WowBB Forums Home 
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > General Discussion > Mass shooting at Connecticut Elementary School

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi  
AuthorPost
HBF



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 17866
Status: 
Offline
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school/?hpt=hp_t1

I don't even know what to say. I have a daughter in elementary school. Need some details, but this is way fucked up!

thunderbolt
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Manhattan Beach, California USA
Posts: 6205
Status: 
Offline
I think 'fucked up' is being generous.  This is horrible.

Road Warrior Yajuta



Joined: Sat Jul 3rd, 2010
Location: D'Iberville, Ms, USA
Posts: 4798
Status: 
Offline
thunderbolt wrote: I think 'fucked up' is being generous.  This is horrible.
yep

PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
Apparently there was a second "person of interest" who's now in custody. I hope his death is as long and painful as possible.

Sorry, but I feel the need to reiterate: we need to make guns harder to get, somehow. And Bob Costas' editorial was on the fucking money, no matter how many "Here's how many people are killed by cars" or "here's how many children got knifed in China" statistics someone cares to throw out. Is the DON'T TAKE AWAY MY GUNS lobby going to suggest arming fucking teachers and students?

Don't tell me "This isn't the time," either. Yes, it fucking is.

bart

 

Joined: Mon Jul 14th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 743
Status: 
Offline
27 people dead, 14 of them kids, and the number keeps climbing. A friend who works for the board of ed in a neighboring town, they're all on lock down, told me it was almost 30 kids, but they might have confused the total number dead with the kids.

They also won't confirm a second gunman, but are looking for a purple or blue van and telling the press to stay out of the woods in the area.

 

dogfacedgremlin34
Will Kick Your Ass At Fantasy Football


Joined: Fri Feb 8th, 2008
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 10016
Status: 
Offline
PeteF3 wrote: Apparently there was a second "person of interest" who's now in custody. I hope his death is as long and painful as possible.

Sorry, but I feel the need to reiterate: we need to make guns harder to get, somehow. And Bob Costas' editorial was on the fucking money, no matter how many "Here's how many people are killed by cars" or "here's how many children got knifed in China" statistics someone cares to throw out. Is the DON'T TAKE AWAY MY GUNS lobby going to suggest arming fucking teachers and students?

Don't tell me "This isn't the time," either. Yes, it fucking is.

Probably not surprising coming from me, but I wholeheartedly agree.  This country, our prioities and idealologies are so fucked up, it's beyond comprehension.  It just boggles my mind.

I am legitimately shaken up by this.  Like Eric, I too have two kids in Elementary School, and the demographics of Newtown aren't too dissimilar from the town I live in.

khawk
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 15881
Status: 
Online
A very sad day indeed.

cdewar19

 

Joined: Mon Feb 22nd, 2010
Location: In The Ruins Of CanadInns Stadium, Manitoba Canada
Posts: 1627
Status: 
Offline
Fucking horrible. Thoughts are with the families of all those involved.

bpickering
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Tue Nov 13th, 2007
Location: Highspire, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 17917
Status: 
Offline
ABC is reporting 27 shot 18 of them kids :(

bpickering
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Tue Nov 13th, 2007
Location: Highspire, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 17917
Status: 
Offline
PeteF3 wrote: Apparently there was a second "person of interest" who's now in custody. I hope his death is as long and painful as possible.


If I was one of those cops he would not be in "Custody". I wouldnt give a shit what happen to me. He would be in hell with is partner.

Hymie Itsu



Joined: Mon Oct 10th, 2011
Location: Birthplace Of Dean Martin
Posts: 3174
Status: 
Offline
PeteF3 wrote:
Apparently there was a second "person of interest" who's now in custody. I hope his death is as long and painful as possible.

Sorry, but I feel the need to reiterate: we need to make guns harder to get, somehow. And Bob Costas' editorial was on the fucking money, no matter how many "Here's how many people are killed by cars" or "here's how many children got knifed in China" statistics someone cares to throw out. Is the DON'T TAKE AWAY MY GUNS lobby going to suggest arming fucking teachers and students?

Don't tell me "This isn't the time," either. Yes, it fucking is.


I would wholeheartedly agree with this except for one, simple fact.

If you make guns harder to get, it's not going to affect these gun runners. It's not going to affect gang bangers. It's not going to affect terrorists. It's only going to affect normal people whom are trying to use guns responsibly to protect their families and property.

Guns could be completely outlawed and I could almost promise that gun violence won't go down. The only death rate that would go down from this is legitimate 'self defense' cases.

dogfacedgremlin34
Will Kick Your Ass At Fantasy Football


Joined: Fri Feb 8th, 2008
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 10016
Status: 
Offline
Hymie Itsu wrote: PeteF3 wrote:
Apparently there was a second "person of interest" who's now in custody. I hope his death is as long and painful as possible.

Sorry, but I feel the need to reiterate: we need to make guns harder to get, somehow. And Bob Costas' editorial was on the fucking money, no matter how many "Here's how many people are killed by cars" or "here's how many children got knifed in China" statistics someone cares to throw out. Is the DON'T TAKE AWAY MY GUNS lobby going to suggest arming fucking teachers and students?

Don't tell me "This isn't the time," either. Yes, it fucking is.


I would wholeheartedly agree with this except for one, simple fact.

If you make guns harder to get, it's not going to affect these gun runners. It's not going to affect gang bangers. It's not going to affect terrorists. It's only going to affect normal people whom are trying to use guns responsibly to protect their families and property.

Guns could be completely outlawed and I could almost promise that gun violence won't go down. The only death rate that would go down from this is legitimate 'self defense' cases.

Keep all your guns then.  Just outlaw the manufacturing of bullets.  Problem solved.

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
bpickering wrote: ABC is reporting 27 shot 18 of them kids :(
27 includes the killer

Big Garea Fan

 

Joined: Wed Mar 4th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 2786
Status: 
Offline
PeteF3 wrote: Apparently there was a second "person of interest" who's now in custody. I hope his death is as long and painful as possible.

Sorry, but I feel the need to reiterate: we need to make guns harder to get, somehow. And Bob Costas' editorial was on the fucking money, no matter how many "Here's how many people are killed by cars" or "here's how many children got knifed in China" statistics someone cares to throw out. Is the DON'T TAKE AWAY MY GUNS lobby going to suggest arming fucking teachers and students?

Don't tell me "This isn't the time," either. Yes, it fucking is.

I think another contributing factor to these incidents is that the criminal justice system does not adequately deal with criminals with mental defects. If a person is found guilty of a crime but is found to be mentally defective, he is often given a shorter prison sentence (if the sentence is not suspended entirely) and then mandated to complete some sort of mental health counseling / treatment. Sadly, the mental health system is just as broken as the criminal justice system and the offender typically skates through it or is somehow lost in the system.

Often times, the people who commit these crimes have had previous run-ins with the law or have been identified as potential dangers by others (school teachers, neighbors, etc.). Sadly, even if they commit a crime, it is hard to protect society from them.  

bpickering
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Tue Nov 13th, 2007
Location: Highspire, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 17917
Status: 
Offline
Shooters mother worked as a teacher at the school...she is one of the dead at the school.

The school might not had the only place he targeted. Might be more victims elsewhere.

bart

 

Joined: Mon Jul 14th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 743
Status: 
Offline
Just a little bit of trivia for ya, Newtown was also home to the "Woodchipper Murder" back in the 1980s.

Carry on.

bpickering
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Tue Nov 13th, 2007
Location: Highspire, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 17917
Status: 
Offline
Facebook and Twitter are going nuts because the Media are interviewing the children.

I could be wrong but I dont think they can't interview a child on camera with out a mother or father allowing it.  If that true then I would be more pissed at them for allowing it than the media.

DaNkinator



Joined: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 6116
Status: 
Offline
Big Garea Fan wrote: PeteF3 wrote: Apparently there was a second "person of interest" who's now in custody. I hope his death is as long and painful as possible.

Sorry, but I feel the need to reiterate: we need to make guns harder to get, somehow. And Bob Costas' editorial was on the fucking money, no matter how many "Here's how many people are killed by cars" or "here's how many children got knifed in China" statistics someone cares to throw out. Is the DON'T TAKE AWAY MY GUNS lobby going to suggest arming fucking teachers and students?

Don't tell me "This isn't the time," either. Yes, it fucking is.

I think another contributing factor to these incidents is that the criminal justice system does not adequately deal with criminals with mental defects. If a person is found guilty of a crime but is found to be mentally defective, he is often given a shorter prison sentence (if the sentence is not suspended entirely) and then mandated to complete some sort of mental health counseling / treatment. Sadly, the mental health system is just as broken as the criminal justice system and the offender typically skates through it or is somehow lost in the system.

Often times, the people who commit these crimes have had previous run-ins with the law or have been identified as potential dangers by others (school teachers, neighbors, etc.). Sadly, even if they commit a crime, it is hard to protect society from them.  


Absolutely.

Focusing on the gun control issue solely is lazy. The core issue lies wayyy farther upstream and I can't believe it's taken 30+ tragedies like this since Columbine for the public to even begin to think about the mental health crisis in our country that public health professionals have been struggling with for decades.

As for the guns issue...these mass murders are committed with an ever-growing number of guns and clips capable of inflicting mass damage, weapons that--whether or not they were legally obtained--are produced for a market that places a high demand for them. And I think we need to have a national discussion/referendum about that, regardless of the consequences.

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
Hymie Itsu wrote: PeteF3 wrote:
Apparently there was a second "person of interest" who's now in custody. I hope his death is as long and painful as possible.

Sorry, but I feel the need to reiterate: we need to make guns harder to get, somehow. And Bob Costas' editorial was on the fucking money, no matter how many "Here's how many people are killed by cars" or "here's how many children got knifed in China" statistics someone cares to throw out. Is the DON'T TAKE AWAY MY GUNS lobby going to suggest arming fucking teachers and students?

Don't tell me "This isn't the time," either. Yes, it fucking is.


I would wholeheartedly agree with this except for one, simple fact.

If you make guns harder to get, it's not going to affect these gun runners. It's not going to affect gang bangers. It's not going to affect terrorists. It's only going to affect normal people whom are trying to use guns responsibly to protect their families and property.

Guns could be completely outlawed and I could almost promise that gun violence won't go down. The only death rate that would go down from this is legitimate 'self defense' cases.




I'm not advocating no guns, but at least make them harder to get and is it now time to ban automatic weapons?

Last edited on Fri Dec 14th, 2012 08:16 pm by yellowdog

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
I am living in West Germany? Dang.

What can I say but statistics don't lie.

To contribute to this thread I post a question that has been bugging me: If I move to the US, would I be safer with a gun? I am undecided.

Hymie Itsu



Joined: Mon Oct 10th, 2011
Location: Birthplace Of Dean Martin
Posts: 3174
Status: 
Offline
yellowdog wrote:
Hymie Itsu wrote: PeteF3 wrote:
Apparently there was a second "person of interest" who's now in custody. I hope his death is as long and painful as possible.

Sorry, but I feel the need to reiterate: we need to make guns harder to get, somehow. And Bob Costas' editorial was on the fucking money, no matter how many "Here's how many people are killed by cars" or "here's how many children got knifed in China" statistics someone cares to throw out. Is the DON'T TAKE AWAY MY GUNS lobby going to suggest arming fucking teachers and students?

Don't tell me "This isn't the time," either. Yes, it fucking is.


I would wholeheartedly agree with this except for one, simple fact.

If you make guns harder to get, it's not going to affect these gun runners. It's not going to affect gang bangers. It's not going to affect terrorists. It's only going to affect normal people whom are trying to use guns responsibly to protect their families and property.

Guns could be completely outlawed and I could almost promise that gun violence won't go down. The only death rate that would go down from this is legitimate 'self defense' cases.




I'm not advocating no guns, but at least make them harder to get and is it now time to ban automatic weapons?


I understand these facts but most of these countries have more common sense than the US in a critical aspect.

The mobs in most of these countries realize that if criminals go around shooting others, the police will start handling the situation accordingly and the mob would not want that at all. Henceforth, the mobs will cut any stupid activities off at the pass if they are able to catch wind of them.

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
Lots of conflicting information now coming to light.  Number of caualties in question now.  may be more, may be less.  The shooter may be the brother of the person they named as the shooter.  Bottom line, they don't know for sure.

BlueThunder



Joined: Mon Jun 6th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 2195
Status: 
Offline
indikator wrote: I am living in West Germany? Dang.

What can I say but statistics don't lie.

To contribute to this thread I post a question that has been bugging me: If I move to the US, would I be safer with a gun? I am undecided.

If you were properly trained, I'd say yes.

Road Warrior Yajuta



Joined: Sat Jul 3rd, 2010
Location: D'Iberville, Ms, USA
Posts: 4798
Status: 
Offline
Pro Gun or Anti Gun Control people can agree that their "whose dick is bigger" pissing match means little compared to what happened to those families today.  In the end, if this fucker wanted to cause mass harm he would have.  Did you guys miss the story of 22 kids wounded at a Chinese school by a guy with a knife? 

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
Road Warrior Yajuta wrote: Pro Gun or Anti Gun Control people can agree that their "whose dick is bigger" pissing match means little compared to what happened to those families today.  In the end, if this fucker wanted to cause mass harm he would have.  Did you guys miss the story of 22 kids wounded at a Chinese school by a guy with a knife? 

my dick is bigger, but that's beside the point

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
yellowdog wrote: Lots of conflicting information now coming to light.  Number of caualties in question now.  may be more, may be less.  The shooter may be the brother of the person they named as the shooter.  Bottom line, they don't know for sure.
confirmed: 27 dead including shooter, 20 kids.  Police would not confirm the identity of the shooter.  

Last edited on Fri Dec 14th, 2012 08:58 pm by yellowdog

freebirdsforever2001
Fantasia is running wild!


Joined: Tue Jul 8th, 2008
Location: Pittsgrove, New Jersey USA
Posts: 20758
Status: 
Offline
Guns & Humans are bad.

Road Warrior Yajuta



Joined: Sat Jul 3rd, 2010
Location: D'Iberville, Ms, USA
Posts: 4798
Status: 
Offline
yellowdog wrote: Road Warrior Yajuta wrote: Pro Gun or Anti Gun Control people can agree that their "whose dick is bigger" pissing match means little compared to what happened to those families today.  In the end, if this fucker wanted to cause mass harm he would have.  Did you guys miss the story of 22 kids wounded at a Chinese school by a guy with a knife? 

my dick is bigger, but that's beside the point
So that is where you got the name Yellow Dick Dog!!!!(who was it that used to call you that about drama at KM?)

Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9688
Status: 
Offline
Here we go......two people on TV blaming this happened because they took God and prayer out of school.   I am not sure how I feel about that whole issue, but I just do not know if that would have impacted me that much when I was in high school.  So, they are basically saying if these two kids were forced to pray when they were in school this would never have occurred.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50335
Status: 
Offline
I'd say let the hysteria begin, but it's too late for that.  I swear some people hope that tragedies like this will happen so they can make their political point.  From gun control to prayer in school to violent video games to rap music to global warming, everything will be blamed for this by the end of the day.  Everyone can make their silly little arguments so they can feel good about themselves, and in the meantime a couple dozen families are going to have the most hellish Christmas imaginable when they have to look at those unopened presents.  The only person to blame is the shooter and I wish I believed in hell when I hear stories like this.  As ridiculous as the concept of hell is, it's so unfair if someone like this shooter winds up in the same place as the kids he killed.   

Road Warrior Yajuta



Joined: Sat Jul 3rd, 2010
Location: D'Iberville, Ms, USA
Posts: 4798
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: I'd say let the hysteria begin, but it's too late for that.  I swear some people hope that tragedies like this will happen so they can make their political point.  From gun control to prayer in school to violent video games to rap music to global warming, everything will be blamed for this by the end of the day.  Everyone can make their silly little arguments so they can feel good about themselves, and in the meantime a couple dozen families are going to have the most hellish Christmas imaginable when they have to look at those unopened presents.  The only person to blame is the shooter  word, I agree with this verbatim

PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
So when is the right time to bring it up? If it's during a moment of peace then it's overreacting because things are fine. Do it in response to a tragedy and it's tasteless politicizing.

I'm tired of the "it's useless to try" way of thought. No, we can't eliminate murder, but we can sure as hell make it more difficult--mass murder in particular. The rest of the civilized world has done an effective job of it.

Kriss
Citizen of nowhere


Joined: Wed Dec 12th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7026
Status: 
Online
Road Warrior Yajuta wrote:
Pro Gun or Anti Gun Control people can agree that their "whose dick is bigger" pissing match means little compared to what happened to those families today.  In the end, if this fucker wanted to cause mass harm he would have.  Did you guys miss the story of 22 kids wounded at a Chinese school by a guy with a knife? 


the key word is highlighted for you

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50335
Status: 
Offline
A forensic psychiatrist explains exactly how to minimize these incidents, and it has nothing to do with guns or any action at all.  And it makes all the sense in the world, but it would be bad for ratings and self-indulgence so we'll continue to pretend to be outraged over kids dying while secretly being entertained at trying to figure out how many different hashtags we can get trending to bring attention to ourselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4#t=1m43s

carlton st

 

Joined: Sat Oct 27th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1195
Status: 
Offline
just terrible

born in the UK and living in Canada I can definitely say that Guns Kill People
you can argue all day for your right to own guns but I dont see it

Last edited on Fri Dec 14th, 2012 10:33 pm by carlton st

Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6824
Status: 
Offline
Conneticut already has some of the strictest gun laws on the books, more gun control probably wouldn't have prevented this. I'm not a big gun guy, I own 5 guns and all 5 of them were given to me, I haven't shot any of them in probably 2 years, but damn, more laws aren't going to fix a goddamned thing, it's only going to make it worse. As someone has already touched on, instead of hand-wringing over guns and more laws, etc, etc, how about let's put more effort into the mental health problems some of these people have. Get it to where people notice these people earlier, and make it to where they can get help (whether voluntary or involuntary) easier instead of making it harder. Apparently this guy had asperger's syndrome and people that knew him said he was mentally unstable. I guarantee you SOMEONE around him knew he was off and was capable of doing something insane like this, yet they didn't bother telling anyone, including his family. And now not only are they dead, but a bunch of innocent children are as well.

Like I said, I'm not a gun nut, but about the only thing I'll agree with anyone on when it comes to more gun laws is banning large clips, but in reality, a lot of those things are already banned. A lot of assault rifles are already banned. People still find a way to get them, just like drugs, just like illegal liquor, just like anything that is "banned"...

Kriss
Citizen of nowhere


Joined: Wed Dec 12th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7026
Status: 
Online
Married Jo wrote:
Conneticut already has some of the strictest gun laws on the books, more gun control probably wouldn't have prevented this. I'm not a big gun guy, I own 5 guns and all 5 of them were given to me, I haven't shot any of them in probably 2 years, but damn, more laws aren't going to fix a goddamned thing, it's only going to make it worse. As someone has already touched on, instead of hand-wringing over guns and more laws, etc, etc, how about let's put more effort into the mental health problems some of these people have. Get it to where people notice these people earlier, and make it to where they can get help (whether voluntary or involuntary) easier instead of making it harder. Apparently this guy had asperger's syndrome and people that knew him said he was mentally unstable. I guarantee you SOMEONE around him knew he was off and was capable of doing something insane like this, yet they didn't bother telling anyone, including his family. And now not only are they dead, but a bunch of innocent children are as well.

Like I said, I'm not a gun nut, but about the only thing I'll agree with anyone on when it comes to more gun laws is banning large clips, but in reality, a lot of those things are already banned. A lot of assault rifles are already banned. People still find a way to get them, just like drugs, just like illegal liquor, just like anything that is "banned"...


I think it probably would. With strict gun control laws (i.e. 99.9% of the population aren't allowed to own a gun), this guy probably wouldn't have access to a gun.

Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6824
Status: 
Offline
Road Warrior Yajuta wrote:
srossi wrote: I'd say let the hysteria begin, but it's too late for that.  I swear some people hope that tragedies like this will happen so they can make their political point.  From gun control to prayer in school to violent video games to rap music to global warming, everything will be blamed for this by the end of the day.  Everyone can make their silly little arguments so they can feel good about themselves, and in the meantime a couple dozen families are going to have the most hellish Christmas imaginable when they have to look at those unopened presents.  The only person to blame is the shooter  word, I agree with this verbatim

Same here. I swear I bet Bloomberg had an erection when he realized he was going to get to hold a press conference and demand more gun control laws..dude probably jizzed himself once the camera lights went on..

Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6824
Status: 
Offline
Kriss wrote:
Married Jo wrote:
Conneticut already has some of the strictest gun laws on the books, more gun control probably wouldn't have prevented this. I'm not a big gun guy, I own 5 guns and all 5 of them were given to me, I haven't shot any of them in probably 2 years, but damn, more laws aren't going to fix a goddamned thing, it's only going to make it worse. As someone has already touched on, instead of hand-wringing over guns and more laws, etc, etc, how about let's put more effort into the mental health problems some of these people have. Get it to where people notice these people earlier, and make it to where they can get help (whether voluntary or involuntary) easier instead of making it harder. Apparently this guy had asperger's syndrome and people that knew him said he was mentally unstable. I guarantee you SOMEONE around him knew he was off and was capable of doing something insane like this, yet they didn't bother telling anyone, including his family. And now not only are they dead, but a bunch of innocent children are as well.

Like I said, I'm not a gun nut, but about the only thing I'll agree with anyone on when it comes to more gun laws is banning large clips, but in reality, a lot of those things are already banned. A lot of assault rifles are already banned. People still find a way to get them, just like drugs, just like illegal liquor, just like anything that is "banned"...


I think it probably would. With strict gun control laws (i.e. 99.9% of the population aren't allowed to own a gun), this guy probably wouldn't have access to a gun.


What color is the sky in your world? Heroin is illegal but I can go and score some right now within 30 min if I wanted. If you want a gun, whether they are banned 100% or not, YOU'RE GONNA GET A GUN...FACT.

Kriss
Citizen of nowhere


Joined: Wed Dec 12th, 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7026
Status: 
Online
Married Jo wrote:
Kriss wrote:
Married Jo wrote:
Conneticut already has some of the strictest gun laws on the books, more gun control probably wouldn't have prevented this. I'm not a big gun guy, I own 5 guns and all 5 of them were given to me, I haven't shot any of them in probably 2 years, but damn, more laws aren't going to fix a goddamned thing, it's only going to make it worse. As someone has already touched on, instead of hand-wringing over guns and more laws, etc, etc, how about let's put more effort into the mental health problems some of these people have. Get it to where people notice these people earlier, and make it to where they can get help (whether voluntary or involuntary) easier instead of making it harder. Apparently this guy had asperger's syndrome and people that knew him said he was mentally unstable. I guarantee you SOMEONE around him knew he was off and was capable of doing something insane like this, yet they didn't bother telling anyone, including his family. And now not only are they dead, but a bunch of innocent children are as well.

Like I said, I'm not a gun nut, but about the only thing I'll agree with anyone on when it comes to more gun laws is banning large clips, but in reality, a lot of those things are already banned. A lot of assault rifles are already banned. People still find a way to get them, just like drugs, just like illegal liquor, just like anything that is "banned"...


I think it probably would. With strict gun control laws (i.e. 99.9% of the population aren't allowed to own a gun), this guy probably wouldn't have access to a gun.


What color is the sky in your world? Heroin is illegal but I can go and score some right now within 30 min if I wanted. If you want a gun, whether they are banned 100% or not, YOU'RE GONNA GET A GUN...FACT.


If I wanted a gun, I wouldn't know where to start, legally or illegally.

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
BlueThunder wrote:
indikator wrote: I am living in West Germany? Dang.

What can I say but statistics don't lie.

To contribute to this thread I post a question that has been bugging me: If I move to the US, would I be safer with a gun? I am undecided.

If you were properly trained, I'd say yes.


No. Just no. I worked in a rather seedy club and as I am 5,7 and have some sort of muscular dystrophy I am absolutely not imposing at all and yet I never got into a dangerous situation and I did partake in breaking up some pretty gory fights (Me afterwards: "Is there blood on my shirt? No... good, let's carry on" *whistling* ). There is a reason why self defense classes are more about your mindset than your fighting skills. And even with a gun, what would happen if some Zimmerman character (excluding Bob Dylan) would be trigger happy? A standoff situation would not help at all.

As will probably be the norm in the future I will quote myself regarding the aspect of availability of guns for the common European on a killing spree

indikator wrote:
The interesting thing about central European massacres is that perpetrator was very, very often a member of a sport-shooting association (here its http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schützenverein) . I really can not remember the last time a perpetrator didn't have such a background, which covers at least ten years. For me it's remarkable and scary.

Hymie Itsu



Joined: Mon Oct 10th, 2011
Location: Birthplace Of Dean Martin
Posts: 3174
Status: 
Offline
Married Jo wrote:
Kriss wrote:
Married Jo wrote:
Conneticut already has some of the strictest gun laws on the books, more gun control probably wouldn't have prevented this. I'm not a big gun guy, I own 5 guns and all 5 of them were given to me, I haven't shot any of them in probably 2 years, but damn, more laws aren't going to fix a goddamned thing, it's only going to make it worse. As someone has already touched on, instead of hand-wringing over guns and more laws, etc, etc, how about let's put more effort into the mental health problems some of these people have. Get it to where people notice these people earlier, and make it to where they can get help (whether voluntary or involuntary) easier instead of making it harder. Apparently this guy had asperger's syndrome and people that knew him said he was mentally unstable. I guarantee you SOMEONE around him knew he was off and was capable of doing something insane like this, yet they didn't bother telling anyone, including his family. And now not only are they dead, but a bunch of innocent children are as well.

Like I said, I'm not a gun nut, but about the only thing I'll agree with anyone on when it comes to more gun laws is banning large clips, but in reality, a lot of those things are already banned. A lot of assault rifles are already banned. People still find a way to get them, just like drugs, just like illegal liquor, just like anything that is "banned"...


I think it probably would. With strict gun control laws (i.e. 99.9% of the population aren't allowed to own a gun), this guy probably wouldn't have access to a gun.


What color is the sky in your world? Heroin is illegal but I can go and score some right now within 30 min if I wanted. If you want a gun, whether they are banned 100% or not, YOU'RE GONNA GET A GUN...FACT.


This is all I was saying earlier. I'm not pro-gun by a sight but banning guns isn't going to do a damn thing that's constructive.

Big Garea Fan

 

Joined: Wed Mar 4th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 2786
Status: 
Offline
carlton st wrote: ...you can argue all day for your right to own guns...

Sadly, the only thing that people seem to care about is the "right" to own guns. Nobody seems to care about the responsibilities of owning guns.

Road Warrior Yajuta



Joined: Sat Jul 3rd, 2010
Location: D'Iberville, Ms, USA
Posts: 4798
Status: 
Offline
Kriss wrote: Road Warrior Yajuta wrote:
Pro Gun or Anti Gun Control people can agree that their "whose dick is bigger" pissing match means little compared to what happened to those families today.  In the end, if this fucker wanted to cause mass harm he would have.  Did you guys miss the story of 22 kids wounded at a Chinese school by a guy with a knife? 


the key word is highlighted for you
Wow you got me there.  Man if the guy in CT had shot but not killed any kids there would be no one calling for stricter gun control laws right?  Just so you know, I am not opposed to better gun control laws.  I also think you asinine 99.9% of the population should not be allowed to own them is ridiculous.  Seems to me a psych eval when someone applies should be required.  They fail, they don't get one.  The tricky part is all the ilegal unregulated guns already on the Street so stricter laws would really solve what?  If people want guns bad enough they can be had. 


I do want to ask, why does anyone need a fully automatic chopper anyway? 

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
Kriss wrote: Married Jo wrote:
Conneticut already has some of the strictest gun laws on the books, more gun control probably wouldn't have prevented this. I'm not a big gun guy, I own 5 guns and all 5 of them were given to me, I haven't shot any of them in probably 2 years, but damn, more laws aren't going to fix a goddamned thing, it's only going to make it worse. As someone has already touched on, instead of hand-wringing over guns and more laws, etc, etc, how about let's put more effort into the mental health problems some of these people have. Get it to where people notice these people earlier, and make it to where they can get help (whether voluntary or involuntary) easier instead of making it harder. Apparently this guy had asperger's syndrome and people that knew him said he was mentally unstable. I guarantee you SOMEONE around him knew he was off and was capable of doing something insane like this, yet they didn't bother telling anyone, including his family. And now not only are they dead, but a bunch of innocent children are as well.

Like I said, I'm not a gun nut, but about the only thing I'll agree with anyone on when it comes to more gun laws is banning large clips, but in reality, a lot of those things are already banned. A lot of assault rifles are already banned. People still find a way to get them, just like drugs, just like illegal liquor, just like anything that is "banned"...


I think it probably would. With strict gun control laws (i.e. 99.9% of the population aren't allowed to own a gun), this guy probably wouldn't have access to a gun.
then you run afoul of that pesky 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. 

If people really want to see how the public feels about gun control, simply take the steps written down in the US Constitution on how to amend it, 2/3 house, 2/3 Senate vote, then 3/4 of the states vote in favor of it.


silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1245
Status: 
Offline
There's need to be discussion about the love and glorification of violence in this country.

Big Garea Fan

 

Joined: Wed Mar 4th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 2786
Status: 
Offline
When the forefathers wrote up the Bill of Rights, I don't think they could have imagined what "arms" has evolved into. "Arms" used to be a single shot rifle where you had to pour gun powder into the muzzle, use a rod to push the projectile into the muzzle, then you could aim and fire it. Nowadays, "arms" has evolved into assault rifles capable firing hundreds of rounds per second. You don't even have to aim the damn things, just point them in the general direction and start spraying.

I am all for people having the right to bear arms. They should be able to walk into their local Walmart and buy the best single shot muzzle loaded rifle that money can buy. As for the assault rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, etc., I don't think they should be categorized as "arms". They are fucking killing machines.

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
Big Garea Fan wrote: When the forefathers wrote up the Bill of Rights, I don't think they could have imagined what "arms" has evolved into. "Arms" used to be a single shot rifle where you had to pour gun powder into the muzzle, use a rod to push the projectile into the muzzle, then you could aim and fire it. Nowadays, "arms" has evolved into assault rifles capable firing hundreds of rounds per second. You don't even have to aim the damn things, just point them in the general direction and start spraying.

I am all for people having the right to bear arms. They should be able to walk into their local Walmart and buy the best single shot muzzle loaded rifle that money can buy. As for the assault rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, etc., I don't think they should be categorized as "arms". They are fucking killing machines.
Again, all they have to do is amend the Consitution. 

Road Warrior Yajuta



Joined: Sat Jul 3rd, 2010
Location: D'Iberville, Ms, USA
Posts: 4798
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote: Big Garea Fan wrote: When the forefathers wrote up the Bill of Rights, I don't think they could have imagined what "arms" has evolved into. "Arms" used to be a single shot rifle where you had to pour gun powder into the muzzle, use a rod to push the projectile into the muzzle, then you could aim and fire it. Nowadays, "arms" has evolved into assault rifles capable firing hundreds of rounds per second. You don't even have to aim the damn things, just point them in the general direction and start spraying.

I am all for people having the right to bear arms. They should be able to walk into their local Walmart and buy the best single shot muzzle loaded rifle that money can buy. As for the assault rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, etc., I don't think they should be categorized as "arms". They are fucking killing machines.
Again, all they have to do is amend the Consitution. 
Sadly it won't ever happen.

WongLee
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Fri Oct 19th, 2007
Location: Bay Shore, New York
Posts: 7236
Status: 
Offline
Road Warrior Yajuta wrote: I do want to ask, why does anyone need a fully automatic chopper anyway? 

Because of the Puerto Ricans.

Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6824
Status: 
Offline
"fully automatic choppers" are already outlawed.

KGB

 

Joined: Wed Jul 4th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 1219
Status: 
Offline
Big Garea Fan wrote: When the forefathers wrote up the Bill of Rights, I don't think they could have imagined what "arms" has evolved into. "Arms" used to be a single shot rifle where you had to pour gun powder into the muzzle, use a rod to push the projectile into the muzzle, then you could aim and fire it. Nowadays, "arms" has evolved into assault rifles capable firing hundreds of rounds per second. You don't even have to aim the damn things, just point them in the general direction and start spraying.

I am all for people having the right to bear arms. They should be able to walk into their local Walmart and buy the best single shot muzzle loaded rifle that money can buy. As for the assault rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, etc., I don't think they should be categorized as "arms". They are fucking killing machines.


srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50335
Status: 
Offline
KGB wrote: Big Garea Fan wrote: When the forefathers wrote up the Bill of Rights, I don't think they could have imagined what "arms" has evolved into. "Arms" used to be a single shot rifle where you had to pour gun powder into the muzzle, use a rod to push the projectile into the muzzle, then you could aim and fire it. Nowadays, "arms" has evolved into assault rifles capable firing hundreds of rounds per second. You don't even have to aim the damn things, just point them in the general direction and start spraying.

I am all for people having the right to bear arms. They should be able to walk into their local Walmart and buy the best single shot muzzle loaded rifle that money can buy. As for the assault rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, etc., I don't think they should be categorized as "arms". They are fucking killing machines.



PWNED!!!

Road Warrior Yajuta



Joined: Sat Jul 3rd, 2010
Location: D'Iberville, Ms, USA
Posts: 4798
Status: 
Offline
Married Jo wrote: "fully automatic choppers" are already outlawed.Not if you have a federal firearms license they are not.  Regulated all to hell, but not illegal.

Oh and what the hell does anyone need a semi-automatic gun for?  If you are that lousy a shot then you might need to practice. 

Last edited on Sat Dec 15th, 2012 01:58 am by Road Warrior Yajuta

Big Garea Fan

 

Joined: Wed Mar 4th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 2786
Status: 
Offline
KGB wrote: Big Garea Fan wrote: When the forefathers wrote up the Bill of Rights, I don't think they could have imagined what "arms" has evolved into. "Arms" used to be a single shot rifle where you had to pour gun powder into the muzzle, use a rod to push the projectile into the muzzle, then you could aim and fire it. Nowadays, "arms" has evolved into assault rifles capable firing hundreds of rounds per second. You don't even have to aim the damn things, just point them in the general direction and start spraying.

I am all for people having the right to bear arms. They should be able to walk into their local Walmart and buy the best single shot muzzle loaded rifle that money can buy. As for the assault rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, etc., I don't think they should be categorized as "arms". They are fucking killing machines.




From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]
The verbiage that stands out to me is "well regulated militia". Since when does anybody who walks into a gun store qualify as a "well regulated militia"? Additionally, the "right to bear arms" seems to be important for the "security of a free state". So, since it appears that they are "well regulated" and "necessary to the security of a free state", can gun owners be placed first in line to serve in a war (since they are all "well regulated" and "necessary" and stuff)?
 

Big Garea Fan

 

Joined: Wed Mar 4th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 2786
Status: 
Offline
KGB wrote: Big Garea Fan wrote: When the forefathers wrote up the Bill of Rights, I don't think they could have imagined what "arms" has evolved into. "Arms" used to be a single shot rifle where you had to pour gun powder into the muzzle, use a rod to push the projectile into the muzzle, then you could aim and fire it. Nowadays, "arms" has evolved into assault rifles capable firing hundreds of rounds per second. You don't even have to aim the damn things, just point them in the general direction and start spraying.

I am all for people having the right to bear arms. They should be able to walk into their local Walmart and buy the best single shot muzzle loaded rifle that money can buy. As for the assault rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, etc., I don't think they should be categorized as "arms". They are fucking killing machines.



This is meant as a legit question: Is there any legitimate documentation that supports Carol Roth's views? All I have read about the 2nd Amendment was quoted in Wikipedia.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50335
Status: 
Offline
Big Garea Fan wrote: KGB wrote: Big Garea Fan wrote: When the forefathers wrote up the Bill of Rights, I don't think they could have imagined what "arms" has evolved into. "Arms" used to be a single shot rifle where you had to pour gun powder into the muzzle, use a rod to push the projectile into the muzzle, then you could aim and fire it. Nowadays, "arms" has evolved into assault rifles capable firing hundreds of rounds per second. You don't even have to aim the damn things, just point them in the general direction and start spraying.

I am all for people having the right to bear arms. They should be able to walk into their local Walmart and buy the best single shot muzzle loaded rifle that money can buy. As for the assault rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, etc., I don't think they should be categorized as "arms". They are fucking killing machines.




From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]
The verbiage that stands out to me is "well regulated militia". Since when does anybody who walks into a gun store qualify as a "well regulated militia"? Additionally, the "right to bear arms" seems to be important for the "security of a free state". So, since it appears that they are "well regulated" and "necessary to the security of a free state", can gun owners be placed first in line to serve in a war (since they are all "well regulated" and "necessary" and stuff)?

A militia simply means average citizens who pick up arms to defend the state, be it against foreign foes or government tyranny.  You can debate "well regulated" but the fact is that militias have always been pretty much rag-tag bunches.  As far as war goes, there were almost as many militia who fought in the Revolutionary War as there were real soldiers, much to Washington's chagrin since he did not like the militias at all and felt they were undisciplined.  Still, without the militia we don't hold the English off long enough for the French to get involved and win the war for us, so they're as big a reason why we're here as anyone.  And militia participated in many wars after that.  So militia fighting in wars was never unusual at all, although it's obviously morphed since then.  But when you have the number of professional soldiers we have today, which was NEVER intended, then obviously it's silly to need untrained militia too.  Military spending and standing armies worldwide is a whole different story though. 

Principal_Raditch



Joined: Mon Feb 18th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 6935
Status: 
Offline
One of my coworkers cousin goes to the school. My coworker is from CT, and she was freaking out for hrs until she found out through her mother that her cousin was safe.

Quattro

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 3945
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote:
There's need to be discussion about the love and glorification of violence in this country.


Agree

This whole thing is very very sad and disturbing.

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
I have to ask a question. I am not sure if my factual knowledge is correct.

If militias are so important - why is there a restriction for a convict to form a militia by denying him gun access?

I have to add that measurements like the voting restriction for convicts are pretty unknown to me. I have no clue if any other country in the western world has these kind of restrictions as well.

Big Garea Fan

 

Joined: Wed Mar 4th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 2786
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote: Big Garea Fan wrote: When the forefathers wrote up the Bill of Rights, I don't think they could have imagined what "arms" has evolved into. "Arms" used to be a single shot rifle where you had to pour gun powder into the muzzle, use a rod to push the projectile into the muzzle, then you could aim and fire it. Nowadays, "arms" has evolved into assault rifles capable firing hundreds of rounds per second. You don't even have to aim the damn things, just point them in the general direction and start spraying.

I am all for people having the right to bear arms. They should be able to walk into their local Walmart and buy the best single shot muzzle loaded rifle that money can buy. As for the assault rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, etc., I don't think they should be categorized as "arms". They are fucking killing machines.
Again, all they have to do is amend the Consitution. 

Ok, so how do we get our elected officials, legislature, and other governmental forces to take some action and overhaul the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other archaeic laws/regulations that our government is built upon and have them more accurately reflect the issues in today's world? In many cases, these documents were written so vaguely that they can be interpreted to suit the needs of whoever reads them.

Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6911
Status: 
Offline
You send your babies to school and they never come home. Breaks my heart into a million pieces. I have no answers.

BlueThunder



Joined: Mon Jun 6th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 2195
Status: 
Offline
indikator wrote: BlueThunder wrote:
indikator wrote: I am living in West Germany? Dang.

What can I say but statistics don't lie.

To contribute to this thread I post a question that has been bugging me: If I move to the US, would I be safer with a gun? I am undecided.

If you were properly trained, I'd say yes.


No. Just no. I worked in a rather seedy club and as I am 5,7 and have some sort of muscular dystrophy I am absolutely not imposing at all and yet I never got into a dangerous situation and I did partake in breaking up some pretty gory fights (Me afterwards: "Is there blood on my shirt? No... good, let's carry on" *whistling* ). There is a reason why self defense classes are more about your mindset than your fighting skills. And even with a gun, what would happen if some Zimmerman character (excluding Bob Dylan) would be trigger happy? A standoff situation would not help at all.

As will probably be the norm in the future I will quote myself regarding the aspect of availability of guns for the common European on a killing spree

indikator wrote:
The interesting thing about central European massacres is that perpetrator was very, very often a member of a sport-shooting association (here its [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schützenverein)]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schützenverein)[/url] . I really can not remember the last time a perpetrator didn't have such a background, which covers at least ten years. For me it's remarkable and scary.


Man, why do you ask a question and then tell someone they're wrong when they opine?

The operative word in my earlier statement was well trained. If some wannabe tough guy buys a gun and never had proper training, than I would say that a bad situation will more than likely be escalated. A truly trained person with a gun will have a simialr mindset to a martial artist. Chances are that they would be so confident with their ability that they wouldn't go looking for trouble because they had a piece.

Last edited on Sat Dec 15th, 2012 03:15 am by BlueThunder

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
I blame insomnia

BlueThunder



Joined: Mon Jun 6th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 2195
Status: 
Offline
indikator wrote: I blame insomnia
Well, that's better than blaming HHH.

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
I thought you only hated aspiring rappers.

I should thank you btw, as you made me come to my realization.

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
Big Garea Fan wrote: mike3775 wrote: Big Garea Fan wrote: When the forefathers wrote up the Bill of Rights, I don't think they could have imagined what "arms" has evolved into. "Arms" used to be a single shot rifle where you had to pour gun powder into the muzzle, use a rod to push the projectile into the muzzle, then you could aim and fire it. Nowadays, "arms" has evolved into assault rifles capable firing hundreds of rounds per second. You don't even have to aim the damn things, just point them in the general direction and start spraying.

I am all for people having the right to bear arms. They should be able to walk into their local Walmart and buy the best single shot muzzle loaded rifle that money can buy. As for the assault rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, etc., I don't think they should be categorized as "arms". They are fucking killing machines.
Again, all they have to do is amend the Consitution. 

Ok, so how do we get our elected officials, legislature, and other governmental forces to take some action and overhaul the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other archaeic laws/regulations that our government is built upon and have them more accurately reflect the issues in today's world? In many cases, these documents were written so vaguely that they can be interpreted to suit the needs of whoever reads them.
You have to get them to actually listen to you for a change.  If enough people tell their elected officials(remember, they are supposed to work for the voters), then they will actually grow a set of balls and try to get it passed

Notice how it never happens though, regardless of how many mass deaths from shootings there are, because fucking with the 2nd Amendment in the US, is political suicide

EDIT:  Lets just say they do get the 2/3 votes needed in the US House and 2/3 votes needed in the Senate, do you really think there are 38(3/4) states that would vote yes to it?  I doubt it, in fact I bet Indiana, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Florida, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Idaho, Minnesota, Kentucky, and Tennessee would vote No, which would effectively kill it as thats 14 states, so it be impossible for there to be 38 Yes state votes.  But one good thing about it happening though, Illinois I am pretty sure, would probably vote on it the day it hit the states for a vote, voting yes to it, gotta keep them criminals in Chicago unarmed

Last edited on Sat Dec 15th, 2012 04:24 am by mike3775

Infamous
必 勝


Joined: Mon Oct 25th, 2010
Location: Slums Of Shaolin
Posts: 2511
Status: 
Offline
Very, very tragic

I'm certain that no guns will be outlawed over this incident though. Idea that some single event (or even series of events) will create enough momentum to ban guns in America is some serious wishful thinking

Good luck

PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
For the record I'm not out to overturn the 2nd Amendment (though if I could start the Constitution from scratch I'd leave it out). But I see no reason why any citizen would have any reason to own a semi-automatic weapon, and I see no reason why even holding a reasonable dialogue on the subject of gun control and gun laws is seemingly off the table.

A lot of the pro-NRA types are the same people who have been advocating drug testing and background checks for food stamp and WIC applicants. Yet they refuse to entertain any thought whatsoever to anything that hinders the buying of a gun. Do I even need to explain how back-asswards that is?

Want to protect your family? A handgun or shotgun will do nicely. Want to hunt? Use a rifle. Your precious right to bear arms is not infringed upon and we make it harder (not impossible...just harder. Not being able to make it impossible is no reason not to try) to commit mass murder.

Last edited on Sat Dec 15th, 2012 06:05 am by PeteF3

Famous Mortimer



Joined: Thu Nov 6th, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2771
Status: 
Offline
I'm relieved I live in a country with a far lower chance of something like this happening, and I'm absolutely delighted my 5 year old niece will never have to deal with something like this.

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/china-stabbing-spree-hurts-22-schoolchildren-1

I presume it's already been mentioned, so I apologise if that's the case - just a quick rebuttal to anyone thinking of saying "well, knives are deadly weapons too".

Seriously, anyone who defends the right of people to own whatever deadly weapons they like after something like this, who puts some meaningless out of date law ahead of the lives of 5 year old children...well, I wish I believed in hell so I'd be confident they'd spend an eternity burning in it.

silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1245
Status: 
Offline
Somebody made the point of how we have outlawed most drugs in this country and well we see how that's worked out. Mexico's gun control laws are way stricter than here and we also see how that's worked out.

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
PeteF3 wrote: For the record I'm not out to overturn the 2nd Amendment (though if I could start the Constitution from scratch I'd leave it out). But I see no reason why any citizen would have any reason to own a semi-automatic weapon, and I see no reason why even holding a reasonable dialogue on the subject of gun control and gun laws is seemingly off the table.

A lot of the pro-NRA types are the same people who have been advocating drug testing and background checks for food stamp and WIC applicants. Yet they refuse to entertain any thought whatsoever to anything that hinders the buying of a gun. Do I even need to explain how back-asswards that is?

Want to protect your family? A handgun or shotgun will do nicely. Want to hunt? Use a rifle. Your precious right to bear arms is not infringed upon and we make it harder (not impossible...just harder. Not being able to make it impossible is no reason not to try) to commit mass murder.
I agree, there is no reason for semi automatic weapons to be in civilian hands, you can't hunt with them, and like you said a handgun or shotgun does the job of protection, and rifles work great for hunting.

The main problem is, the harder they make it to get a gun legally, the easier it becomes for law breakers to get those guns.  Every time I buy a gun, I am subject to background checks and a wait time to purchase, so they already make it hard to get a hand gun as it is, what more can they do?  Govt already moves slow as hell for most aspects of aid(took my mom 2 yrs for SSI, took my friend 4 months for food stamps, took another friend 3 yrs for SSI, took 2 months for unemployment), so if they take the time it takes for aid and apply it to guns, many will simply go and find illegal ways to get guns(like many already do now, look at Chicago)

Quattro

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 3945
Status: 
Offline
I wonder if this guy played those ultra violent shooter video games?

Portalesman
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 7758
Status: 
Offline
indikator wrote:


Yeah. LOLZ. Im glad that reefer, meth and cocaine are all legal in Das Mudderland.

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
You surely aren't Portugalsman.

And I think the moral/meme might be "The solution is the opposite of what America does"

Quattro

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 3945
Status: 
Offline
Papa Voo wrote:
Here we go......two people on TV blaming this happened because they took God and prayer out of school.   I am not sure how I feel about that whole issue, but I just do not know if that would have impacted me that much when I was in high school.  So, they are basically saying if these two kids were forced to pray when they were in school this would never have occurred.


My only comment on that is I think most of them are not saying just praying would prevent this. I think they are saying the values expoused by traditional Judea-Christian culture are better than none. Their theory is that we as a society have drifted from that especially in the lack of caring, empathy and value placed on life that you see in a lot of society.

This whole situation is completely disturbing. The gun issue is one thing and I do not want to debate that but what is causing young white men to snap and do mass shootings/killings? We know of the violence epidemic in the minority communities that are driven by socio-economic factors. These are huge problems and need America's attention. But what is causing this? This is completely different. Guns were just as prevalent in the 40s, 50's etc. And more people knew how to use them. But this stuff didn't happen to my knowledge.

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
It might have a lot to do with stress and social pressure. I have the feeling that the world has gotten more cut-throat and is there a better way to vent that anger than by cutting throats?

Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6824
Status: 
Offline
You think I'm kidding and/or trolling, but I'm not, all these violent video games where you can just go and very realistically kill someone for fun can't be helping..

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
But how is that different from the old cowboys and indians game?

Road Warrior Yajuta



Joined: Sat Jul 3rd, 2010
Location: D'Iberville, Ms, USA
Posts: 4798
Status: 
Offline
http://www.myfoxal.com/story/20351995/developing-shooting-at-hospital

I can't help but think that so many see this mass media coverage and crave attention for whatever issue moves them to such heinous actions. 

Last edited on Sat Dec 15th, 2012 03:03 pm by Road Warrior Yajuta

Quattro

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 3945
Status: 
Offline
indikator wrote:
But how is that different from the old cowboys and indians game?

Or Americans and Germans

Quattro

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 3945
Status: 
Offline
Obviously he was mentally ill just like the movie theater one, the Giffords shooter etc.

BUT, we have come to treat these things as social disorders, autism, aspergers, etc. All of those things are very very conditions. BUT there are some that are sociopathic, pyschotic or just plan ass crazy. There is a sliver that are just dangerous people and cannot be treated. We have to figure out how to identify who lacks any empathy and is sociopathic vs. someone with autism, and "boilerplate" mental illness that can be treated.

That is strictly my opinion.

Road Warrior Yajuta



Joined: Sat Jul 3rd, 2010
Location: D'Iberville, Ms, USA
Posts: 4798
Status: 
Offline
I think it is a deterioration of the family unit. Far too many adults do not spend time with, nurture, instill a sense of morals, or teach kids how to care about others. Some think those principals go hand in hand with God and some don't. Whatever folks believe they need to teach the kids entrusted to them on what it means to be a good person. It is not guns, video games, or any other junk.  It is the fact too  many people have issues and do not have that foundation that prevents them from doing this kind of shit.  Outlaw guns if you want.  If someone wants a gun bad enough they can be found. 

Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6911
Status: 
Offline
The guy was deranged clearly. If prayer had been allowed in schools, this still would have happened. The 2nd amendment clearly states that a well regulated militia has a right to bear arms. There is so much wrong and really no simple solutions. Banning all guns probably won't work either. As for the UK, read about what has been happening in China before becoming too confident that it can't happen there as well.!

I do think we need much tighter regulations and a reinstatement of the ban on assault weapons. It won't cure all ills.

The mother apparently had 5 weapons in her name. Something tells me she bought them for the monster that was her son. Regrettably, there is no legislation that wiill provide safety against moronic parents.

Infamous
必 勝


Joined: Mon Oct 25th, 2010
Location: Slums Of Shaolin
Posts: 2511
Status: 
Offline
In the America we live in today the last thing you'd want to do if get rid of your guns

There seems to be mental health issues with the shooter. Virginia Tech shooter was severely deranged. How much have we improved of the front of mental health inbetween these killings ? So little its barely even measurable. That's about same level of change that'll happen this time too on both gun & mental health in America. Everything will be token talk & folks saying the things they suppose to say since its a fresh incident but as soon as the news cycle ends we'll finds something else & forget about it

Debates & discussions are great but nothing is going to change. Americans & guns are a permanent marriage. It is single most important tool in rise of U.S.A. & critical in development & continued maintainence of this country as free world. All of 'this' (U.S.A.) is made possible due to guns in the hands of free people

Americans are armed to such obscene levels (both legal & illegal) that there is no way to disarm the population without all out war (but we could say that about our government too). You could close every gun shop today & the population would still be 'ready'. Guns would be the new cocaine for the cartels to make billions off

'War On Guns' would be as effective as 'War On Drugs' has been

Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6911
Status: 
Offline
How about a common sense standard? Does a 44 year old really require 5 firearms? Banning will not cure all ills but maybe 1 or 2 of these horrific tragedies never happen. Yes, bad things will still happen but maybe a little less if you agree to use an ounce of common sense.

PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
silentkiller wrote:
Somebody made the point of how we have outlawed most drugs in this country and well we see how that's worked out. Mexico's gun control laws are way stricter than here and we also see how that's worked out.

Mexico's dirt poor. There will always be more murders in a poor environment than in one that's not. How about we compare the U.S. murder rates by gun to the other actual industrialized countries?

Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6911
Status: 
Offline
Infamous wrote:
In the America we live in today the last thing you'd want to do if get rid of your guns

There seems to be mental health issues with the shooter. Virginia Tech shooter was severely deranged. How much have we improved of the front of mental health inbetween these killings ? So little its barely even measurable. That's about same level of change that'll happen this time too on both gun & mental health in America. Everything will be token talk & folks saying the things they suppose to say since its a fresh incident but as soon as the news cycle ends we'll finds something else & forget about it

Debates & discussions are great but nothing is going to change. Americans & guns are a permanent marriage. It is single most important tool in rise of U.S.A. & critical in development & continued maintainence of this country as free world. All of 'this' (U.S.A.) is made possible due to guns in the hands of free people

Americans are armed to such obscene levels (both legal & illegal) that there is no way to disarm the population without all out war (but we could say that about our government too). You could close every gun shop today & the population would still be 'ready'. Guns would be the new cocaine for the cartels to make billions off

'War On Guns' would be as effective as 'War On Drugs' has been


I agree that the solution isn't easy and that people who think politicians can easily solve this live in a dream world. We have to start someplace though. Shrugging our shoulders and saying "oh well" is unacceptable to me.

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
Road Warrior Yajuta wrote: yellowdog wrote: Road Warrior Yajuta wrote: Pro Gun or Anti Gun Control people can agree that their "whose dick is bigger" pissing match means little compared to what happened to those families today.  In the end, if this fucker wanted to cause mass harm he would have.  Did you guys miss the story of 22 kids wounded at a Chinese school by a guy with a knife? 

my dick is bigger, but that's beside the point
So that is where you got the name Yellow Dick Dog!!!!(who was it that used to call you that about drama at KM?)

It was Papa Voo and no, he hasn't seen my dick 

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: I'd say let the hysteria begin, but it's too late for that.  I swear some people hope that tragedies like this will happen so they can make their political point.  From gun control to prayer in school to violent video games to rap music to global warming, everything will be blamed for this by the end of the day.  Everyone can make their silly little arguments so they can feel good about themselves, and in the meantime a couple dozen families are going to have the most hellish Christmas imaginable when they have to look at those unopened presents.  The only person to blame is the shooter and I wish I believed in hell when I hear stories like this.  As ridiculous as the concept of hell is, it's so unfair if someone like this shooter winds up in the same place as the kids he killed.   
seriously, if not now, when do you talk about it?  A week from now, a month, a year? It needs to be talked about sometime.

Big Garea Fan

 

Joined: Wed Mar 4th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 2786
Status: 
Offline
Road Warrior Yajuta wrote: http://www.myfoxal.com/story/20351995/developing-shooting-at-hospital

I can't help but think that so many see this mass media coverage and crave attention for whatever issue moves them to such heinous actions. 

Given the healthcare crisis in America, I have been waiting for a bunch of "John Q"-like hospital hostage incidents to happen - You can't afford treatment so you pull a gun at the hospital, take hostages, and get media coverage that makes you out to be a hero.

Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6911
Status: 
Offline
I think that has happened. One of the tests I needed was billed to me incorrectly. They asked for $1900. When it was submitted to insurance, the amount that was agreed upon was $224. Paid in full. I know there are a lot of problems with the system but I honestly think it shod he illegal for hospitals to charge almost 10 times the amount to an individual than they would charge to an ins firm. Anyway, that issue is for another day.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50335
Status: 
Offline
PeteF3 wrote: silentkiller wrote:
Somebody made the point of how we have outlawed most drugs in this country and well we see how that's worked out. Mexico's gun control laws are way stricter than here and we also see how that's worked out.

Mexico's dirt poor. There will always be more murders in a poor environment than in one that's not. How about we compare the U.S. murder rates by gun to the other actual industrialized countries?

So if the argument doesn't suit your purposes, change the argument.  Got it.  So it's not just about gun control, it's about gun control and poor brown people.  After years of hearing about the 99% in America.  And not taking into account that the Mexicans responsible for the gun violence are probably in the 1% of that country because they're drug runners.  Alrighty then.  It's OK for liberals to be both racist and suddenly pretend we're a wealthy country only when it comes to 2nd Amendment issues.  Until the next issue comes along that doesn't quite align with your astoundingly limited worldview.

Last edited on Sat Dec 15th, 2012 04:41 pm by srossi

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
A poor country doesn't have anything to do with it being white or non-white. And who here said that America isn't a first world country?

PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote:
PeteF3 wrote: silentkiller wrote:
Somebody made the point of how we have outlawed most drugs in this country and well we see how that's worked out. Mexico's gun control laws are way stricter than here and we also see how that's worked out.

Mexico's dirt poor. There will always be more murders in a poor environment than in one that's not. How about we compare the U.S. murder rates by gun to the other actual industrialized countries?

So if the argument doesn't suit your purposes, change the argument.  Got it.


Look at the fucking list of countries in the image indikator posted. It was apples-to-apples from the very start, nothing's "changed."

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50335
Status: 
Offline
indikator wrote: A poor country doesn't have anything to do with it being white or non-white. And who here said that America isn't a first world country?
Sure it doesn't.  Start naming non-white industrialized countries.  Go.

And no one said America wasn't first world, the point is you can't talk about how 1% of the wealth is controlled by a few bankers and 99% have no money, no opportunities, no hope, no anything, and then make the almost opposite distinction when it comes to gun violence.  CEOs from Goldman rarely commit mass murder with guns and they're supposed to be the only ones with money.  So if the rest of us don't have money, and gun control isn't enough to prevent gun violence since another indicator is wealth, I guess that means that gun control won't work.  Just using the exact logic Pete used.  See how tough adult conversations are when you have to stick to partisan viewpoints?  It's like when conservatives defend the Bible when two sections say complete opposite things, but trying to pretend they both make sense.

PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline


Posted again to save people the trouble of going back and searching for it. Also posted by yellowdog, not indikator.

Those are all industralized, First World countries like the United States. Some of them not even "white." I'm not moving the goalposts here.

PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote:
indikator wrote: A poor country doesn't have anything to do with it being white or non-white. And who here said that America isn't a first world country?
Sure it doesn't.  Start naming non-white industrialized countries.  Go.


Most of eastern Asia.

India has about half the number of gun deaths that the United States does per year. With more than twice as many people.

Last edited on Sat Dec 15th, 2012 05:00 pm by PeteF3

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50335
Status: 
Offline
PeteF3 wrote:

Posted again to save people the trouble of going back and searching for it. Also posted by yellowdog, not indikator.

Those are all industralized, First World countries like the United States. Some of them not even "white." I'm not moving the goalposts here.

Yeah, I've seen the popular Facebook meme.  Original.  And that's not what you said.  Someone pointed out that Mexico has strict gun control laws and it hasn't helped.  You changed the conversation into an economic/racist one at that point because you had no rebuttal to that point.  The only point was, you can outlaw guns and that doesn't mean that criminals will stop having guns.  Period.  It's a simple point, the crux of the anti-gun control argument.  Just like the anti-Drug war argument.  Just like the anti-Prohibition argument.  And there is no counter to it.  Outlawing things only stop law-abiding citizens from engaging in those activities, not the types of people who are prone to ignore rules or certainly have a propensity for violence of this magnitude.

Last edited on Sat Dec 15th, 2012 05:01 pm by srossi

PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
I wasn't even trying to fucking be "original." I was re-posting a picture from EARLIER IN THE THREAD because I referenced it, so people wouldn't have to scroll through multiple pages to find it.

And...precisely nobody is saying criminals will "stop" having guns. There's a reason that none of those countries have a handgun death total of "zero."

Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6911
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote:
PeteF3 wrote:

Posted again to save people the trouble of going back and searching for it. Also posted by yellowdog, not indikator.

Those are all industralized, First World countries like the United States. Some of them not even "white." I'm not moving the goalposts here.

Yeah, I've seen the popular Facebook meme.  Original.  And that's not what you said.  Someone pointed out that Mexico has strict gun control laws and it hasn't helped.  You changed the conversation into an economic/racist one at that point because you had no rebuttal to that point.  The only point was, you can outlaw guns and that doesn't mean that criminals will stop having guns.  Period.  It's a simple point, the crux of the anti-gun control argument.  Just like the anti-Drug war argument.  Just like the anti-Prohibition argument.  And there is no counter to it.  Outlawing things only stop law-abiding citizens from engaging in those activities, not the types of people who are prone to ignore rules or certainly have a propensity for violence of this magnitude.


I agree with your point of view but want to make things harder for the nut jobs. Can I prove it will prevent anything? No and we would never know of course. Again, I wish I had all the answers. I really don't know what else to say. I am not interested in comparing to other countries. Bad stuff happens everywhere. Your posts on China prove that.

PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
My point in bringing up other industrialized countries is to raise the point that "only outlaws will have guns" is not something that really stands up to scrutiny. I believe a curbing in gun violence CAN be done, even if it involves making guns harder to get.

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
This is a pretty OT answer for srossis postings

srossi has correctly pointed out that the 1% of Mexico can be responsible for the gun violence and PeteF3 has correctly pointed out that the poor environment of Mexico is a contributing factor. Also, I don't really get why srossi is going on a tangent about 1% vs 99%.
The thing is, even if you have the most vile 1% (so they are rich) ever, they do need potential henchman who want to escape poverty and you will not find many potential candidates in a not-poor region.
It is correct to point out that rich people can be responsible for violence, even if they don't partake in the actual violence at all. Just look how many weapons and stuff like mines the western countries have sold to certainly not philanthropic states. At least we have a discussion when Merkel does that shit (current example: tanks for Saudi Arabia)
And in order to invoke Godwin's law, Hitler was greatly aided by a speech at the Industrie-Club Düsseldorf in 1932 where he pretty much told the military–industrial complex that he wanted a second world war. The military–industrial complex wet their pants and subsequently managed to give Hitler much needed acceptance and legitimacy. As you can see, rich people can be responsible for violence without dirtying their hands directly.

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
Norway has very strict gun control laws, yet it did not stop Anders Behring Breivik from killing 69 kids at a youth camp last year. 

How come Norway was left off that list of 1st world countries with strict gun control laws?  Oh yeah, because that incident shows strict gun control laws does not work in containing every single mass shooting possible, because Breivik found ways to still get himself guns even with strict laws preventing him from doing so.

Oh and incidentally(surprised no one picked this up), where exactly is West Germany?  That country ceased to exist in 1991, so that poster is citing a country that has not existed for over 21 years, yet it was LAST YEAR?


yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
give everyone a gun.  best shot wins

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
Road Warrior Yajuta wrote: I think it is a deterioration of the family unit. Far too many adults do not spend time with, nurture, instill a sense of morals, or teach kids how to care about others. Some think those principals go hand in hand with God and some don't. Whatever folks believe they need to teach the kids entrusted to them on what it means to be a good person. It is not guns, video games, or any other junk.  It is the fact too  many people have issues and do not have that foundation that prevents them from doing this kind of shit.  Outlaw guns if you want.  If someone wants a gun bad enough they can be found. 
My family has what many call "stupid" things we do.  I still have the "dinner around the dinner table, and talk" every night, and every person says what they did and what their plans are for the next day.  Most of the kids friends grab what is for dinner, and head off to the bedrooms to eat or plop in front of the TV and eat. 

We still have family game night once or twice a week, and again, while playing board games or even video games, talk about things. 

Some of the kids may hate it, but I rather have those things because it enforces "family" and if you can't depend on family, who can you depend on if you have issues?

PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote:
Norway has very strict gun control laws, yet it did not stop Anders Behring Breivik from killing 69 kids at a youth camp last year. 


NO ONE IS FUCKING SAYING THAT THE NUMBER OF GUN DEATHS WOULD BE "ZERO." NO ONE. Not me and not the goddamned jpg.

Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6911
Status: 
Offline
PeteF3 wrote:
mike3775 wrote:
Norway has very strict gun control laws, yet it did not stop Anders Behring Breivik from killing 69 kids at a youth camp last year. 


NO ONE IS FUCKING SAYING THAT THE NUMBER OF GUN DEATHS WOULD BE "ZERO." NO ONE. Not me and not the goddamned jpg.


Agree - it might stop a couple though. That can never be proven but commonsense tells me that would be the case.

PeteF3

 

Joined: Thu Dec 6th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1476
Status: 
Offline
And the Brady Bill Campaign, where the poster comes from, was in the late '80s. Playing "gotcha" with West Germany doesn't really change the point. Want to make a bet on if those numbers have appreciably changed in the ensuing 20 years?

Ultimark



Joined: Sun Oct 28th, 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6911
Status: 
Offline
Some new information:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20121215_ap_connofficialsprincipaldiedlungingatgunman.html

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
Has any pro-gun person stated how many additional million dollars in funding teachers/schools should receive in order to increase security?

With todays era of rationalization and underfunding I can't really see how more guns in schools can be helpful. In fact, I even doubt that even added security personal could eliminate these shootings.

So this guy had a bullet proof vest and assault weapons.

Tell me how this scenario is wrong:
The first adult in the class room will ask the assailant "Can I help you" and will be shot dead. A second adult would try to get to his or her gun and be shot dead. Then the third person would try to shoot the assailant and is likely to either miss him or hit the vest and then be shot, don't forget that assault weapons can be really helpful to kill many people in a very short time so maybe the third person will not even be able to use a gun once. After that a class will be slaughtered.

Same thing with Aurora. It is stupid to say that you could eliminate every possible murder that way, the aggressor always has a considerable advantage with the element of surprise.

Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9688
Status: 
Offline
Focus on the Three G's (Guns, God and Gays).....and the truth and justice of capitalism is what this country was founded on.  

Schools and students are not corporations and produce no income so what real impact do deaths like these this have on our economic numbers?


thunderbolt
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Manhattan Beach, California USA
Posts: 6205
Status: 
Offline
PeteF3 wrote:

Posted again to save people the trouble of going back and searching for it. Also posted by yellowdog, not indikator.

Those are all industralized, First World countries like the United States. Some of them not even "white." I'm not moving the goalposts here.


Not to pick a fight by drawing a ludicrous distinction, but the CT Coroner has said that every death yesterday came from the rifle the looney was carrying, none were from a handgun.  He was carrying a .223 Bushmaster, which is basically a civilian M-16, only semi-automatic. 

As has been pointed out, there are no laws which could be enacted now which would do a thing about the hundreds of millions of weapons and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition already in private ownership.  

Big Garea Fan

 

Joined: Wed Mar 4th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 2786
Status: 
Offline
thunderbolt wrote: ...As has been pointed out, there are no laws which could be enacted now which would do a thing about the hundreds of millions of weapons and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition already in private ownership.  

Good point. If laws were enacted now, that should stop the production of new weapons / ammo. I wonder if a gun buyback program would be effective to coerce owners into surrendering the weapons / ammo already in their possession?

Quattro

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 3945
Status: 
Offline
Big Garea Fan wrote:
thunderbolt wrote: ...As has been pointed out, there are no laws which could be enacted now which would do a thing about the hundreds of millions of weapons and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition already in private ownership.  

Good point. If laws were enacted now, that should stop the production of new weapons / ammo. I wonder if a gun buyback program would be effective to coerce owners into surrendering the weapons / ammo already in their possession?


Do you think the gang bangers would care?

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
Big Garea Fan wrote: thunderbolt wrote: ...As has been pointed out, there are no laws which could be enacted now which would do a thing about the hundreds of millions of weapons and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition already in private ownership.  

Good point. If laws were enacted now, that should stop the production of new weapons / ammo. I wonder if a gun buyback program would be effective to coerce owners into surrendering the weapons / ammo already in their possession?
All those programs with gift cards always gets hundreds of guns turned in, but I bet none came from the non law abiding crowd.

The only way I would willingly give up what I already own and bought, is if the Govt gave me back every cent, plus tax that I paid for what I have.

Big Garea Fan

 

Joined: Wed Mar 4th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 2786
Status: 
Offline
Quattro wrote: Big Garea Fan wrote:
thunderbolt wrote: ...As has been pointed out, there are no laws which could be enacted now which would do a thing about the hundreds of millions of weapons and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition already in private ownership.  

Good point. If laws were enacted now, that should stop the production of new weapons / ammo. I wonder if a gun buyback program would be effective to coerce owners into surrendering the weapons / ammo already in their possession?


Do you think the gang bangers would care?

Washington DC collected a ton of weapons during the gun buyback program that they had a couple years ago. I remember that it was held around the holidays and that it was no questions asked. Walk in, drop off gun, get a gift card - I think it was for Best Buy. They had some TV coverage and the folks dropping off the guns all looked kinda sketchy to me.

Big Garea Fan

 

Joined: Wed Mar 4th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 2786
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote: Big Garea Fan wrote: thunderbolt wrote: ...As has been pointed out, there are no laws which could be enacted now which would do a thing about the hundreds of millions of weapons and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition already in private ownership.  

Good point. If laws were enacted now, that should stop the production of new weapons / ammo. I wonder if a gun buyback program would be effective to coerce owners into surrendering the weapons / ammo already in their possession?
All those programs with gift cards always gets hundreds of guns turned in, but I bet none came from the non law abiding crowd.

The only way I would willingly give up what I already own and bought, is if the Govt gave me back every cent, plus tax that I paid for what I have.

That's reasonable. I'd even propose that you should make a small profit.

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
Big Garea Fan wrote: mike3775 wrote: Big Garea Fan wrote: thunderbolt wrote: ...As has been pointed out, there are no laws which could be enacted now which would do a thing about the hundreds of millions of weapons and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition already in private ownership.  

Good point. If laws were enacted now, that should stop the production of new weapons / ammo. I wonder if a gun buyback program would be effective to coerce owners into surrendering the weapons / ammo already in their possession?
All those programs with gift cards always gets hundreds of guns turned in, but I bet none came from the non law abiding crowd.

The only way I would willingly give up what I already own and bought, is if the Govt gave me back every cent, plus tax that I paid for what I have.

That's reasonable. I'd even propose that you should make a small profit.

But those buyback programs are never worth it.  Usually its like $100, most guns cost more than that.

I remember one year Chicago did it, and I wondered how many of the guns turned in were stolen, since it was no questions asked, walk in, hand the gun, get the card and leave.

Last edited on Sun Dec 16th, 2012 03:14 am by mike3775

Big Garea Fan

 

Joined: Wed Mar 4th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 2786
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote: ...But those buyback programs are never worth it.  Usually its like $100, most guns cost more than that.

I remember one year Chicago did it, and I wondered how many of the guns turned in were stolen, since it was no questions asked, walk in, hand the gun, get the card and leave.

If people (taxpayers / corporate sponsors) believe that this is an important cause, I think they would be willing to up the amount of the payouts. Of course, this all assumes that such weapons would be deemed illegal and that the sale, manufacturing, or importing would also be illegal and subject to stiff penalties for violators.

ChrisOTL

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1312
Status: 
Offline
Quattro wrote: Big Garea Fan wrote:
thunderbolt wrote: ...As has been pointed out, there are no laws which could be enacted now which would do a thing about the hundreds of millions of weapons and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition already in private ownership.  

Good point. If laws were enacted now, that should stop the production of new weapons / ammo. I wonder if a gun buyback program would be effective to coerce owners into surrendering the weapons / ammo already in their possession?


Do you think the gang bangers would care?
The gangstas only kill each other with their illegal weapons, so who really gives a shit if they return them or not? Illegal weapons will always exist, no matter what gun control laws you have. However, strict gun control laws, make it VERY difficult for complete fucking lunatics to get their hands on them, and commit horrific crimes like the one that happened yesterday.

I'd love to hear a valid reason why someone should legally be allowed to purchase an assault rifle or automatic weapon. Just one.

If the United States joins the rest of the civilized world, and enacts some gun laws, things may not change over night, but, eventually, maybe one or two generations from now they will. 

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
I'd love to hear a valid reason why someone should legally be allowed to purchase an assault rifle or automatic weapon. Just one.

There isn't one.  There used to be a ban on them, but for some stupid reason, Congress let the ban expire, instead of renewing it back in 2004

silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1245
Status: 
Offline
Chris OtL wrote:
Quattro wrote: Big Garea Fan wrote:
thunderbolt wrote: ...As has been pointed out, there are no laws which
Good point. If laws were enacted now, that should stop the production of new weapons / ammo. I wonder if a gun buyback program would be effective to coerce owners into surrendering the weapons / ammo already in their possession?


Do you think the gang bangers would care?
The gangstas only kill each other with their illegal weapons, so who really gives a shit if they return them or not? Illegal weapons will always exist, no matter what gun control laws you have. However, strict gun control laws, make it VERY difficult for complete fucking lunatics to get their hands on them, and commit horrific crimes like the one that happened yesterday.

I'd love to hear a valid reason why someone should legally be allowed to purchase an assault rifle or automatic weapon. Just one.

If the United States joins the rest of the civilized world, and enacts some gun laws, things may not change over night, but, eventually, maybe one or two generations from now they will. 


Everybody else living in the hood would care. And many innocent bystanders have been killed in gang related shoot outs. One of the main reasons many people even have illegal guns in these neighborhoods is to protect themselves from some of the reckless thugs out there.

ChrisOTL

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 1312
Status: 
Offline
Then get the fuck out of the hood, or stop allowing your community to be "the hood".

kargol



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Brum, United Kingdom
Posts: 4421
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote: Kriss wrote: Married Jo wrote:
Conneticut already has some of the strictest gun laws on the books, more gun control probably wouldn't have prevented this. I'm not a big gun guy, I own 5 guns and all 5 of them were given to me, I haven't shot any of them in probably 2 years, but damn, more laws aren't going to fix a goddamned thing, it's only going to make it worse. As someone has already touched on, instead of hand-wringing over guns and more laws, etc, etc, how about let's put more effort into the mental health problems some of these people have. Get it to where people notice these people earlier, and make it to where they can get help (whether voluntary or involuntary) easier instead of making it harder. Apparently this guy had asperger's syndrome and people that knew him said he was mentally unstable. I guarantee you SOMEONE around him knew he was off and was capable of doing something insane like this, yet they didn't bother telling anyone, including his family. And now not only are they dead, but a bunch of innocent children are as well.

Like I said, I'm not a gun nut, but about the only thing I'll agree with anyone on when it comes to more gun laws is banning large clips, but in reality, a lot of those things are already banned. A lot of assault rifles are already banned. People still find a way to get them, just like drugs, just like illegal liquor, just like anything that is "banned"...


I think it probably would. With strict gun control laws (i.e. 99.9% of the population aren't allowed to own a gun), this guy probably wouldn't have access to a gun.
then you run afoul of that pesky 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. 


Actually, you don't.  Indeed tight gun control is mandated by the 2nd Amendment.  The NRA's arguments are unconstitutional.

Look what it means.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There are certain key facts here.

1. The US needs a militia.  Back in 1776 it didn't have a professional army per se.  "Just" the citizen body.

2. It needs to be well regulated.  Not just regulated, but well regulated.

3. It is the right of the people to bear arms.  Not individuals, but the people.  The body as a whole.  "We the people".  If it was an individual right to bear arms, it would have said "the right of the individual" or "the citizen" or something.

4. The right shall not be infringed.  By whom?  The Government.

What the 2nd Amendment does, therefore, is say that the people, the citizen body as a whole, shall be in charge of national security, and shall ensure, as a constitutional duty, that there is a proper arrangement by which the people can be armed for the purposes of being a militia.

It does not say that anyone has the right to bear arms - even if they are well regulated in doing so.



kargol



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Brum, United Kingdom
Posts: 4421
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote:
Yeah, I've seen the popular Facebook meme.  Original.  And that's not what you said.  Someone pointed out that Mexico has strict gun control laws and it hasn't helped.  You changed the conversation into an economic/racist one at that point because you had no rebuttal to that point.

The easy rebuttal is having laws is one thing, enforcing them is another.  Mexico has a pisspoor record on that...

Greatmuta1025



Joined: Thu Aug 6th, 2009
Location: New Jersey USA
Posts: 344
Status: 
Offline
Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday :

TURN OFF THE NEWS

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

Last edited on Sun Dec 16th, 2012 11:34 am by Greatmuta1025

Famous Mortimer



Joined: Thu Nov 6th, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2771
Status: 
Offline
Anyone wanting to say people who believe in gun control shouldn't make political capital out of a tragedy...well, maybe tell this guy first:

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/15/gun_owners_of_america_gun_control_advocates_have_the_blood_of_little_children_on_their_hands/


silentkiller



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Flatbush, Brooklyn
Posts: 1245
Status: 
Offline
Chris OtL wrote:
Then get the fuck out of the hood, or stop allowing your community to be "the hood".


Easier said than done when a whole host of industries depends on these places existing.

Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6824
Status: 
Offline
Greatmuta1025 wrote:
Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday :

TURN OFF THE NEWS

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."


That IS brilliant and 100% spot on and should be required reading for everyone. Which means that there's no way in hell Morgan Freeman said that.

WongLee
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Fri Oct 19th, 2007
Location: Bay Shore, New York
Posts: 7236
Status: 
Offline
Married Jo wrote: Greatmuta1025 wrote:
Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday :

TURN OFF THE NEWS

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."


That IS brilliant and 100% spot on and should be required reading for everyone. Which means that there's no way in hell Morgan Freeman said that.

I disagree. Mass murder is not a sport driven by statistics. The guys who go on these rampages are completely deranged. I'm sure Lanza had no idea who the Batman guy was and the Batman guy had no idea who the Virginia Tech guy was and so on. These gunmen are at a whole different level of insane and they just want to fulfill their god-complex by having the authority of life or death over innocent people who can't defend themselves.

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
Actually Freemans viewpoint is pretty much the general consensus here, and you know that we had our fair share of shootings. And I tend to agree with the likeliness of it

beejmi
The Big Kahuna


Joined: Sat Oct 13th, 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 41973
Status: 
Offline
The media is just trying to "sell papers" (or draw traffic)

If there was a murder somewhere and the identify of the person wasn't revealed we would all scream that there was a coverup happening to protect somebody else.

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
Yes and no... the lines can blur quite a bit. To give you local examples

There was a crime recently where some southeast asian kid in Berlin I think was killed in a scuffle with Turkish hoodlums and his ethnic background was almost never spoken of. This never ever happens when some old German retiree is attacked in a subway. Angry old retirees = newspaper $$$

In a similar way, if a middleeastern guy here offs his family it is an "honor murder" (sharia influence, vendetta thinking etc.) but if a local caucasian guy does the shame it's just a "tragedy".

So I would say that there is discrimination in the legal sense.

Hymie Itsu



Joined: Mon Oct 10th, 2011
Location: Birthplace Of Dean Martin
Posts: 3174
Status: 
Offline
Reading his statement, I agree wholeheartedly about the media trying to rank these killings and find it appalling.

I was watching this and was thinking, "WTF? Is there a committee like the BCS that ranks these?" Beej is absolutely correct that the media is trying to draw traffic and make a buck off of this.

But just turning off the news isn't going to solve these problems. More responsibility needs to be used.

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
How often is Columbine brought up? How often is Kip Kinkle or Little Rock brought up? Answer is, only when the media brings them up as a comparison.

thunderbolt
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Manhattan Beach, California USA
Posts: 6205
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote: How often is Columbine brought up? How often is Kip Kinkle or Little Rock brought up? Answer is, only when the media brings them up as a comparison.

Andy Warhol said we only get 15 minutes.  That probably applies to psychotic mass murderers as well, especially in a society which treat 'celebrity' as something to be won on a game show.  Hell, the NFL adopted a policy of not showing assholes who run onto the field during games over 20 years ago; the reason being that it only encourages imitators.  Why not a similar policy with these motiveless misfits who kill just for the (apparent) sake of calling attention to themselves.

Papa Voo



Joined: Thu Jan 17th, 2008
Location: Right Outside The Burgh, USA
Posts: 9688
Status: 
Offline
I heard it on the radio getting things ready for the Steelers game, but they were saying that Mom was a gun enthusiast who sort of bought into the "end days" thinking and she wanted weapons to protect her.   I cannot find it print anywhere.  Have they stated if this was her entire stockpile or did she have more.  Sounds to me like Mom may have had some issues as well.

Greatmuta1025



Joined: Thu Aug 6th, 2009
Location: New Jersey USA
Posts: 344
Status: 
Offline
I recently read the book on the Columbine shootings and one of the things Eric Harris wrote about was how he wanted to have a bigger body count than anyone before him. A lot of younger people in our society equate having their name on the news as being famous even if it's for hurting innocent people.

beejmi
The Big Kahuna


Joined: Sat Oct 13th, 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 41973
Status: 
Offline
Hymie Itsu wrote: Reading his statement, I agree wholeheartedly about the media trying to rank these killings and find it appalling.

I was watching this and was thinking, "WTF? Is there a committee like the BCS that ranks these?" Beej is absolutely correct that the media is trying to draw traffic and make a buck off of this.

But just turning off the news isn't going to solve these problems. More responsibility needs to be used.


It sells papers and is big TV ratings. And all you're doing is reporting what is happening.

kargol



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Brum, United Kingdom
Posts: 4421
Status: 
Offline
And now it turns out dead mum was a nutjob who shouldn't have been owning a gun anyway.

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
kargol wrote: And now it turns out dead mum was a nutjob who shouldn't have been owning a gun anyway.
So stockpiling food and supplies makes someone a nutjob?


Quattro

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 3945
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote:
kargol wrote: And now it turns out dead mum was a nutjob who shouldn't have been owning a gun anyway.
So stockpiling food and supplies makes someone a nutjob?




No Mike owning a gun makes them a nutjpb in the Euro-topians view.

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
beejmi wrote: The media is just trying to "sell papers" (or draw traffic)

If there was a murder somewhere and the identify of the person wasn't revealed we would all scream that there was a coverup happening to protect somebody else.

The media is not the problem.  They are reporting information and will do so as long as people are listening, watching and reading.  The users decide how often they want to hear or read it.  Supressing information, no matter how horrific, is not in our best interest. 

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
yellowdog wrote: beejmi wrote: The media is just trying to "sell papers" (or draw traffic)

If there was a murder somewhere and the identify of the person wasn't revealed we would all scream that there was a coverup happening to protect somebody else.

The media is not the problem.  They are reporting information and will do so as long as people are listening, watching and reading.  The users decide how often they want to hear or read it.  Supressing information, no matter how horrific, is not in our best interest.
The problem is, with most local media being dominated by the national owners, the local news gets supressed big time.  NBC Channel 5, Saturday, on the 5pm news, had very little local news coverage(same at 10pm), because they were directed to cover the national news coverage of CT.  The only time local news was even mentioned, was when local politicians were asked what they feel about CT, or for sports and weather, and of course, they made sure to point out it what the weather will be in Newsport CT on Sunday.  I want local news on my local station, not national news, they have their 30 minute news show after local news for national news. 

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50335
Status: 
Offline
yellowdog wrote: beejmi wrote: The media is just trying to "sell papers" (or draw traffic)

If there was a murder somewhere and the identify of the person wasn't revealed we would all scream that there was a coverup happening to protect somebody else.

The media is not the problem.  They are reporting information and will do so as long as people are listening, watching and reading.  The users decide how often they want to hear or read it.  Supressing information, no matter how horrific, is not in our best interest. 

There's a big difference between suppressing information and sensationalizing it.  No one said this wasn't news that needed to be reported.  I posted pages ago a YouTube link that explains from a forensinc psychologist the best way for the media to cover this without creating martyrs and little fucking super-villains.

kargol



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Brum, United Kingdom
Posts: 4421
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote: kargol wrote: And now it turns out dead mum was a nutjob who shouldn't have been owning a gun anyway.
So stockpiling food and supplies makes someone a nutjob?



When it also involves stockpiling guns and ammo, yes.  When was the last time CONUS was under threat of invasion? 

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50335
Status: 
Offline
kargol wrote: mike3775 wrote: kargol wrote: And now it turns out dead mum was a nutjob who shouldn't have been owning a gun anyway.
So stockpiling food and supplies makes someone a nutjob?



When it also involves stockpiling guns and ammo, yes.  When was the last time CONUS was under threat of invasion? 

She had 5 legally registered guns according to the articles I've read.  I think that's one more than my father has, and he's just living in the country and not exactly planning for the apocalypse.  That's hardly a stockpile.  This is the type of exaggerated and inflammatory talk that makes gun control people look silly.  So let's blame the "crazy" mother now, who actually was a victim as much as everyone else.  Someone needs to be blamed and for some reason it can never be the shooter.  And was she really even stockpiling food or did she just happen to shop at Costco the day before?  If 5 guns is a stockpile, maybe a really big can of beans is too.  The problem is, there's so many irrational and hate-filled liars out there that I can't possibly take anything I hear at face value.   

Last edited on Mon Dec 17th, 2012 03:15 pm by srossi

Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6824
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote:

She had 5 legally registered guns according to the articles I've read.  I think that's one more than my father has, and he's just living in the country and not exactly planning for the apocalypse.  That's hardly a stockpile.  This is the type of exaggerated and inflammatory talk that makes gun control people look silly.  So let's blame the "crazy" mother now, who actually was a victim as much as everyone else.  Someone needs to be blamed and for some reason it can never be the shooter.  And was she really even stockpiling food or did she just happen to shop at Costco the day before?  If 5 guns is a stockpile, maybe a really big can of beans is too.  The problem is, there's so many irrational and hate-filled liars out there that I can't possibly take anything I hear at face value.   


Yep, I've got 5 guns, said it before, 2 handguns, 2 shotguns and a rifle. Haven't fired any of them in a long time and I don't even have ammunition for the shotguns. I would never consider that a "stockpile" and that I'm "hoarding" weapons.

One thing I've noticed among a lot of the people screaming "GUN CONTROL" the loudest is the vast majority of them know NOTHING about firearms...

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50335
Status: 
Offline
Still waiting for one mention in this ridiculous thread about anything having to do with the killer himself.  He had Asperger’s syndrome and a rare disorder in which he couldn't feel physical pain (which meant he had to be very careful when engaging in any activity because he could seriously hurt himself without knowing it).  The combination left him extremely isolated, socially awkward, and unable to physically or emotionally connect with others throughout his entire life, and the last couple of years he was prone to increased violent outbursts and was regressing in terms of communication skills.  He wasn't the boy next door who suddenly snapped when he found mommy's guns.  Maybe, just maybe, these things are worth at least mentioning before going on and on about less relevant things.  I now return you to your national hysteria.

Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6824
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote:
Still waiting for one mention in this ridiculous thread about anything having to do with the killer himself.  He had Asperger’s syndrome and a rare disorder in which he couldn't feel physical pain (which meant he had to be very careful when engaging in any activity because he could seriously hurt himself without knowing it).  The combination left him extremely isolated, socially awkward, and unable to physically or emotionally connect with others throughout his entire life, and the last couple of years he was prone to increased violent outbursts and was regressing in terms of communication skills.  He wasn't the boy next door who suddenly snapped when he found mommy's guns.  Maybe, just maybe, these things are worth at least mentioning before going on and on about less relevant things.  I now return you to your national hysteria.

You've brought it in this thread, props to ya...can't say there's anything I've really disagreed with you on here..

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
Nancy Lanza, whose gun collection was raided by her son Adam, then used to kill her before Friday’s massacre at Sandy Hook school, was part of the “prepper” movement, which urges readiness for social chaos by hoarding supplies and training with weapons.

She told me that she wanted to introduce them to the guns to teach them - especially Adam - a sense of responsibility

Well he sure is responsible for something

Principal_Raditch



Joined: Mon Feb 18th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 6935
Status: 
Offline
indikator wrote: Nancy Lanza, whose gun collection was raided by her son Adam, then used to kill her before Friday’s massacre at Sandy Hook school, was part of the “prepper” movement, which urges readiness for social chaos by hoarding supplies and training with weapons.

She told me that she wanted to introduce them to the guns to teach them - especially Adam - a sense of responsibility

Well he sure is responsible for something

She should have just given him a Red Ryder BB Gun. Worst he could have done was shoot his eye out.

Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6824
Status: 
Offline
Principal_Raditch wrote:
indikator wrote: Nancy Lanza, whose gun collection was raided by her son Adam, then used to kill her before Friday’s massacre at Sandy Hook school, was part of the “prepper” movement, which urges readiness for social chaos by hoarding supplies and training with weapons.

She told me that she wanted to introduce them to the guns to teach them - especially Adam - a sense of responsibility

Well he sure is responsible for something

She should have just given him a Red Ryder BB Gun. Worst he could have done was shoot his eye out.


Well, apparently this kid could "feel no pain", so even if he shot out his eye, he wouldn't have known it..

kargol



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Brum, United Kingdom
Posts: 4421
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: Still waiting for one mention in this ridiculous thread about anything having to do with the killer himself.  He had Asperger’s syndrome and a rare disorder in which he couldn't feel physical pain (which meant he had to be very careful when engaging in any activity because he could seriously hurt himself without knowing it).  The combination left him extremely isolated, socially awkward, and unable to physically or emotionally connect with others throughout his entire life, and the last couple of years he was prone to increased violent outbursts and was regressing in terms of communication skills.  He wasn't the boy next door who suddenly snapped when he found mommy's guns.  Maybe, just maybe, these things are worth at least mentioning before going on and on about less relevant things.  I now return you to your national hysteria.
And wouldn't it be sensible for mommy not to have e.g. five guns lying around for her son to use?  Indeed she actually TAUGHT him to use them.  I mean, we are talking fucking genius level intellect here, have a son that's mentally vulnerable and teach him how to kill people.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50335
Status: 
Offline
kargol wrote: srossi wrote: Still waiting for one mention in this ridiculous thread about anything having to do with the killer himself.  He had Asperger’s syndrome and a rare disorder in which he couldn't feel physical pain (which meant he had to be very careful when engaging in any activity because he could seriously hurt himself without knowing it).  The combination left him extremely isolated, socially awkward, and unable to physically or emotionally connect with others throughout his entire life, and the last couple of years he was prone to increased violent outbursts and was regressing in terms of communication skills.  He wasn't the boy next door who suddenly snapped when he found mommy's guns.  Maybe, just maybe, these things are worth at least mentioning before going on and on about less relevant things.  I now return you to your national hysteria.
And wouldn't it be sensible for mommy not to have e.g. five guns lying around for her son to use?  Indeed she actually TAUGHT him to use them.  I mean, we are talking fucking genius level intellect here, have a son that's mentally vulnerable and teach him how to kill people.

So do you just want HER not have guns or ANYONE not to have guns?  You can't wait 4 days and 11 pages to change your point using information that you didn't bother figuring out for yourself until I told you about it.  You didn't care about this family's specific situation before.  She probably should not have been teaching her socially awkward kid how to use guns, that is true, although I think she taught him before he started regressing.  So we can shift to that discussion instead of a 2nd Amendment discussion now if you feel you will fare better there, because then you can make more valid points and we won't be spinning our wheels.

gwlee7



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 5317
Status: 
Offline
Married Jo wrote:
Principal_Raditch wrote:
indikator wrote: Nancy Lanza, whose gun collection was raided by her son Adam, then used to kill her before Friday’s massacre at Sandy Hook school, was part of the “prepper” movement, which urges readiness for social chaos by hoarding supplies and training with weapons.

She told me that she wanted to introduce them to the guns to teach them - especially Adam - a sense of responsibility

Well he sure is responsible for something

She should have just given him a Red Ryder BB Gun. Worst he could have done was shoot his eye out.


Well, apparently this kid could "feel no pain", so even if he shot out his eye, he wouldn't have known it..


Had he licked the flagpole, none of this would have happened.

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
kargol wrote:
mike3775 wrote: kargol wrote: And now it turns out dead mum was a nutjob who shouldn't have been owning a gun anyway.
So stockpiling food and supplies makes someone a nutjob?



When it also involves stockpiling guns and ammo, yes.  When was the last time CONUS was under threat of invasion? 


EVERYONE, I AM A NUTJOB ACCORDING TO KARGOL. I AM LETTING YOU ALL KNOW, since I have a stockpile of guns and ammo as well.

I better go get more nuts to squirrel away

Principal_Raditch



Joined: Mon Feb 18th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 6935
Status: 
Offline
I have a gun. Now mind you it's one of those super soakers, that I just fill with piss and squirt on unsuspecting neighbors who complain.

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
Principal_Raditch wrote:
I have a gun. Now mind you it's one of those super soakers, that I just fill with piss and squirt on unsuspecting neighbors who complain.



Your a NUTJOB since you stock up on urine all the time

Principal_Raditch



Joined: Mon Feb 18th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 6935
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote: Principal_Raditch wrote:
I have a gun. Now mind you it's one of those super soakers, that I just fill with piss and squirt on unsuspecting neighbors who complain.



Your a NUTJOB since you stock up on urine all the time

I just take home urinals full of it from work, so if a neighbor says it was me, they can check the DNA and I"m safe to blame it on someone else.

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
Principal_Raditch wrote:
mike3775 wrote: Principal_Raditch wrote:
I have a gun. Now mind you it's one of those super soakers, that I just fill with piss and squirt on unsuspecting neighbors who complain.



Your a NUTJOB since you stock up on urine all the time

I just take home urinals full of it from work, so if a neighbor says it was me, they can check the DNA and I"m safe to blame it on someone else.


Ahh awesome loophole potential for the inevitable urine banning a that will be coming

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50335
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote: Principal_Raditch wrote:
mike3775 wrote: Principal_Raditch wrote:
I have a gun. Now mind you it's one of those super soakers, that I just fill with piss and squirt on unsuspecting neighbors who complain.



Your a NUTJOB since you stock up on urine all the time

I just take home urinals full of it from work, so if a neighbor says it was me, they can check the DNA and I"m safe to blame it on someone else.


Ahh awesome loophole potential for the inevitable urine banning a that will be coming

They're going to stop us from pissing?  I don't know if I can hold it forever.

kargol



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Brum, United Kingdom
Posts: 4421
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: kargol wrote: srossi wrote: Still waiting for one mention in this ridiculous thread about anything having to do with the killer himself.  He had Asperger’s syndrome and a rare disorder in which he couldn't feel physical pain (which meant he had to be very careful when engaging in any activity because he could seriously hurt himself without knowing it).  The combination left him extremely isolated, socially awkward, and unable to physically or emotionally connect with others throughout his entire life, and the last couple of years he was prone to increased violent outbursts and was regressing in terms of communication skills.  He wasn't the boy next door who suddenly snapped when he found mommy's guns.  Maybe, just maybe, these things are worth at least mentioning before going on and on about less relevant things.  I now return you to your national hysteria.
And wouldn't it be sensible for mommy not to have e.g. five guns lying around for her son to use?  Indeed she actually TAUGHT him to use them.  I mean, we are talking fucking genius level intellect here, have a son that's mentally vulnerable and teach him how to kill people.

So do you just want HER not have guns or ANYONE not to have guns?  You can't wait 4 days and 11 pages to change your point using information that you didn't bother figuring out for yourself until I told you about it.  You didn't care about this family's specific situation before.  She probably should not have been teaching her socially awkward kid how to use guns, that is true, although I think she taught him before he started regressing.  So we can shift to that discussion instead of a 2nd Amendment discussion now if you feel you will fare better there, because then you can make more valid points and we won't be spinning our wheels.

It comes back to the same point.  2nd Amendment has been consistently mis-interpreted throughout the years.  Deliberately so, probably, to support the testosterone replacement an M16 represents.  And under that amendment the right to bear arms is related to a well-regulated militia.  Letting a paranoid apocalyptic buy up a load of guns so she can teach her mentalist child how to use them is not part of a well-regulated militia.

thunderbolt
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Manhattan Beach, California USA
Posts: 6205
Status: 
Offline
kargol wrote: srossi wrote: kargol wrote: srossi wrote: Still waiting for one mention in this ridiculous thread about anything having to do with the killer himself.  He had Asperger’s syndrome and a rare disorder in which he couldn't feel physical pain (which meant he had to be very careful when engaging in any activity because he could seriously hurt himself without knowing it).  The combination left him extremely isolated, socially awkward, and unable to physically or emotionally connect with others throughout his entire life, and the last couple of years he was prone to increased violent outbursts and was regressing in terms of communication skills.  He wasn't the boy next door who suddenly snapped when he found mommy's guns.  Maybe, just maybe, these things are worth at least mentioning before going on and on about less relevant things.  I now return you to your national hysteria.
And wouldn't it be sensible for mommy not to have e.g. five guns lying around for her son to use?  Indeed she actually TAUGHT him to use them.  I mean, we are talking fucking genius level intellect here, have a son that's mentally vulnerable and teach him how to kill people.

So do you just want HER not have guns or ANYONE not to have guns?  You can't wait 4 days and 11 pages to change your point using information that you didn't bother figuring out for yourself until I told you about it.  You didn't care about this family's specific situation before.  She probably should not have been teaching her socially awkward kid how to use guns, that is true, although I think she taught him before he started regressing.  So we can shift to that discussion instead of a 2nd Amendment discussion now if you feel you will fare better there, because then you can make more valid points and we won't be spinning our wheels.

It comes back to the same point.  2nd Amendment has been consistently mis-interpreted throughout the years.  Deliberately so, probably, to support the testosterone replacement an M16 represents.  And under that amendment the right to bear arms is related to a well-regulated militia.  Letting a paranoid apocalyptic buy up a load of guns so she can teach her mentalist child how to use them is not part of a well-regulated militia.

The United States Supreme Court respectfully disagrees with your interpretation of the Second Amendment.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91911807

kargol



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Brum, United Kingdom
Posts: 4421
Status: 
Offline
They're wrong, but then again they're political appointees rather than a proper judiciary. Scalia wrote the leading judgment for Christ's sake.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50335
Status: 
Offline
kargol wrote: They're wrong, but then again they're political appointees rather than a proper judiciary. Scalia wrote the leading judgment for Christ's sake.

Good point.  I think all of our Constitutional interpretations should come from foreigners on wrestling message boards rather than the Supreme Court too.

kargol



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Brum, United Kingdom
Posts: 4421
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: kargol wrote: They're wrong, but then again they're political appointees rather than a proper judiciary. Scalia wrote the leading judgment for Christ's sake.

Good point.  I think all of our Constitutional interpretations should come from foreigners on wrestling message boards rather than the Supreme Court too.

Meh, I qualified for my position on merit, not because I was a fellow traveller with W.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50335
Status: 
Offline
kargol wrote: srossi wrote: kargol wrote: They're wrong, but then again they're political appointees rather than a proper judiciary. Scalia wrote the leading judgment for Christ's sake.

Good point.  I think all of our Constitutional interpretations should come from foreigners on wrestling message boards rather than the Supreme Court too.

Meh, I qualified for my position on merit, not because I was a fellow traveller with W.

Well W is at least a slight step up in freedoms for us than King George III.  Not much, but a little.

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote: yellowdog wrote: beejmi wrote: The media is just trying to "sell papers" (or draw traffic)

If there was a murder somewhere and the identify of the person wasn't revealed we would all scream that there was a coverup happening to protect somebody else.

The media is not the problem.  They are reporting information and will do so as long as people are listening, watching and reading.  The users decide how often they want to hear or read it.  Supressing information, no matter how horrific, is not in our best interest.
The problem is, with most local media being dominated by the national owners, the local news gets supressed big time.  NBC Channel 5, Saturday, on the 5pm news, had very little local news coverage(same at 10pm), because they were directed to cover the national news coverage of CT.  The only time local news was even mentioned, was when local politicians were asked what they feel about CT, or for sports and weather, and of course, they made sure to point out it what the weather will be in Newsport CT on Sunday.  I want local news on my local station, not national news, they have their 30 minute news show after local news for national news. 

Local TV news departments should cover local news.  Problem is they hardly do that anymore.  Weather, Sports, a murder, a fire and a feel good story at the end of the cast.  The local news isn't supressed by national owners.  It's driven by local ad buys.  It shouldn't be, but it is.

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote: yellowdog wrote: beejmi wrote: The media is just trying to "sell papers" (or draw traffic)

If there was a murder somewhere and the identify of the person wasn't revealed we would all scream that there was a coverup happening to protect somebody else.

The media is not the problem.  They are reporting information and will do so as long as people are listening, watching and reading.  The users decide how often they want to hear or read it.  Supressing information, no matter how horrific, is not in our best interest. 

There's a big difference between suppressing information and sensationalizing it.  No one said this wasn't news that needed to be reported.  I posted pages ago a YouTube link that explains from a forensinc psychologist the best way for the media to cover this without creating martyrs and little fucking super-villains.

I agree with the notion that the killer(s) should be anonymous and hopefully that might save a person or two.  The reason I say it's not the media is because saying it IS the media is simply, lazy.  The media conveys information and as an intelligent user of the media, you need to factor in who is telling you this.  Is it a national network, a biased national network, a newspaper, local tv and radio, a liberal org or a conservative one...  We all have brains that allow us to decipher the difference between good media and bad.  Who says you have to consume all the bullshit about a given story?  You don't.    The media is as powerful as you make it.  Blaming them for "sensationalizing" a story is kinda crazy when it's the public that eats this stuff up.  How do they sensationalize?  By reporting too  much info? Does it make them good journalists?  No, but there are good ones out there.  They're just harder to find.  I have an edit button I use on the electronic media when I've had enough of a particular story.  It's called the off button. 

Last edited on Mon Dec 17th, 2012 11:25 pm by yellowdog

Portalesman
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 7758
Status: 
Offline
srossi wrote:
kargol wrote: They're wrong, but then again they're political appointees rather than a proper judiciary. Scalia wrote the leading judgment for Christ's sake.

Good point.  I think all of our Constitutional interpretations should come from foreigners on wrestling message boards rather than the Supreme Court too.


He shoots!

He scores!

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
kargol wrote: srossi wrote: kargol wrote: They're wrong, but then again they're political appointees rather than a proper judiciary. Scalia wrote the leading judgment for Christ's sake.

Good point.  I think all of our Constitutional interpretations should come from foreigners on wrestling message boards rather than the Supreme Court too.

Meh, I qualified for my position on merit, not because I was a fellow traveller with W.
So going to law school, being lawyers, being judges, then federal judges, appellate judges, etc isn't merit?


Portalesman
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 7758
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote:
kargol wrote: srossi wrote: kargol wrote: They're wrong, but then again they're political appointees rather than a proper judiciary. Scalia wrote the leading judgment for Christ's sake.

Good point.  I think all of our Constitutional interpretations should come from foreigners on wrestling message boards rather than the Supreme Court too.

Meh, I qualified for my position on merit, not because I was a fellow traveller with W.
So going to law school, being lawyers, being judges, then federal judges, appellate judges, etc isn't merit?




I think he meant his wrestling message board merit. This place is by invitation only, remember? Our local Big Daddy Crabtree expert isn't here by accident.

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
Portalesman wrote: mike3775 wrote:
kargol wrote: srossi wrote: kargol wrote: They're wrong, but then again they're political appointees rather than a proper judiciary. Scalia wrote the leading judgment for Christ's sake.

Good point.  I think all of our Constitutional interpretations should come from foreigners on wrestling message boards rather than the Supreme Court too.

Meh, I qualified for my position on merit, not because I was a fellow traveller with W.
So going to law school, being lawyers, being judges, then federal judges, appellate judges, etc isn't merit?




I think he meant his wrestling message board merit. This place is by invitation only, remember? Our local Big Daddy Crabtree expert isn't here by accident.
damn and here I thought he and W were best friends and W got him an account here

Quattro

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 3945
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote:
kargol wrote: srossi wrote: kargol wrote: They're wrong, but then again they're political appointees rather than a proper judiciary. Scalia wrote the leading judgment for Christ's sake.

Good point.  I think all of our Constitutional interpretations should come from foreigners on wrestling message boards rather than the Supreme Court too.

Meh, I qualified for my position on merit, not because I was a fellow traveller with W.
So going to law school, being lawyers, being judges, then federal judges, appellate judges, etc isn't merit?




No being a Harvard Law grad means nothing. Being appointed in 86 and now the longest serving justice means nothing. He doesn't have Euro-topia wisdom.

Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6824
Status: 
Offline
Portalesman wrote:
srossi wrote:
kargol wrote: They're wrong, but then again they're political appointees rather than a proper judiciary. Scalia wrote the leading judgment for Christ's sake.

Good point.  I think all of our Constitutional interpretations should come from foreigners on wrestling message boards rather than the Supreme Court too.


He shoots!

He scores!

he's been on fire lately..lol..

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
Quattro wrote: mike3775 wrote:
kargol wrote: srossi wrote: kargol wrote: They're wrong, but then again they're political appointees rather than a proper judiciary. Scalia wrote the leading judgment for Christ's sake.

Good point.  I think all of our Constitutional interpretations should come from foreigners on wrestling message boards rather than the Supreme Court too.

Meh, I qualified for my position on merit, not because I was a fellow traveller with W.
So going to law school, being lawyers, being judges, then federal judges, appellate judges, etc isn't merit?




No being a Harvard Law grad means nothing. Being appointed in 86 and now the longest serving justice means nothing. He doesn't have Euro-topia wisdom.
Eurotopia is crumbling though.

kargol



Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
Location: Brum, United Kingdom
Posts: 4421
Status: 
Offline
Quattro wrote:
No being a Harvard Law grad means nothing. Being appointed in 86 and now the longest serving justice means nothing. He doesn't have Euro-topia wisdom.

Let's give an example directly from the ruling in Heller.

As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
Except he does not address why the US Constitution begins "We the People", when the "we" did not include women or slaves, which immediately colours his conclusion.  There's nothing in the definition of "the people" which imports an individual right; if it had done so, the framers would have said so.

And European Court judges are worse.  They're all about the powergrab. 

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
I have to ask - are doomsday preppers perfectly acceptable in the US?

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
indikator wrote: I have to ask - are doomsday preppers perfectly acceptable in the US?
no they're crazy too

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
Many of them you would never know they are preppers.  The couple I know, you would never know they are, unless they tell you, and they hate the living shit out of that Discovery show

Some of them are bat shit crazy, but many are not

thunderbolt
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Manhattan Beach, California USA
Posts: 6205
Status: 
Offline
yellowdog wrote: indikator wrote: I have to ask - are doomsday preppers perfectly acceptable in the US?
no they're crazy too

California has its' ownbreed of "Preppers"  those who are wound up for a massive earthquake.   They have stockpiled food and fresh water and many of them have guns as well.  But this makes no small amount of sense given that SoCal is inevitably going to suffer a massive quake which will make life as we know it over.

Projecting ahead for an inevitability I understand, but many of these folks strike me as actually hoping for a catastrophe which leaves the armed and fed in control.

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote: Many of them you would never know they are preppers.  The couple I know, you would never know they are, unless they tell you, and they hate the living shit out of that Discovery show

Some of them are bat shit crazy, but many are not

They probably also prepped for Y2K.  oops.

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
yellowdog wrote: mike3775 wrote: Many of them you would never know they are preppers.  The couple I know, you would never know they are, unless they tell you, and they hate the living shit out of that Discovery show

Some of them are bat shit crazy, but many are not

They probably also prepped for Y2K.  oops.
My bat shit crazy uncle did.  He even built a bomb shelter on his property for that.

Funny thing is, he isn't prepping for 12/21 at all, so I have to assume he probably has all the shit left over from Y2K 

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
mike3775 wrote: yellowdog wrote: mike3775 wrote: Many of them you would never know they are preppers.  The couple I know, you would never know they are, unless they tell you, and they hate the living shit out of that Discovery show

Some of them are bat shit crazy, but many are not

They probably also prepped for Y2K.  oops.
My bat shit crazy uncle did.  He even built a bomb shelter on his property for that.

Funny thing is, he isn't prepping for 12/21 at all, so I have to assume he probably has all the shit left over from Y2K 

everyone needs a bomb shelter even if you only use it as a Man Cave. 

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
A bomb shelter be awesome, especially if no one knows about it.  Best place to grow pot, throw a party at(no noise complaints), or just to get away from the family for a bit

lobo316



Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: Raptorville
Posts: 43719
Status: 
Offline
a spirited debate last night with Piers Morgan & Larry Pratt

 


Married Jo



Joined: Fri Dec 21st, 2007
Location: Hickory NC
Posts: 6824
Status: 
Offline
http://washingtonexaminer.com/biden-2008-if-obama-tries-to-fool-with-my-beretta-hes-got-a-problem/article/2516400#.UNH7auS6a_9

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
yellowdog wrote:
mike3775 wrote: yellowdog wrote: mike3775 wrote: Many of them you would never know they are preppers.  The couple I know, you would never know they are, unless they tell you, and they hate the living shit out of that Discovery show

Some of them are bat shit crazy, but many are not

They probably also prepped for Y2K.  oops.
My bat shit crazy uncle did.  He even built a bomb shelter on his property for that.

Funny thing is, he isn't prepping for 12/21 at all, so I have to assume he probably has all the shit left over from Y2K 

everyone needs a bomb shelter even if you only use it as a Man Cave. 


The homosexual agenda strikes again!

So I tried to find a funny picture/meme for the homosexual agenda and look what I found



:shock:

It all makes sense now!

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
indikator wrote: yellowdog wrote:
mike3775 wrote: yellowdog wrote: mike3775 wrote: Many of them you would never know they are preppers.  The couple I know, you would never know they are, unless they tell you, and they hate the living shit out of that Discovery show

Some of them are bat shit crazy, but many are not

They probably also prepped for Y2K.  oops.
My bat shit crazy uncle did.  He even built a bomb shelter on his property for that.

Funny thing is, he isn't prepping for 12/21 at all, so I have to assume he probably has all the shit left over from Y2K 

everyone needs a bomb shelter even if you only use it as a Man Cave. 


The homosexual agenda strikes again!

So I tried to find a funny picture/meme for the homosexual agenda and look what I found



:shock:

It all makes sense now!

wtf are you taliking about?

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
Man caves

Portalesman
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 7758
Status: 
Offline
yellowdog wrote:
indikator wrote: yellowdog wrote:
mike3775 wrote: yellowdog wrote: mike3775 wrote: Many of them you would never know they are preppers.  The couple I know, you would never know they are, unless they tell you, and they hate the living shit out of that Discovery show

Some of them are bat shit crazy, but many are not

They probably also prepped for Y2K.  oops.
My bat shit crazy uncle did.  He even built a bomb shelter on his property for that.

Funny thing is, he isn't prepping for 12/21 at all, so I have to assume he probably has all the shit left over from Y2K 

everyone needs a bomb shelter even if you only use it as a Man Cave. 


The homosexual agenda strikes again!

So I tried to find a funny picture/meme for the homosexual agenda and look what I found



:shock:

It all makes sense now!

wtf are you taliking about?


Jim Crockett Promotions is all about the fagits.

srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50335
Status: 
Offline
Married Jo wrote: http://washingtonexaminer.com/biden-2008-if-obama-tries-to-fool-with-my-beretta-hes-got-a-problem/article/2516400#.UNH7auS6a_9
I think it would be funny if Biden assassinates Obama.  Because if any VP were to assassinate his President, it seems pretty likely it would be Biden.

yellowdog



Joined: Fri Mar 5th, 2010
Location: New Bern, North Carolina USA
Posts: 3811
Status: 
Offline
indikator wrote: Man caves
they're not called men caves. 

mike3775



Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 17634
Status: 
Offline
Portalesman wrote: yellowdog wrote:
indikator wrote: yellowdog wrote:
mike3775 wrote: yellowdog wrote: mike3775 wrote: Many of them you would never know they are preppers.  The couple I know, you would never know they are, unless they tell you, and they hate the living shit out of that Discovery show

Some of them are bat shit crazy, but many are not

They probably also prepped for Y2K.  oops.
My bat shit crazy uncle did.  He even built a bomb shelter on his property for that.

Funny thing is, he isn't prepping for 12/21 at all, so I have to assume he probably has all the shit left over from Y2K 

everyone needs a bomb shelter even if you only use it as a Man Cave. 


The homosexual agenda strikes again!

So I tried to find a funny picture/meme for the homosexual agenda and look what I found



:shock:

It all makes sense now!

wtf are you taliking about?


Jim Crockett Promotions is all about the fagits.
Thats the first thing I thought of when I saw that

BlueThunder



Joined: Mon Jun 6th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 2195
Status: 
Offline
yellowdog wrote: indikator wrote: Man caves
they're not called men caves. 

That term may have a different meaning in the places he frequents.:D

beejmi
The Big Kahuna


Joined: Sat Oct 13th, 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 41973
Status: 
Offline
Whatever happened with the "first guy" they apprehended wearing camo pants outside the school? Completely forgotten about.


KGB

 

Joined: Wed Jul 4th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 1219
Status: 
Offline
The amount of mistakes that were made in the first couple hours of the killings are legion and well documented.  I hope this doesn't turn into yet another source of conspiricy theories.  We've all learned that initial reports and eyewitness reports can be false and/or misleading. 

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
Just stumbled over an interesting article, I thought it might be interesting for you to know about it. I did not attempt to post it to make a thread with the same old arguments, so you don't need to post replies.

Today marks the 100th anniversary of school shootings, the first one happened in Bremen, Germany (that's where Bockwinkel vs Wanz happened). The shooter was a 29 year old with a history of mental illness, a day prior his father had died and he blamed the Jesuits. Now I don't really know much about the Jesuits, apparently the Jesuits were outlawed in 1872 and there were lots of conspiracy theories about them (it was compared to the Jews and Free Masons). So the guy thinks that a school is connected to the Jesuits and decides to shoot a lot of people. He was able to kill 5 school girls (first grade).
Several more teachers, girls and boys were shot but survived.
He was able to amass 1000 bullets and several guns, two weapon shop owners even reported him to the police because of their suspicions.

So there you have it, the first reported (aka modern) school shooting in history.

khawk
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 15881
Status: 
Online
indikator wrote:  the first one happened in Bremen, Germany (that's where Bockwinkel vs Wanz happened).
:?

I assume you mean a separate match from the title changes, right?

indikator



Joined: Fri Jan 23rd, 2009
Location: Bratenwender City, Germany
Posts: 2586
Status: 
Offline
December 1981 for the CWA title in front of ~10k people. I think it marked the beginning for the big shows at the end of a tournament that gave us quite a number of neat matches

Edit: Make that a double titles match. 60 minute draw.

Last edited on Thu Jun 20th, 2013 05:41 pm by indikator

khawk
Hall Of Famer


Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 15881
Status: 
Online
indikator wrote:
December 1981 for the CWA title in front of ~10k people. I think it marked the beginning for the big shows at the end of a tournament that gave us quite a number of neat matches

Edit: Make that a double titles match. 60 minute draw.


If you ever find film of that please let me know.



UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems