Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 405

Thread: Yea, so about that school shooting

  1. #1
    Philosopher Nichts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    USS Yorktown
    Posts
    11,751

    Default Yea, so about that school shooting

    To avoid the other thread being derailed into a gun debate, I've decided to start up a new thread. Because I know that it's where this thread is going to go.

    So, here's a riddle: what's the difference between 22 (slightly, most of them) injured kids, and 20 dead kids?

  2. #2

    Default

    I already covered this, the difference is the Chinese kids should have been at work making sneakers, not at school. The problem there is not gun control but the loosening of child labor laws. Back to work, you little rice burners, mush!
    Roses are red; violets are blue. I shagged your girl; maybe tomorrow you can to.

  3. #3
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Would you feel better if murder victims were pushed out of windows?
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  4. #4
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nichts View Post
    To avoid the other thread being derailed into a gun debate, I've decided to start up a new thread. Because I know that it's where this thread is going to go.

    So, here's a riddle: what's the difference between 22 (slightly, most of them) injured kids, and 20 dead kids?
    It is rather simple isn't it? While the pro-gun people vehemently state that, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," it is pretty obvious to all but the least intelligent that it is an awful lot easier to kill people with a gun than any other type of weapon normally carried. It is certainly possible to kill someone with a knife or whatever, but it is a lot harder and practically impossible at a distance.

    But there are plenty of guns in other countries which have very little gun crime. In Scandinavia and Finland, for example, hunting is extremely popular (and frankly necessary) so there are a lot of hunting rifles around. But we don't have anywhere near the gun crime that the US has.

    There are a lot of reasons why I think that could be, but the most compelling in my eyes is that we have very strict (although certainly not infallible as I'm sure someone will remind me) screening processes before you're allowed to own or use one. Well that, and the lack of assault rifles, automatics and the like.

  5. #5
    Consul Luisss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    10,949

    Default

    If you look at the crime statistics of Australia (who had many instances of tragedies like what occured), after the massacre that occured there in the 90's, they put gun restrictions in place and haven't seen a tragedy like what happened on Friday since.
    "Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit."

  6. #6
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    It is rather simple isn't it? While the pro-gun people vehemently state that, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," it is pretty obvious to all but the least intelligent that it is an awful lot easier to kill people with a gun than any other type of weapon normally carried. It is certainly possible to kill someone with a knife or whatever, but it is a lot harder and practically impossible at a distance.

    But there are plenty of guns in other countries which have very little gun crime. In Scandinavia and Finland, for example, hunting is extremely popular (and frankly necessary) so there are a lot of hunting rifles around. But we don't have anywhere near the gun crime that the US has.

    There are a lot of reasons why I think that could be, but the most compelling in my eyes is that we have very strict (although certainly not infallible as I'm sure someone will remind me) screening processes before you're allowed to own or use one. Well that, and the lack of assault rifles, automatics and the like.
    It's also quite obvious, that the anti gun faction overlook the fact that people hell bent of destruction find ways to kill large amounts of people without guns. Anyone hear what happened in Oklahoma City with fertilizer? Or Susan smith with a car? If someone is commited to such an atrocity, they will accomplish their goal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  7. #7
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    It's also quite obvious, that the anti gun faction overlook the fact that people hell bent of destruction find ways to kill large amounts of people without guns. Anyone hear what happened in Oklahoma City with fertilizer? Or Susan smith with a car? If someone is commited to such an atrocity, they will accomplish their goal.
    And yet... it is SO much easier with guns hence inevitably leading to higher death tolls. Not to mention how much easier it is to disarm someone with e.g. a knife.

  8. #8
    Consul Luisss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    10,949

    Default

    Why make it easier by allowing them access to automatic rifles? The everyday 20 year old wouldn't know how to contaminate fertilizer or hold hostage a plan with a razor.
    "Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit."

  9. #9
    Philosopher Nichts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    USS Yorktown
    Posts
    11,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    Anyone hear what happened in Oklahoma City with fertilizer?
    I remember that! It's so easy to do, it happened 16 times this year alone.
    Last edited by Nichts; 12-17-2012 at 04:00 PM.

  10. #10

    Default

    Personally, I don't think that there is any legitimate need for semi-automatic weapons. I would love to see a ban on them. But I have to say I was a political science major in undergrad and researched the 2nd amendment and what I came up with is that you would need a constitutional amendment to ban them. I love my first amendment rights (amongst others) so I will have to respect other peoples second amendment rights. Until there is a constitutional amendment (which i would support but know would never realistically pass) I don't see a way to ban them.
    http://imageshack.us/a/img690/5194/m...crewmember.jpg
    s7 r1 - Quinnito/KWC (Gemini) s7 r2 - Kazumodo (frenchmaids) s7 r3 Smokey
    s1 r3 - Nemain (DSP)
    s5x - Pootang (DB!)

  11. #11
    Consul Lurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Midwest U.S.
    Posts
    5,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luisss View Post
    The everyday 20 year old wouldn't know how to contaminate fertilizer or hold hostage a plan with a razor.
    True, but such information is easily found on search engines. The everyday 20 year old is smart enough to do that (not saying you are, just saying on average people can do this).
    Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

    [7:32 AM] Jason (Al Bundy raidslave): Who the **** loses an arti to 18 phalanx
    [7:32 AM] Old Timer US1: The same faction that loses one to 66 legos

  12. #12
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurk View Post
    True, but such information is easily found on search engines. The everyday 20 year old is smart enough to do that (not saying you are, just saying on average people can do this).
    Considering how many times it has happened.... is unlikely to be a huge issue. But fertilizer is somewhat regulated anyway. Try getting a hold of a few kilos and see how many officers you get coming asking questions.

    On the other hand, this sort of shooting, with high death tolls happens regularly in the US. People just go click and since they have easy access to guns are able to go on a rampage. Limit that access and you'll have much fewer of these incidents.

  13. #13
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bahara View Post
    Until there is a constitutional amendment (which i would support but know would never realistically pass) I don't see a way to ban them.
    I don't believe one is required. I don't think the Constitution was ever intended to interpreted the way many would have us believe today.

    http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

    This is from a what I consider to be a gun rights website, but even they seem to think that gun rights folks are not quite correct. In the article, check out their focus on defining "well regulated" and "militia".

    While I'm not anti-gun ownership, I'm not anti-gun control either. I just don't think we need to ammend the Constitution to address this issue.

  14. #14
    Philosopher Nichts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    USS Yorktown
    Posts
    11,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    Considering how many times it has happened.... is unlikely to be a huge issue. But fertilizer is somewhat regulated anyway. Try getting a hold of a few kilos and see how many officers you get coming asking questions.

    On the other hand, this sort of shooting, with high death tolls happens regularly in the US. People just go click and since they have easy access to guns are able to go on a rampage. Limit that access and you'll have much fewer of these incidents.
    But that doesn't make sense! Gun use in crime is proportional to the inverse of the number of guns available.

    Which leads to at least two conclusions I can think of:

    1. The more guns you have, the less likely you are to use them. Meaning that the more money you spend on weapons, the less of a return you get on the investment.

    2. If there were an infinite number of guns in the US, no gun would ever be used in crime.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    I don't believe one is required. I don't think the Constitution was ever intended to interpreted the way many would have us believe today.

    http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

    This is from a what I consider to be a gun rights website, but even they seem to think that gun rights folks are not quite correct. In the article, check out their focus on defining "well regulated" and "militia".

    While I'm not anti-gun ownership, I'm not anti-gun control either. I just don't think we need to ammend the Constitution to address this issue.
    Well if you look at the intent of the amendment it was for the people to overthrow the government if need be. If we were to ever have to overthrow the government ( Something I am in no way supportive of for the record and I think its outdated to say that we would ever need to) we would need assault rifles and other heavy duty guns. Something neither I nor the Supreme Court nor the legislature has been able to figure a way around. I am in favor of giving up the right I just dont' think it can be done without amending the constitution.
    http://imageshack.us/a/img690/5194/m...crewmember.jpg
    s7 r1 - Quinnito/KWC (Gemini) s7 r2 - Kazumodo (frenchmaids) s7 r3 Smokey
    s1 r3 - Nemain (DSP)
    s5x - Pootang (DB!)

  16. #16
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bahara View Post
    Well if you look at the intent of the amendment it was for the people to overthrow the government if need be.
    Mmmmm...not quite so sure about that. I am of the belief it was more drawn up with the defense of country in mind (response to an invasion)

    We'd have to dissect the meaning and usage of the word "militia", which I think the link above does pretty well. It is not what some of us think of in today's world, I am convinced of that.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    On the other hand, this sort of shooting, with high death tolls happens regularly in the US. People just go click and since they have easy access to guns are able to go on a rampage. Limit that access and you'll have much fewer of these incidents.
    It's not about limited access to guns. That's like saying people use needles to shoot up drugs. Let's get rid of needles. Where does that leave those with diabetes?

    Everyone that looks at this and cries out that guns need to be taken away are looking at only one factor in the grand picture. He used a gun. If he didn't have a gun he would have used a bomb. If he didn't have a bomb he would have used a spork.

    Guns don't kill people and spoons don't make people fat.

    When you take away guns, you also take away people's ability to defend their home and hunt for food. The issue isn't the guns. He also drove a car to the school. No one is saying to take away all cars from people even though cars driven by US citizens cause more deaths a year than guns.

    The guns he used is just one factor of many. If he didn't have those guns he would have found something else to use.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Eb0l is the alpha and the omega
    The eternal pumpkin queen, and mother of gerbils
    So it was written and so it must forever be

  18. #18
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Evil View Post
    The guns he used is just one factor of many. If he didn't have those guns he would have found something else to use.
    Perhaps, but short of a large explosive (which he might very well could have used), he likely would not have been nearly as effective.

    I'm not arguing pro-banning of guns (well, not all guns anyway), just that such easy access to guns makes these things so much more devastating.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    Perhaps, but short of a large explosive (which he might very well could have used), he likely would not have been nearly as effective.

    I'm not arguing pro-banning of guns (well, not all guns anyway), just that such easy access to guns makes these things so much more devastating.
    But do you understand that by reducing any one of the contributing factors would have made this less tragic? When things like this happen, the first place people go is "let's get rid of guns." Like that is going to fix anything?

    I grew up around guns. My grandfather was a full supporter of the NRA. I don't like guns and only shoot .22s sometimes at targets just for fun. Even though I don't like them doesn't mean I can't support the right to have them. Though I did use a big handgun to shoot holes in my burn barrel. I was quite proud! From 20 feet away I didn't miss!

    I just see taking away guns as a band-aid solution to a much larger problem. The kid has issues and not enough was done for him. The focus needs to be on helping people like that to get the help they need, not taking guns away from deer hunters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Eb0l is the alpha and the omega
    The eternal pumpkin queen, and mother of gerbils
    So it was written and so it must forever be

  20. #20
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Look, you can build pipe bombs easy enough with smokeless powder you can buy at wal-mart, propane tanks make a devastating bomb. Farmers buy tons of fertilizer a year, it just takes one crazy farmer. You can buy an anarchist cook book which shows you a ton of designs for weapons capable of killing the masses. Illegal gun sales, and dumb ***** leaving them accessible to children is the problem. At twenty years old, that kid was not old enough to get the assault rifle or a pistol, so in my opinion, he got them illegally and his mother should have taken measures to prevent his getting them. So you guys cry no guns til your blue in the face, but don't try and take my rights because of criminals, and negligent people. I didn't do anything, leave my rights intact.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  21. #21
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Evil View Post
    But do you understand that by reducing any one of the contributing factors would have made this less tragic? When things like this happen, the first place people go is "let's get rid of guns." Like that is going to fix anything?
    It's not just about access to guns, but that is certainly part of it.

    I completely agree that had this guy not had access to guns, he would very likely have tried something else. However, he did have access to guns (one a large magazine, high powered assault rifle) and he did use guns to perpetrate this crime. The vast majority of mass-killers in recent times have. That can not be ignored.

    I am not anti-gun and don't think all guns should be taken away, but I am very much pro-gun control.

    We need and honest, non-emotional national discussion on a lot of things, not just gun control. How we deal with mental health issues, family dynamics and accepted societal norms. It has to be all-encompassing and not digress into a religious vs. secular shouting match.
    Last edited by jdurand; 12-17-2012 at 05:42 PM.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    I am not anti-gun and don't think all guns should be taken away, but I am very much pro-gun control.
    I'm not anti-gun or pro-gun. I'm pro-people and think that the focus should be on helping people like this before it gets to this point.

    And here's a weird one: http://endfed.org/2012/12/adam-lanza...-behalf-of-ge/

    I don't have any opinions on it but maybe ... oh the tin foil hat guy- I can't remember his name... can come along and tell us the conspiracy theory on it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Eb0l is the alpha and the omega
    The eternal pumpkin queen, and mother of gerbils
    So it was written and so it must forever be

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    Mmmmm...not quite so sure about that. I am of the belief it was more drawn up with the defense of country in mind (response to an invasion)

    We'd have to dissect the meaning and usage of the word "militia", which I think the link above does pretty well. It is not what some of us think of in today's world, I am convinced of that.
    Like I have said I have done some research on it first in undergrad and we talked about the issue in my constitutional law class during my 1l year of law school. The real scholarly articles, (which no offense trump your website) the writings of those that drafted the constitution and what they felt a militia was at the time, seems to point to the idea that the intent behind the second amendment was give people the power to overthrow the government if it became oppressive. They wanted guns in the hands of citizens so we could use them to against the government if need be.

    Personally I don't like the idea. I want more gun control I am just saying I don't see how we can constitutionally do it and I don't want to set a precedent for violating the constitution because its what we want. I like most of my constitutionally protected rights. I wouldn't mind giving up the right to bear arms I just don't want to do it in a way that risks my right to free speech in a dozen years.


    Also, I would love to see more mental health services. That is something everyone in our country shoudl get behind.
    http://imageshack.us/a/img690/5194/m...crewmember.jpg
    s7 r1 - Quinnito/KWC (Gemini) s7 r2 - Kazumodo (frenchmaids) s7 r3 Smokey
    s1 r3 - Nemain (DSP)
    s5x - Pootang (DB!)

  24. #24
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bahara View Post
    Personally, I don't think that there is any legitimate need for semi-automatic weapons. I would love to see a ban on them.
    Almost every single weapon made in the last 60 years is a semi automatic. There are not very many exceptions. If you banned them would you then have to go confiscate them from every house in America, how many would decide to resist that? What would it do to the industries that make those weapons and how many people would become unemployed afterwards?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bahara View Post
    Well if you look at the intent of the amendment it was for the people to overthrow the government if need be.
    Uhhhh no, it was to prevent invasion by foreign powers of the day like Britain. That's why we didn't have a standing army until 1812.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  25. #25
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Evil View Post
    It's not about limited access to guns. That's like saying people use needles to shoot up drugs. Let's get rid of needles. Where does that leave those with diabetes?

    Everyone that looks at this and cries out that guns need to be taken away are looking at only one factor in the grand picture. He used a gun. If he didn't have a gun he would have used a bomb. If he didn't have a bomb he would have used a spork.

    Guns don't kill people and spoons don't make people fat.

    When you take away guns, you also take away people's ability to defend their home and hunt for food. The issue isn't the guns. He also drove a car to the school. No one is saying to take away all cars from people even though cars driven by US citizens cause more deaths a year than guns.

    The guns he used is just one factor of many. If he didn't have those guns he would have found something else to use.
    You completely missed the point. Let me break it down for you:

    • Easy access to guns means that you have a ready made killing implement. You don't crack and go on that sort of rampage while spending 3 days/ weeks/ months building the bomb or whatever. People that crack like in the case of school shooters rarely, if ever, plan these things. At least not from what I've gathered from the various times it has happened. They crack and go nuts. You can argue that they'll use a spork, knife or a samurai sword, but the point is that guns are just more effective at killing people especially at long range. There is a reason soldiers don't go into battle with swords any more after all. This is borne out by the fact that this most recent shooting ended up with 28 people dead, while basically on the same day, someone went nuts in China and while 22 kids were stabbed none of them died. Or do you think that Americans are just better at killing?

    • Limiting access to guns means better background checks, especially psychological ones. I cannot remember a single instance of a shooting episode like this not being basically forewarned. The people that do these things have serious mental issues and people with that type of mental issues really shouldn't have access to dangerous firearms. That plus adequate safety procedures such as keeping them locked up so that they don't get stolen or borrowed by owners' kids would be a good start. Plus of course getting rid of assault rifles and the like. These aren't useful for home protection nor hunting after all.


    Now of course none of that is fool proof, but nothing ever really is in society. However, it would certainly be a start down the road towards there being less gun crime. Just because it isn't perfect, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it anyway if it makes things better.

    And honestly.... given that the US has the highest murder rate of any western country, a little more control cannot be a bad thing.

  26. #26
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    20,773

    Default




  27. #27
    Philosopher MokMonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    home
    Posts
    7,928

    Default

    Ehhh, no Kurtz.
    They crack and plan **** as often as not. The Columbine kids planned their thing for awhile. The ***hat who killed people at the Batman showing spent a chunk of time collecting guns and ammo and planning his hit. It depends on the motivations of the nut jobs behind the particular killings. Some wanted revenge on their way out of the world, some wanted to make a statement, some just went bonkers.
    MokMonster does not support, condone or agree with anything written in this post.
    Any suggestions to the contrary are purely unintentional.
    (Unless you agreed with it -- then I totally said it)

  28. #28
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MokMonster View Post
    Ehhh, no Kurtz.
    They crack and plan **** as often as not. The Columbine kids planned their thing for awhile. The ***hat who killed people at the Batman showing spent a chunk of time collecting guns and ammo and planning his hit. It depends on the motivations of the nut jobs behind the particular killings. Some wanted revenge on their way out of the world, some wanted to make a statement, some just went bonkers.
    Fine. I'll take your word for it. Just 1 question though.... if you stop 50% of them by a few common sense control measures such as I mentioned, you think that's a bad thing?

  29. #29
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    You completely missed the point. Let me break it down for you:

    [list][*] Easy access to guns means that you have a ready made killing implement. You don't crack and go on that sort of rampage while spending 3 days/ weeks/ months building the bomb or whatever. People that crack like in the case of school shooters rarely, if ever, plan these things. At least not from what I've gathered from the various times it has happened. They crack and go nuts.
    Lets see, Oklahoma City, Eric Rudolph, uni bomber, columbine massacre, the kid that just (day or three ago) got arrested for trying to recruit other kids to help him murder other students in the auditorium at his school and caught with a gun. You are right, none of those people spent time panning the murders they intended on committing. None of them made explosives, plotted their strategy, nor did they study the lay outs of there targets. You're right, where do I turn in my guns. Worst. Analogy. Ever.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    Fine. I'll take your word for it. Just 1 question though.... if you stop 50% of them by a few common sense control measures such as I mentioned, you think that's a bad thing?
    If I remember correctly, you're not from around here. So I invite and all the other anti-gun people to come over and take the guns from the US people. I don't know what it's like in other parts of the country, but I know if you went door to door around where I live, armed with a piece of paper saying to hand the guns over, and tried to take them, you would end up with the barrel in your face. Maybe in a place like San Francisco all the good people would hand them over with ease. I will say a prayer for anyone who gets assigned to come to my area and take guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Eb0l is the alpha and the omega
    The eternal pumpkin queen, and mother of gerbils
    So it was written and so it must forever be

  31. #31
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    20,773

    Default

    It'd be insane to see NYC unarmed.

    This place is armed to the teeth which is why the gov't here pushes for control so heavily. They know that if **** went down, the people have more guns than the cops. True story.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    It'd be insane to see NYC unarmed.

    This place is armed to the teeth which is why the gov't here pushes for control so heavily. They know that if **** went down, the people have more guns than the cops. True story.
    Could you imagine them going into LA to disarm people? I live in NRA/redneck land. Here they would be faced with grandpa's old hunting rifle and that sawed off shot gun someone traded for a pint of moonshine. Out in a place where gangs are like LA (though I image NYC would be about equal) is where they will find the semi-autos and people that just don't give a ****.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Eb0l is the alpha and the omega
    The eternal pumpkin queen, and mother of gerbils
    So it was written and so it must forever be

  33. #33

    StealthSigma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cocoon
    Posts
    7,510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    And yet... it is SO much easier with guns hence inevitably leading to higher death tolls. Not to mention how much easier it is to disarm someone with e.g. a knife.
    Easily purchased materials + ball bearings + crowded area. Home made shrapnel explosive. Highly deadly easier to purchase and make than a buying and waiting for a firearm. You don't need large quantities either. I've actually been wondering how long it would take for real terrorists to start applying that in the US rather than continue trying to hijack or put down planes.

    The elephant in the room is that after the fact they're finding many and many of the shooters were on drugs to deal with mental problems and if they weren't mental problems were prevalent.

    I'm going to flat out state this. To premeditate the killing of people, which this most certainly is (the police found destroyed hard drives at his home), with the intent to carry it out, is entirely abnormal but this country is entirely afraid of doing anything regarding mental illness due to a misguided sense of political correctness. Instead of treating it properly or putting these people away for their and society's protection, we make them chug drugs and ignore it.

    --

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    Perhaps, but short of a large explosive (which he might very well could have used), he likely would not have been nearly as effective.
    You don't need a large explosion. You only need that if you're looking to actually destroy structural materials, which is what Timothy McVeigh was attempting to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Chak View Post
    Let me tell you, used tranny fluid tastes nasty.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cora View Post
    I know I do a lot of the finger

  34. #34
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    20,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Evil View Post
    Could you imagine them going into LA to disarm people? I live in NRA/redneck land. Here they would be faced with grandpa's old hunting rifle and that sawed off shot gun someone traded for a pint of moonshine. Out in a place where gangs are like LA (though I image NYC would be about equal) is where they will find the semi-autos and people that just don't give a ****.
    Believe me, the guns out here in the city are insane.

    My ex-military friends pretty much have arsenals that would make it through quite a bit of the zombie apocalypse. The number of people who are coming back from the Middle East Operations who are distrustful of the government and stockpiling guns is alarmingly higher than I think most people realize. Luckily, I agree with them.

  35. #35

    Default

    I found this recently...

    "I tried hard to be proud of my service, but all I could feel was shame. Racism could no longer mask the reality of the occupation. These were people, these were human beings. I've since been plagued by guilt, any time I see an elderly man, like the one who couldn't walk, who we rolled onto a stretcher, and told the Iraqi police to take him away. I feel guilt any time I see a mother with her child
    ren, like the one who cried hysterically, and screamed that we're worse than Saddam, as we forced her from her home. I feel guilt any time I see a young girl, like the one I grabbed by the arm, and dragged into the street.

    We were told we were fighting terrorists.. the real terrorist was me, and the real terrorism was this occupation. Racism within the military has long been an important tool to justify the destruction and occupation of another country, it has long been used to justify the killing, subjugation and torture of another people. Racism is a vital weapon employed by this government; it is a more important weapon than a rifle, a tank, a bomber, or a battleship; it is more destructive than an artillery shell, or a bunker buster, or tomahawk missile.

    While all those weapons are created and owned by this government, they are harmless without people willing to use them. Those who send us to war, do not have to pull the trigger, or lob a mortar round; they do not have to fight the war, they merely have to sell the war. They need a public who's willing to send their soldiers into harm's way. They need soldiers who are willing to kill and be killed, without question.

    They can spend millions on a single bomb, but that bomb only becomes a weapon, when the ranks of the military are willing to follow orders to use it. They can send every last soldier anywhere on Earth, but there will only be a war, if soldiers are willing to fight.. And the ruling class, the billionaires who profit from human suffering, care only about expanding their wealth, controlling the world economy.

    Understand that their power lies only in their ability to convince us that war, oppression, and exploitation is in our interest. They understand that their wealth is dependent on their ability to convince the working class to die, to control the market of another country, and convincing us to kill and die, is based on their ability to make us think that we are somehow superior.

    Soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, have nothing to gain from this occupation. The vast majority of people living in the U.S. have nothing to gain from this occupation. In fact, not only do we have nothing to gain, but we suffer more because of it. We lose limbs, endure trauma, and give our lives. Our families have to watch flag-draped coffins lowered into the earth.

    Millions in this country without health care, jobs, or access to education, have watched this government squander over FOUR-HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS A DAY ON THIS OCCUPATION. [IRAQ]

    Poor and working people in this country, are send to kill poor and working people in another country, to make the rich richer; and without racism, soldiers would realize that they have more in common with the Iraqi people, than they do with the billionaires who send us to war.

    I threw families onto the street in Iraq, only to come home and find families thrown onto the street in this country, and it's a tragic, and unnecessary foreclosure crisis.

    We need to wake up and realize that our real enemies are not in some distant land, they're not people whose names we don't know, and cultures we don't understand. The enemy is people we know very well, and people we can identify. The enemy is a system that wages war when it's profitable. The enemy is the CEO's who lay us off from our jobs when it's profitable; it's the insurance companies who deny us health care when it's profitable; it's the banks who take away our homes when it's profitable.

    Our enemy is not five thousand miles away, they are right here at home. When we organize, and fight with our sisters and brothers, we can stop this war, we can stop this government, and we can create a better world."

    -Corporal MIKE PRYSNER, US Military Iraq War Veteran
    No one should trust our government.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Eb0l is the alpha and the omega
    The eternal pumpkin queen, and mother of gerbils
    So it was written and so it must forever be

  36. #36

    Meherrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a universe of my own design
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Evil View Post
    I found this recently...



    No one should trust our government.
    Well, I actually am with you on that one. No one should trust the American government.
    And now I'll tell you what's against us, an art that's lived for centuries. Go through the years and you will find what's blackened all of history. Against us is the law with its immensity of strength and power - against us is the law! Police know how to make a man a guilty or an innocent. Against us is the power of police! The shameless lies that men have told will ever more be paid in gold - against us is the power of the gold! Against us is racial hatred and the simple fact that we are poor.
    - The Ballad of Sacco and Vanzetti, Joan Baez

  37. #37
    Consul Kurtz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow
    Posts
    24,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Evil View Post
    If I remember correctly, you're not from around here. So I invite and all the other anti-gun people to come over and take the guns from the US people. I don't know what it's like in other parts of the country, but I know if you went door to door around where I live, armed with a piece of paper saying to hand the guns over, and tried to take them, you would end up with the barrel in your face. Maybe in a place like San Francisco all the good people would hand them over with ease. I will say a prayer for anyone who gets assigned to come to my area and take guns.
    Did you not read what I wrote? Because no where did I mention disarming people.

    Quote Originally Posted by StealthSigma View Post
    Easily purchased materials + ball bearings + crowded area.

    ~Stuff~
    Good thing I don't live in America where all these bombs are being exploded all the time.

    Do you people really not see how silly this argument is? These things do not happen. Guns on the other hand do. All the time. Mass shootings have happened more than once a year in the US over the last decade if I'm not much mistaken (which I may be, but it is pretty damn close if not). How many home made bombs have you heard of in that time? I can't think of a single one.

    It reminds me of the gateway drug theory....

  38. #38
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    20,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtz View Post
    It reminds me of the gateway drug theory....
    Not for nothing, but for the most part that **** is true.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    Not for nothing, but for the most part that **** is true.
    This, had I not started doing lines I never would have thought to smoke weed.
    Roses are red; violets are blue. I shagged your girl; maybe tomorrow you can to.

  40. #40

    Default

    Kurtz, you mentioned we have the most gun crimes and the most murders. When bragging about your olympic gold medals you used per-capita. Try using that per-capita on norway and see what you get.
    Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach
    Stop tooting on flutes and go read a book.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •