn't a killing machine even though they train to do so... Who's "on topic"?


1.Yet another FAIL on your part

2.Current acceptance rates are 21.7%, and unlike you, I have a source(UCLA itself)
University of California - Admissions
Its hilarious that you were splitting hairs with me over 2% and that you think any of those schools have single-digit acceptance rates. Again, a quick google search proves that you have no idea what you are talking about, notice how NONE of the schools I mentioned have anything close to single-digit acceptance rates as you claim:
Best Colleges Top 100 - Lowest Acceptance Rates

3.I also found this entry on urban dictionary, look in the mirror to see a great example of its meaning:
Urban Dictionary: douchebag

Are you done with your worthless attacks yet, because I'm getting bored of mopping the floor with everything you say :laugh:

Btw, where did you say you went to school again?


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

ComeBack_Kid said:


> Two quotes taken out of context, nice
> I didnt ask for an attack from Rasmasyean, read back and see him start this thing. Snowolf and I agreed to disagree, then guess who has to pop in again? Exactly. So Flick Montana, please either contribute to the discussion or leave


Sorry, but your style of "debating" seems more like a discussion with O'Reilly. If you disagree, you get yelled at and laughed at and personal insults are hurled. I'd be up for that if it was in good nature, but you seem like a very angry little person to me and I don't get any joy from mocking kids over the internet.

I'm not calling you a troll, per se. I'm just saying that you need to show at least a modicum of respect if you want any yourself. Which I'm not entirely sure you do.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2010)

It's disgusting to even think someone is capable of taking someone's life..
This story really freaks me out; I travel alone a lot and it really scares me. 

I'm very iffy on the constitutional right to bear arms... Our founding fathers were brilliant men but I bet they didn't expect the scale of what the guns were used for to shift from the usage of guns for more protection and hunting to murder. 
I believe one should be able to protect themselves but I also believe that it should not have to be from a gun. If we were to outlaw guns less people would carry it around. (Some people would be pissed as hell about this but most of them are law abiding citizens.) The less people have it the less possibility it is to have someone go on a rampage and, for example, kill someone's mo-f*cking cheating spouse, etc. 

If guns were allowed in all fifty states, I really believe it would be chaos. A lot of people would be carrying guns but a lot of people wouldn't be carrying one either. The exposure of guns to minors is extreme. A kid could stumble across a gun that was left there, dropped (god forbid), etc. and fire. This could potentially hurt someone and traumatize the kid. Everyone would probably be in a state of worry since the person next to them has something that could kill him/her. 

In person to gun ratio to country to bombs- imagine all countries were allowed to have bombs... seriously, no thank you. :\ 

**There obviously will be an age requirement for guns if it were allowed in the US. So assuming that this age cut off will be 21+ then where's the protection for people who are 20-?

:\ Ideally I wish there was no such thing as weapons; but that's only wishful thinking...


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2010)

ComeBack_Kid said:


> Best Colleges Top 100 - Lowest Acceptance Rates


That link made me cringe. Four schools I applied to are on the first page... It was a nice reminder I get rejection/acceptances starting tomorrow


----------



## ComeBack_Kid (May 27, 2009)

Sundays said:


> That link made me cringe. Four schools I applied to are on the first page... It was a nice reminder I get rejection/acceptances starting tomorrow



Sorry bud, didn't mean to add to the pressure haha
Think positive, and no matter what happens, make the best of it; hey, you're going to college somewhere, and thats miles beyond so many others, and a step forward and upward in every way 

Good luck!


----------



## Sam I Am (Sep 9, 2009)

Flick: +1 


Comeback_Kid: ................. enough said.






As for everything else. I think Snowolf and rasmasyean say it nicely.


----------



## ComeBack_Kid (May 27, 2009)

Sam I Am said:


> Flick: +1
> 
> 
> Comeback_Kid: ................. enough said.
> As for everything else. I think Snowolf and rasmasyean say it nicely.


Sam I Am = Yet another failure. :laugh:
You get laughed at and owned on every page you visit, care to keep it goin here?


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Well back on topic. Seems that the asshole was finally caught.

Man charged in '06 death of hitchhiker in Wyo. | SummitDaily.com

and here.
http://www.trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_d33d615a-47e2-11df-bd9d-001cc4c03286.html


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

With a suspect now in custody, I am going to drop the sticky on this one. Will post updates as this one winds it's way through the legal system. I hope this asshole rots...


----------



## Zee (Feb 21, 2008)

4 years later, good job! Seriously takes a lot of determination to solve a crime that many years later.


----------



## Music Moves (Jan 23, 2009)

This is really good to know... hope this has reached at least a good amount of people that travel alone.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

More info on the arrest from the Denver Post today.
Man charged in Wyo. in 2006 murder of Colo. snowboarder - The Denver Post

Seems that there are a couple more people involved they are going to arrest. What a bunch of cowards...


----------



## Mike.M (Mar 4, 2010)

sad that these guys were all hopped up on drugs


----------



## Zee (Feb 21, 2008)

I can bet they asked about the splitboard, because it was unique, and at some point realized, or asked how much it costs. They then proceeded to kill him and steal it so they could pawn it off for a few hits of meth.

Lowlifes suck.


----------



## arsenic0 (Nov 11, 2008)

Its good to know it wasnt just some random hitchhiking murder though. It sounds like sadly he was hanging out with some meth/crack heads who were zapped out of their mind...bad shit like that happens when you hang around lowlifes like that.


----------



## RVM (Jan 31, 2007)

those people suck


----------



## Sam I Am (Sep 9, 2009)

:dunno: I guess this is why you shouldn't do drugs.


Glad they found 'em.:thumbsup:


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

Glad they found them. I hope they burn. :thumbsdown:


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Interesting. The guy who "found" Ben's back pack and personal belonging has been arrested as an accessory to the murder. Evidently he knew what happened and purposely threw off the investigators. What a douche, and I hope gets a long time behind bars to think about it.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Well the "douche" has been officially charged. Hope he rots...


----------



## RVM (Jan 31, 2007)

No story at that link.





killclimbz said:


> Well the "douche" has been officially charged. Hope he rots...


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Works for me? What are you getting?

Judge: Man to face charge in hitchhiker's death - The Denver Post


----------



## TMXMOTORSPORTS (Jun 10, 2009)

The link works for me.:thumbsup:


----------



## RVM (Jan 31, 2007)

Was jsut getting a blank page with denverpost.com in big letters at the top.

It's working now though. :thumbsup:


----------



## daysailer1 (Nov 9, 2007)

killclimbz said:


> Works for me? What are you getting?
> 
> Judge: Man to face charge in hitchhiker's death - The Denver Post


Thanks for posting this. It's kinda timely. One of Ben's roommates at the time of his disappearance is getting ready to move to Tahoe. I'll be at the going away party this Sunday.


----------



## Willy36 (Dec 29, 2008)

Rock Springs is a shithole. Hope the assholes who killed him rot


----------



## snowvols (Apr 16, 2008)

I was in Rock Springs a couple weeks ago. It seemed like a nice town there were quite a few new buildings and seemed to be a growing town.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Rock Springs seems decent enough for a crappy part of Wyoming. I agree it didn't seem bad. As with a lot of rural America, it seems that meth is a problem around there.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Apparently the douches who were arrested have had the charges against them dropped.

Jackson Hole Daily | Charges dropped in slain hitchhiker case

Unbelievable. I am hoping the justice system will get back around to charging them, but right now this really sucks. Ben deserves some justice in the cowardly killing.


----------



## RVM (Jan 31, 2007)

*sigh*

10char



killclimbz said:


> Apparently the douches who were arrested have had the charges against them dropped.
> 
> Jackson Hole Daily | Charges dropped in slain hitchhiker case
> 
> Unbelievable. I am hoping the justice system will get back around to charging them, but right now this really sucks. Ben deserves some justice in the cowardly killing.


----------



## Extremo (Nov 6, 2008)

That's insane. Hopefully they will continue to gather evidence and build a stronger case against them, or they're "indiscriminately" killed by local meth heads.


----------



## daysailer1 (Nov 9, 2007)

I found out about this last week. It rots.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

The best thing that could happen is to find someone who has the board. Chances are they didn't have anything to do with it, but you could probably back track it to the perps. Making for a more solid case if it led to these guys who most likely did it.


----------



## little devil (Aug 18, 2009)

So there was just not enough evidence for them to have a solid case  :dunno:

That`s really too bad.


----------

