Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

Monday morning massacreFollow

QuoteReply
#77 Apr 17 2007 at 5:59 AM Rating: Default
__DEL__1592280510467
***
1,062 posts
Smashed,

Quote:
Nah, it's standard gun industry brainwashing. You can't blame soft willed weak minded people for repeating it. They believe anything they're told at least three times.


Yeah those founding fathers, who incidentally wrote the constitution, sure had a hard on for the gun industry. You know now that you mention it I'm not so sure the american revolution wasn't just a huge plot by the gun industry to create a vast new market. It all makes sense now.

It's a fact that cities that have less gun control laws have lower violent crime rates. And the cities that bring up the crime rates in those states are pre-dominately run by minorities...shall I go through the list again? DC, Va Beach, South beach, houston, dallas, la, philly, and so on. These bastions of liberalism have allowed an environment of fear to take hold. Maybe these kids shouldn't have been armed; but if any of them had not been raised by this pc ideology they would have fought their attacker rather than line up like sheep for the slaugther. H*ll 30 students throwing their texts at the guy might have done the trick.

Varus
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#78 Apr 17 2007 at 6:20 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1695601009560
Guru
*****
18,463 posts
Metastophicleas wrote:
Atomicflea wrote:
The latest NBC new update wrote:
Witnesses described him as a man in his 20s, wearing a maroon cap and a black leather jacket. A spokesman for the FBI in Washington said there was no immediate evidence to suggest that the incident was a terrorist attack, “but all avenues will be explored.”


Great, so now he'll be found to be Korean, and Bush will invade North Korea.
There ya go.
Quote:
The Virginia Tech Police Department is identifying the campus gunman as 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui, a student and native of South Korea. The university says he was a senior at the school. Yesterday's shootings ended with his suicide.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#79 Apr 17 2007 at 6:36 AM Rating: Decent
RedPhoenixxx
View User Forum
Sage
****
7,735 posts
This argument about the "Constitution" is a joke.

You guys do realise that the constitution was written over 200 years ago, in a context that has nothing to do with the situation today? That back then, there were no automatic weapons, no assualt rifles, no grenade launchers? That the threat that the UK Monarchy would come back to try to re-colonise the US was real and grave?

It has *nothing* to do with the situation today. When you guys keep banging on about teh litteral interpretation of the constitution, as though it was some Holy Text that had to be applied to the letter, you remind of those fundamentalist that think the Koran should be applied to the letter. It's exactly the same.

Seriously, could anyone today claim to be able to write a comprehensive body of law that should still be perfectly applicable in 200 years time?

Quote:
It's a fact that cities that have less gun control laws have lower violent crime rates
.

Now, I usually refrain from arguing with Achileez, since he's got the IQ of a doughnut, but has it ever occured to you that areas that have lesser gun-laws are this way because crime is less of an issue there? And that areas which have high gun-control laws have these laws because there is so much crime?

Your statement means absolutely nothing. And it certainly doesn't mean that there is a causation. Correlation does NOT automatically entail causation. in this case, the reverse can be argued just as accurately. Some cities have less crime, hence there less of a need for gun-control. Some have more crime, so it's logical they should have higher gun control. Or are you suggesting that if absolutely everyone in South Central had a gun, there would be no more gun-crime?

What the fUck is wrong with your logic? Seriously, I know 7-year olds that have more reasoning power than you.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#80 Apr 17 2007 at 7:11 AM Rating: Default
__DEL__1592280510467
***
1,062 posts
Redcommy,

Quote:
You guys do realise that the constitution was written over 200 years ago, in a context that has nothing to do with the situation today?


wow...You commy b*stards aren't even trying to hide your contempt for individuality and freedom are you? These are the days where the original intent of the constitution mean the most.

Quote:
Now, I usually refrain from arguing with Achileez, since he's got the IQ of a doughnut, but has it ever occured to you that areas that have lesser gun-laws are this way because crime is less of an issue there? And that areas which have high gun-control laws have these laws because there is so much crime?


Has it ever occured to you that the areas that have less gun control laws act as a deterence because everyone knows everyone else is armed? I know for a fact that Florida loosening it's gun control laws led to a decrease in violent crime. I know Perhaps you should take that enormous brain of yours and ponder this. Oh and you're being disingenuous comparing the products of social welfare with average citizens.

Varus




▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#81 Apr 17 2007 at 7:18 AM Rating: Decent
RedPhoenixxx
View User Forum
Sage
****
7,735 posts
achileez wrote:
You commy b*stards aren't even trying to hide your contempt for individuality and freedom are you?


You're telling me that blindly following a 200 year old text is somehow "individuality and freedom"? Individuality to not think, and freedom to be a slave to a 200 year old text? Is that what you mean?

In my book, individuality means the right to chose who you are, not what kind of deadly weapon you're gonna kill someone with. If your identity is defined by your right to carry a deadly weapon, you must really have a tiny *****.

As for "freedom", well "freedom to think for yourself" would be a good place to start. As opposed to the "freedom to obey a 200 year old text to the letter of the law like a sheep."

Quote:
I know for a fact that Florida loosening it's gun control laws led to a decrease in violent crime.


And I know for a fact you're full of Crap.

So, got any proof to back that claim, or should I just take your word for it?

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#82 Apr 17 2007 at 7:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Heh, someone on the radio this morning was going on about how this shouldn't have been a "Gun Free Zone" because the police aren't equipped to deal with some crazed guy with a gun.

My immediate thought being "And untrained nineteen year old college students with handguns are?" Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#83 Apr 17 2007 at 7:30 AM Rating: Default
__DEL__1592280510467
***
1,062 posts
Redcommy,

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html

Quote:
Ten years ago this month, a controversial "concealed- carry" law went into effect in the state of Florida. In a sharp break from the conventional wisdom of the time, that law allowed adult citizens to carry concealed firearms in public. Many people feared the law would quickly lead to disaster. Blood would literally be running in the streets as citizens shot at one another over everything from fender benders to impolite behavior. Now, 10 years later, it is safe to say that those dire predictions were completely unfounded. Indeed, the debate over concealed-carry laws now centers on the extent to which those laws can actually reduce the crime rate.

To the shock and dismay of gun control proponents, concealed-carry reform has proven to be wildly popular among state lawmakers. Since Florida launched its experiment with concealed-carry in October 1987, 23 states have enacted similar laws, with positive results. [1]

Prior to 1987, almost every state in America either prohibited the carrying of concealed handguns or permitted concealed-carry under a licensing system that granted government officials broad discretionary power over the decision to grant a permit. The key feature of the new concealed-carry laws is that the issuing authority--usually a sheriff or the chief of police--must grant the permit as soon as a citizen can satisfy specific and objective licensing criteria. It is for that reason that those reforms are often referred to as "shall-issue" concealed-carry laws.

After a brief review of the history of concealed-carry laws and handgun licensing, this study will compare and contrast the discretionary permitting system with the new, "shall-issue" licensing regime. The study will then examine and refute the most common objections that have been lodged against the right of an adult citizen to carry a handgun in public. It is the thesis of this study that citizens have the right to defend themselves against criminal attack-–and that the last thing government ought to be doing is stripping its citizens of the most effective means by which they can defend themselves. Carrying a handgun in public may not be for everyone, but it is a right that government ought to respect.


Educate yourself you commy b*stard. It's not a well armed and well trained citizenry that's the problem. It's d*ckless as*holes like yourself that don't seem to understand it's not the citizens who are the problem but the criminals. And criminals are going to find weapons regardless of what new and enlightened laws you come up with.

Varus



Edited, Apr 17th 2007 11:31am by achileez
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#84 Apr 17 2007 at 7:35 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1592347675501
Scholar
***
2,501 posts
Metastophicleas wrote:
Atomicflea wrote:
The latest NBC new update wrote:
Witnesses described him as a man in his 20s, wearing a maroon cap and a black leather jacket. A spokesman for the FBI in Washington said there was no immediate evidence to suggest that the incident was a terrorist attack, “but all avenues will be explored.”


Great, so now he'll be found to be Korean, and Bush will invade North Korea.



Shooter is from South Korea, and I found out last night that I knew two of the people that were wounded, and am sort of inlaws with another that is confirmed dead.

This story gets more tragic every hour. I have to admit that after letting my head cool off, I do agree that having students armed isn't the greatest idea. To be honest, it's what I thought two days ago, however, sitting here, worrying about friends and family that are attending that school, got to me. I think that rules should be looked at, and there should be armed guards on all of the buildings, to prevent the extremes like we saw yesterday. You can't prevent every death, certainly not by legislation, because people will always find a way around the law, but you can prevent mass murder with proper security.
▲ Page top
#85REDACTED, Posted: Apr 17 2007 at 7:45 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I have never seen a gun control advocate place a sign in their front yard saying this house is gun free. Why do you think that is?
QuoteReply
#86 Apr 17 2007 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1695601009560
Guru
*****
18,463 posts
I have to admit, this got to me:
The Washington Post, in it victim profiles, wrote:
Liviu Librescu, 76, was known for his research, but his son said he will be remembered as a hero.

The Israeli lecturer taught at Virginia Tech for 20 years and was internationally known for his work in aeronautical engineering.

"His research has enabled better aircraft, superior composite materials, and more robust aerospace structures," said Ishwar K. Puri, the head of the engineering science and mechanics department.

Librescu's son, Joe, said his father's students sent e-mails detailing how the professor saved their lives by blocking the doorway of his classroom from the approaching gunman before he was fatally shot.

How his wife must feel! I realize his students are grateful, but I'd be pissed.

Edited, Apr 17th 2007 10:47am by Atomicflea
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#87 Apr 17 2007 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1592347675501
Scholar
***
2,501 posts
I imagine that President Bush will award him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and I'm sure Pelosi will be handing out some Congressional medals as well.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#88 Apr 17 2007 at 7:55 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1695601009560
Guru
*****
18,463 posts
One more:
Quote:
Also killed at Va. Tech:

Daniel Perez Cueva, 21, a native of Peru studying international relations, according to his mother, Betty Cueva.
Ain't that a *****, to come all this way for that.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#89 Apr 17 2007 at 7:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
achileez wrote:
I have never seen a gun control advocate place a sign in their front yard saying this house is gun free. Why do you think that is?
Clashes with the rhododendron and spirea.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#90 Apr 17 2007 at 7:58 AM Rating: Decent
RedPhoenixxx
View User Forum
Sage
****
7,735 posts
Varus,

First, you say "educate yourself" and you give me a link to CATO?! Smiley: lol

You've either got a wicked sense of humour, or you're stupider than I thought.

Second, I read your pro-carrying-gun propaganda, and nowhere in there does it say that the "shall-issue" laws have reduced gun crime. All they argue is that the dire predictions of increased gun crime have not come true.

There is a huge difference between those two statements, though I'm not sure you have the intellectual capacity to understand this.

The whole analysis of this stupid article can be boiled down to this:

Quote:
after intense scrutiny of 10 years of national data, there is no rigorous comprehensive economic analysis supporting the view that shall-issue licensing laws are a danger to public safety.


That's it. Note that they don't say anywhere that there are "rigorous comprehensive economic analysis supporting the view that shall-issue licensing laws" diminish the rate of gun-crime. Only that no one has proved that it increases it, according to the standards set by CATO themselves, yet. You see the difference?

So, you link me the most partisan and biased paper possible, with many claims that are not supported by any evidence, and all it manages to say is: "It hasn't turned those states into Iraq, yet."

That is quite an achievment!!

So, you can keep showing me your one-sided propaganda that doesn't even prove the point you're arguing, all day. Smiley: rolleyes

We have criminals in Europe. Some have guns. Citizens don't. We have a much lower murder rate the the US, especially gun-related homocide. How do explain that, Einstein?

Quote:
It's not a well armed and well trained citizenry that's the problem


Well-trained?! Does walking into a shop to buy a gun constitute "training"?

Quote:
And criminals are going to find weapons regardless of what new and enlightened laws you come up with.


They're going to have a much harder time doing so if guns are illegal. Not only because *owning a gun* turns you into a criminal, but also because they are more expensive, and harder to find.

Guns are not "protection". They are not "deterrent". They are killing machines. That's it.

I obviously don't expect to change the mind of someone that sees CATO as being a reliable source of information, but even a 2-year old can see that the more guns there are, the cheaper and easier it is to get hold of them. Whether you're a "citizen" or a "criminal".

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#91 Apr 17 2007 at 8:06 AM Rating: Decent
RedPhoenixxx
View User Forum
Sage
****
7,735 posts
Another point, and then I'm going home, is escalation.

If you're determined to kill, you will kill. There is security? Shoot the security. Everyone is armed? Use a grenade. Every University is packed with army-trained students that carry an assult rifle and bullet-proof vests? Attack a primary school. Or are you advocating that teachers and kids should pack heat too?

Seriously, for once in your life *think*.

The reason why these things happen is *not* because students didn't have guns on them.

I know we're all pining for an easy and simple solution to our problems, especially when they're so overwhelming, but it's more complicated than that.

And if I were you, I'd be thinking about the cultural and economic elements in American society that causes people to do that.

It'll be much more productive than turning your country into a nation of soldiers.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#92 Apr 17 2007 at 8:10 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1591892213498
View User Forum
Scholar
***
1,212 posts
Samira wrote:
Doesn't the military screen for psychological problems before they put a gun in peoples' hands?


No, it creates psychological problems. We have a booming mental health field, despite the fact that we were all theoretically mentally sound and emotionally stable when we joined.

Fortunately for the world at large, it only puts a few guns in a few people's hands (mostly military police) under extremely controlled conditions on U.S. soil, controls all ammunition issued with mountains of paperwork, and instills an extremely high level of fear of punishment for misuse of said guns even if nobody gets hurt. Those of us who own our own guns have to follow the civilian rules off-base (or we get the wonderful double jeopardy that you guys are protected from - both civilian and military trials and punishment), and we can only bring them on-base to have them locked up in the armory until we check them back out and take them back off base.

It's amazing how well you can get people to behave when you instill them with high enough levels of guilt and fear. But the tactics the military uses on its own are...unsuitable...for use on people who actually believe they still have rights.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#93 Apr 17 2007 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1695601009560
Guru
*****
18,463 posts
Just poking my head back in here to address Samira. My sniper friend was a jolly happy kind of kid, and when they were training him to be a sniper, at one point he told me they buried him in a casket with an opening the size of his nouth under six feet and kept him there a little under a week.

He had crapped and peed himself and been fed through the hole, and when he got out he had to have four people hold him down because he had lost it so bad, he only wanted to kick ***. This is what the military cultivates.

Edited, Apr 17th 2007 11:16am by Atomicflea
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#94 Apr 17 2007 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Samira
View User Forum
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Was that the sniper kitty? Poor kitten. Smiley: frown

But what I meant was a pre-screen, not the various and byzantine ways they go about breaking people.

Apparently not. Probably not in the budget.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#95 Apr 17 2007 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1592347675501
Scholar
***
2,501 posts
Just got a call. One of wifey's best friends was killed.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#96 Apr 17 2007 at 8:28 AM Rating: Default
__DEL__1592280510467
***
1,062 posts
Redcommy,

Quote:
They're going to have a much harder time doing so if guns are illegal. Not only because *owning a gun* turns you into a criminal, but also because they are more expensive, and harder to find.


Do you have any proof to back up your absurd assertion that if guns are illegal they are going to be more difficult for criminals to obtain?

Varus
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#97 Apr 17 2007 at 8:29 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1695601009560
Guru
*****
18,463 posts
Samira wrote:
Was that the sniper kitty? Poor kitten. Smiley: frown
Never thought of it, but pretty much his personality.

Quote:
But what I meant was a pre-screen, not the various and byzantine ways they go about breaking people.

Apparently not. Probably not in the budget
Apparently, they do screen, but not for any actual illness...
Quote:
To sustain the current military force, an annual re-cruitment of approximately 200,000 enlisted personnel is necessary. There are two components of psychologi-cal screening used in considering accession of these military applicants. The first component involves as-sessing aptitude using the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. Four of the 10 Armed Services Vo-cational Aptitude Battery subtests are combined into the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score, which is a cognitive measure estimating a recruit’s intelligence capacity. The second component involves determining edu-cational achievement, specifically high school gradua-tion or an equivalent achievement level. Congress sets accession quality standards, based on a DoD attrition mathematical model, that link educational attainment, aptitude, and recruiting resources to job performance within a particular cost setting. This model is based on performance using a standard obtained by the 1990 enlisted recruit cohort during the last national engage-ment in large-scale combat.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#98 Apr 17 2007 at 8:30 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1695601009560
Guru
*****
18,463 posts
Metastophicleas wrote:
Just got a call. One of wifey's best friends was killed.
My condolences to her.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#99 Apr 17 2007 at 8:31 AM Rating: Default
__DEL__1592280510467
***
1,062 posts
Redcommy,

Quote:
If you're determined to kill, you will kill. There is security? Shoot the security. Everyone is armed? Use a grenade. Every University is packed with army-trained students that carry an assult rifle and bullet-proof vests? Attack a primary school. Or are you advocating that teachers and kids should pack heat too?


Do you have anything to support this nonsense? And every University is not packed with army-trained students totting assault rifles; you're a nut.

Varus
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#100 Apr 17 2007 at 8:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Metastophicleas wrote:
Just got a call. One of wifey's best friends was killed.


Smiley: frown Sorry to hear that.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#101 Apr 17 2007 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1592257813098
Scholar
****
5,135 posts
Metastophicleas wrote:
Just got a call. One of wifey's best friends was killed.



To bad she wasn't packing, would have saved her life most likely.

▲ Page top
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 330 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (330)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC