Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Shooting Rampage at VT

Shooting Rampage at VT (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 10:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakarʒ View Post
I'm not talking about who argues what. Both sides are arguing. Don't bitch about this being an anti-gun rally when we have pro-gun people all over this thread too.
More often than not, the anti-gun people use instances like this to push their agenda. While the pro-gun people DO put their two cents in, it's usually not their "agenda" It would be silly to be.
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 10:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
More often than not, the anti-gun people use instances like this to push their agenda. While the pro-gun people DO put their two cents in, it's usually not their "agenda" It would be silly to be.
Well, unless you're saying that's actually what's happening here, what's the point of your comment?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 10:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakarʒ View Post
We'll see if you do when I start eating all your Doritos®.
Ew I don't eat Doritos. Too much MSG.
Originally Posted by Dakarʒ View Post
Well, unless you're saying that's actually what's happening here, what's the point of your comment?
Well from the looks of it, that is what happens here yes. Something like this happens, and someone knee-jerks and blames it on America's "horrible" gun policy.
     
mac128k-1984  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 10:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by centerchannel68 View Post
So are you seriously grieving over a bunch of strangers? Seriously? Life must be pretty sad for you. Messed up stuff happens to people everyday. If I had to grieve for all of them, I doubt I'd have much time for anything else. Ever.
wow you are one cold unfeeling person.

This is an unprecedented tragedy that effected young kids. Perhaps its your youth or ignorance or not being a parent causes you to be so unfeeling but my heart goes out to those people, I mean these kids were just starting their lives and to be cut short by a madman - its senseless.

And if you lookup grief the definition is as follows:
1 obsolete : GRIEVANCE 3
2 a : deep and poignant distress caused by or as if by bereavement b : a cause of such suffering
3 a : an unfortunate outcome : DISASTER -- used chiefly in the phrase come to grief b : MISHAP,

I think this awful event certainly qualifies for #2 at least for most people.
Michael
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Well from the looks of it, that is what happens here yes. Something like this happens, and someone knee-jerks and blames it on America's "horrible" gun policy.
This thread. Is that what happened in this thread?
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 10:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakarʒ View Post
This thread. Is that what happened in this thread?
If we had better gun control this thread wouldn't have happened.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 10:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakarʒ View Post
This thread. Is that what happened in this thread?
Not sure, don't know which side "Started" it. But I know which side is the "loudest" and who usually does use such instances for their political shilling.
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 10:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Not sure, don't know which side "Started" it.
Fantastic. But regardless, you're going to chide the side you don't agree with while the other 'put their 2¢ in' just as loudly.


Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
But I know which side is the "loudest" and who usually does use such instances for their political shilling.
Hey, good for you. We're astounded.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakarʒ View Post
Fantastic. But regardless, you're going to chide the side you don't agree with while the other 'put their 2¢ in' just as loudly.
Um no. I am going to chide the side that does it the most often. And for shilly reasons.

If the anti-gun nutters wouldn't bring it up every time someone mentions a shooting, you'd stop 95% of the pro-gun nutters from going on about it.
Hey, good for you. We're astounded.
How many people you got in there posting?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:05 AM
 
The anti-gun lobby are feminised pussies.

And here's why: In the event of needing to protect his family from harm, the husband will use any means to make sure his kids (and maybe his wife too, if she doesn't nag too much and hasn't gotten too fat) are safe. That's his role. He'll lay down his life if needs be. He's dedicated because his family is his life.

Now, we can either have that bloke given the tools to protect his family, or we can deny him those tools and make him rely on the state (i.e. coppers) to protect his family.

Trouble is, to the copper, it's just a job. By no stretch of the imagination is a copper going to risk as much for his job as a husband would risk for his family.

So, by demanding that guns are banned you actually compromise your family's security. That makes you a feminised pussy.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
I am going to chide the side that does it the most often.
You enjoy your verbal masturbation then.

Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
If the anti-gun nutters wouldn't bring it up every time someone mentions a shooting, you'd stop 95% of the pro-gun nutters from going on about it.
Well then its a crying shame that the opposite happened in this thread.
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Um no. I am going to chide the side that does it the most often. And for shilly reasons.

If the anti-gun nutters wouldn't bring it up every time someone mentions a shooting, you'd stop 95% of the pro-gun nutters from going on about it.
Well duh. What pro-gun people would speak up after a shooting? Although I do seem to remember something in Bowling for Columbine about the NRA holding rallies in cities near tragedies. I don't quite remember that though.* Am I on the right track?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakarʒ View Post
You enjoy your verbal masturbation then.
Well I guess no more or less than you enjoy yours...

Not really getting why you are being so defensive, but ok.
Well then its a crying shame that the opposite happened in this thread.
That is why I said 95%.

What happened in this thread is a rarity. The guy probably thought "Shoot first before they do" As it's a common happenstance in this forum for such shilling to happen.
Originally Posted by Gossamer View Post
Well duh. What pro-gun people would speak up after a shooting?
Hey, you are preaching to the choir. Pro-Gun people rarely bring up such things when such instances happen. They DO do it from time to time. But it's not the norm like it is anti-gun people to use such horrific happenstance to further their political shilling.
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Well I guess no more or less than you enjoy yours...

Not really getting why you are being so defensive, but ok.

That is why I said 95%.
I find it amusing that you gripe about verbal masturbation and then come into a thread and post pointless generalities.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakarʒ View Post
I find it amusing that you gripe about verbal masturbation and then come into a thread and post pointless generalities.
If you think "verbal masturbation" was my gripe, I suggest you go back and re-read what I said.

     
His Dudeness
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seaford, Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:27 AM
 
And so it starts:

Shootings draw global condemnation - Massacre at Virginia Tech - MSNBC.com

How many people in this country that own guns and have never committed a crime? It's the gun's fault. The gun made him do it.
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:29 AM
 
The voices in his head made him do it.

(I'm interested to hear the background on what the hell happened in the next couple of days.
Have both shootings even been positively tied together yet?)
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by His Dudeness View Post
And so it starts:

Shootings draw global condemnation - Massacre at Virginia Tech - MSNBC.com

How many people in this country that own guns and have never committed a crime? It's the gun's fault. The gun made him do it.
I gotta question the intelligence of those that think banning guns will stop or hinder these things from happening.

Obviously laws that are already in place didn't stop the guy. Why would new laws suddenly do so?

Do they expect these people to suddenly start respecting laws?

I mean DC tried and experimented with tougher gun laws. Didn't do em any good. They changed back.
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
I always love voodoo's xenophobic/racist rants.
Is he wrong? No.

Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Feeling grief over this would be a normal reaction. Regardless if I know them or not. I find it odd that you would feel such a reaction was "sad"
No, it would not be a normal reaction. You obviously don't know what "grief" is. As Voodoo said, it's impossible to feel "grief" over somebody you don't know. Sadness, sure. Sympathy, sure. Grief? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 View Post
wow you are one cold unfeeling person.

This is an unprecedented tragedy that effected young kids. Perhaps its your youth or ignorance or not being a parent causes you to be so unfeeling but my heart goes out to those people, I mean these kids were just starting their lives and to be cut short by a madman - its senseless.

And if you lookup grief the definition is as follows:
1 obsolete : GRIEVANCE 3
2 a : deep and poignant distress caused by or as if by bereavement b : a cause of such suffering
3 a : an unfortunate outcome : DISASTER -- used chiefly in the phrase come to grief b : MISHAP,

I think this awful event certainly qualifies for #2 at least for most people.
Ah, it's always youth, or ignorance, or somesuch that doesn't apply to whomever makes the statement.

If you truly believe that this event qualifies as causing grief as per definition #2 above, then you misunderstand the definitions of the words 'deep' and 'distress'.

If you truly grieve every time you hear about something like this, you mustn't be a very happy person.

Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
The anti-gun lobby are feminised pussies.

And here's why: In the event of needing to protect his family from harm, the husband will use any means to make sure his kids (and maybe his wife too, if she doesn't nag too much and hasn't gotten too fat) are safe. That's his role. He'll lay down his life if needs be. He's dedicated because his family is his life.

Now, we can either have that bloke given the tools to protect his family, or we can deny him those tools and make him rely on the state (i.e. coppers) to protect his family.

Trouble is, to the copper, it's just a job. By no stretch of the imagination is a copper going to risk as much for his job as a husband would risk for his family.

So, by demanding that guns are banned you actually compromise your family's security. That makes you a feminised pussy.
I don't necessarily agree with this. Guns are extremely hard to obtain in Australia, and there are huge limitations imposed, to the point where if you do happen to own one, in the case of a home invasion it would be useless unless you were breaking the law by not keeping it locked away in a safe (probably carrying the same sentence as illegal arms possession anyway).

I don't own a gun, though I do plan to get one at some point (preferably soon) - instead I am currently training in martial arts, and own more knives and swords that you could poke a stick at. I don't think there's anywhere in my house where I'm more than a meter from a knife, sword, crowbar, or other equally potent weapon. I'm by no means an expert at using them, but I'd consider myself more competent with a knife than most people are with guns. More importantly, most home invaders in Australia won't have a gun - so having one potentially grants them a weapon. The same is true of a knife, but they require far more skill to be used effectively, and so are less dangerous should they change hands.

Long-winded, sorry, but my point is basically that guns aren't the only way to protect yourself.
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
I gotta question the intelligence of those that think banning guns will stop or hinder these things from happening.

Obviously laws that are already in place didn't stop the guy. Why would new laws suddenly do so?

Do they expect these people to suddenly start respecting laws?

I mean DC tried and experimented with tougher gun laws. Didn't do em any good. They changed back.
I don't think you can confuse being uninformed with being unintelligent.
     
brassplayersrock²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:40 AM
 
dakar, according to ballistic test reports, one of the guns used in the first shooting was found in the classroom
     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:42 AM
 
No, they aren't -- but while you unsheath your sword from the other side of the room, I'll drop you like a brick with my S&W.
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
brassplayersrock²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:44 AM
 
salt and water? (kidding of course)
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cipher13 View Post
Is he wrong? No.
A racist pointing out that only Black people get sickle cell is also true.
No, it would not be a normal reaction. You obviously don't know what "grief" is. As Voodoo said, it's impossible to feel "grief" over somebody you don't know. Sadness, sure. Sympathy, sure. Grief? I don't think so.
Well if you want to get into semantics arguing...

grief [greef] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. keen mental suffering or distress over affliction or loss; sharp sorrow; painful regret.

Even if I don't know ANYONE that got hurt, or their families, I can feel these emotions above that are listed. And it wouldn't be abnormal to do so.

Originally Posted by Gossamer View Post
I don't think you can confuse being uninformed with being unintelligent.
I don't think it's about being informed or not. This is just common sense.

People that break the rules now, wont suddenly start following them once new rules are put into place. The SAME PEOPLE that breaks the law of "don't murder anyone" would break the "don't own guns" law too.

I am guessing these people think that guns can be banned entirely.

Again, when "banning guns" the only people that will have them are those that do not respect the laws in the first place.

You are just taking guns of those that do respect the law.

This isn't something you have to be "informed" about. This is just using your brain.
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
No, they aren't -- but while you unsheath your sword from the other side of the room, I'll drop you like a brick with my S&W.
Come on, get real. You're in a house. Hallways, rooms, large objects everywhere. Somewhere you know like the back of your hand. You may get a shot off, sure, but it has snowball's chance of hitting me.
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
I don't think it's about being informed or not. This is just common sense.

People that break the rules now, wont suddenly start following them once new rules are put into place. The SAME PEOPLE that breaks the law of "don't murder anyone" would break the "don't own guns" law too.

I am guessing these people think that guns can be banned entirely.

Again, when "banning guns" the only people that will have them are those that do not respect the laws in the first place.

You are just taking guns of those that do respect the law.

This isn't something you have to be "informed" about. This is just using your brain.
But that's not common sense. That takes a little thought and explanation. Common sense says if you take away the guns, stuff like this won't happen, but statistics have shown that doesn't work.
     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 12:00 PM
 
Maybe I need to put a pic of my handgun license test target where I shot a smiley face on the head from 15 yards with a 9mm. 2 eyes, a nose, and a mouth with 6 rounds.

Regardless, I can fire enough shots that if I don't it you, I'll still be suppressing you enough to walk on you and hit you before you have a chance to get to me. And yes, I have the advantage of knowing my home and you don't, so that's in my favor.

Anyway, that's a different topic (not like this one stayed the course).
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
A racist pointing out that only Black people get sickle cell is also true.
No, actually. SSA is mostly associated with those of African ancestry, but nowhere near exclusively.


Well if you want to get into semantics arguing...

grief [greef] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. keen mental suffering or distress over affliction or loss; sharp sorrow; painful regret.

Even if I don't know ANYONE that got hurt, or their families, I can feel these emotions above that are listed. And it wouldn't be abnormal to do so.
Well, it's going to be just that, so it's largely pointless arguing over it. I stand by my notion that you cannot experience grief over somebody you've never met nor had any connection to. If you disagree that's fine, because you could also validly argue that black is infact white.

I don't think it's about being informed or not. This is just common sense.

People that break the rules now, wont suddenly start following them once new rules are put into place. The SAME PEOPLE that breaks the law of "don't murder anyone" would break the "don't own guns" law too.

I am guessing these people think that guns can be banned entirely.

Again, when "banning guns" the only people that will have them are those that do not respect the laws in the first place.

You are just taking guns of those that do respect the law.

This isn't something you have to be "informed" about. This is just using your brain.
I know that wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to comment anyway.

I mostly agree with you there. The problem is making it more difficult to obtain guns, however slightly, will reduce the number out there. If it's harder to get a gun, a criminal may simply say "**** it" and grab a baseball bat instead... or a knife, or whatever. This is mostly true in the case of crimes of passion, or anything in the heat of the moment.

It won't stop somebody that has been pre-meditating a gun-borne attack for weeks or months, but it may just stop some kid who got dumped the night before from going postal at his school the next day.
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
Maybe I need to put a pic of my handgun license test target where I shot a smiley face on the head from 15 yards with a 9mm. 2 eyes, a nose, and a mouth with 6 rounds.

Regardless, I can fire enough shots that if I don't it you, I'll still be suppressing you enough to walk on you and hit you before you have a chance to get to me. And yes, I have the advantage of knowing my home and you don't, so that's in my favor.

Anyway, that's a different topic (not like this one stayed the course).
You've been watching too much Lethal Weapon, I think.

The knowledge of your home will always be in your favour, and I'm speaking from the same perspective, so keep that in mind (incase you weren't, though I'm sure you were) - but while you're laying suppressive fire, I'm simply waiting for the split second when I know you'll be in my range. Anyway, your suppression fire will be limited to what, 10 rounds max if you still want a killing shot? Depending on the gun, of course.

Anyway, we can stand here measuring all day, all I was saying is that guns are not the only option.
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
Maybe I need to put a pic of my handgun license test target where I shot a smiley face on the head from 15 yards with a 9mm. 2 eyes, a nose, and a mouth with 6 rounds.

Regardless, I can fire enough shots that if I don't it you, I'll still be suppressing you enough to walk on you and hit you before you have a chance to get to me. And yes, I have the advantage of knowing my home and you don't, so that's in my favor.

Anyway, that's a different topic (not like this one stayed the course).
I think both of you are arguing from the perspective of defending your home with your weapon of choice.
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 12:09 PM
 
This was awesome. Like two 12 year-olds arguing in a mock superhero fight.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cipher13 View Post
guns are not the only option.
True. It's always best to have a morning star handy for when you run out of ammo.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 12:10 PM
 
So the bad guy killed the good guys because
the BAD GUY had a weapon,
and the good guys, following the rules didn't.

If the ROTC guys HAD GUNS,
perhaps they could have taken
that nutcase out after the bad guy got off 1 shot.
     
wolfen
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On this side of there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 12:16 PM
 
Do you seriously grieve over a bunch of strangers?
I feel and pray for the families, lovers, and friends who are left behind with the loss. I can relate to that suffering.

Whether man or woman, one of the greatest traits you can acquire in life is compassion. There isn't much difference between a stranger and a loved one, really. You'd be surprised how little you know about the people you love, and how much you could guess about people you don't know.

I think compassion is hardest for people who don't have any way of dealing with the emotions that stir up. Praying for the families of those people feels good, helps me grow in compassion, and doesn't hurt anybody else. It can help you grow stronger in your ability to deal with tough emotions -- which will be needed when someone you care about is suffering.
( Last edited by wolfen; Apr 17, 2007 at 12:27 PM. )
Do you want forgiveness or respect?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 12:23 PM
 
First, this is a real tragedy, horrible doesn’t even come close to describing it. I really feel for the family, friends, wives and children of the victims.

Gun control wont make much of a difference in a case like this. He knew and planned what he was going to do.

Allowing guns in schools might have decreased how many victim, or increased it as there would have been more bullet fire. Keeping guns off school grounds is still a better choice because you might limit how many are killed by screw balls from guys like this, but you will increase the amount of shootings from disputes between people. Instead of a fist fight some one will just pull a gun.

This kind of thing is something that will always be with us, its happened in the past, it will happen again in the future.
     
G Barnett
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a View Post
So the bad guy killed the good guys because
the BAD GUY had a weapon,
and the good guys, following the rules didn't.

If the ROTC guys HAD GUNS,
perhaps they could have taken
that nutcase out after the bad guy got off 1 shot.


My post went completely over your head, didn't it? It's too soon for this crap. It's far, far too soon for any sort of politicizing or agenda-beating or scapegoating to be going on.

It's been barely a day, yet all the vultures with their agendas and boogeymen and random speculation are gleefully circling over the mess.

Give it a freakin' week before starting in on this garbage.

That goes for the pro-gun, anti-gun, pro/anti-anything folks at this point. Show some bloody respect for the victims.
Life is like a clay pigeon -- sooner or later, someone is going to shoot you down and even if they miss you'll still wind up shattered and broken in the end.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 12:52 PM
 
Why is it the gun nuts always bring up the absurd hypothetical scenario where they would some how heroically save their family if they had a break and enter in their home? It's ridiculous. When has this ever happened in reality? Life is not a movie. If life were more like a movie, some of those students would have tackled that crazy shooter, instead everyone reacted like 'real' human beings, they were terrified.

Fact is, more guns doesn't solve the problem.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Obviously laws that are already in place didn't stop the guy. Why would new laws suddenly do so?

Do they expect these people to suddenly start respecting laws?
He didn't respect the law, but maybe gun dealers would? This guy purchased the gun just this Friday. That's one thing, but don't you think it would have been much much more difficult for him to acquire a gun illegally? You need the criminal knowledge, you need more money, and there is more chance that you will be caught in preparation for the crime when you try to get a gun illegally as when you just go and purchase one. It obviously will not make it impossible for everyone to commit crimes with guns, but it might make it difficult enough to prevent some of these tragedies. The White House study I posted above found that lower gun accessibility means less homicide and suicide. That's not worth it?
     
centerchannel68
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by His Dudeness View Post
Sort of like how the whole country grieved when President Reagan died, or when Elvis died? I'd venture to say the whole country didn't know them both, but they stilled grieved. To call grieving a mental illness is mentally insane.

There's people I would dance the jig nakked in the interstate for when they died, does that make me perfectly sane?
Only if you know them. If they're strangers, I think you need to start seeing a shrink.
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
He didn't respect the law, but maybe gun dealers would? This guy purchased the gun just this Friday. That's one thing, but don't you think it would have been much much more difficult for him to acquire a gun illegally? You need the criminal knowledge, you need more money, and there is more chance that you will be caught in preparation for the crime when you try to get a gun illegally as when you just go and purchase one. It obviously will not make it impossible for everyone to commit crimes with guns, but it might make it difficult enough to prevent some of these tragedies. The White House study I posted above found that lower gun accessibility means less homicide and suicide. That's not worth it?
In Australia, it takes a minimum of 3-5 months to get a gun from the moment you decide you want one, for reference.
     
centerchannel68
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cipher13 View Post
Grieving for somebody you don't know is indeed dumb. Sure, it sucks for them, and for their families and friends, but come on.

So I pose this question to those "grieving" for people you never knew: are you actually grieving, or do you simply think you should be? Or, even, do you want to be grieving?

Are you, in reality, feeling great sorrow? Are you truly distressed over their loss? I bet you're not.

Even if you don't answer me, I suggest you ask yourself those questions.
Great post. Too bad that some nutcases in here will ignore your advice.
     
His Dudeness
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seaford, Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 01:11 PM
 
Yeah, you're right. I'm roasting marshmallows and singing Kumbayah over their ashes right now. I'm delighted as HELL that these kids were killed. Just thrilled to death! I love seeing punk ass rich kids killed. It makes me joyous.
     
centerchannel68
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by His Dudeness View Post
Man, you guys are really heartless bastards. And besides, grieving doesn't mean bawling your eyes out and screaming and carrying on like you're on a tv talk show. Have you people no sympathy at all?
1. To me, you represent everything wrong with America. You drive an SUV, you're obsessed with sports, and you Oprah-out on tragedies and say that you actually GRIEVE over complete strangers. You then call anybody who isn't 'grieving' with you (which you actually aren't, you just think you are) a cold, heartless bastard.

2. I said it sucked. Obviously. Any tragedy is a sucky thing. I feel bad for people who were there, but I don't GRIEVE over them. Hence, I have sympathy for them, but I'm not losing any sleep over it either. Nor am I going home early, crying while driving my car, or watching talkshows while stuffing my face full of oreos while sitting in my bath robe.
     
centerchannel68
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Feeling grief over this would be a normal reaction. Regardless if I know them or not. I find it odd that you would feel such a reaction was "sad"

Not having a feeling over such a thing tends to lean toward the sociopath side Rob.

Now by saying that I am not calling you a sociopath. Not at all. But it does sound like something one would say.
As Cipher has already said, it is you weirdos who are the minority, and the abnormality. Normal, healthy people do not 'grieve' over complete strangers. I feel sympathy for them, but I'm not going to home early and cuddle with my pillow and cry myself to sleep. I'm not going to comment on what's rational for you to do, since we all know you don't really value rationality. Your life choices make you tend to lean toward the 'nutball who believes in irrational things' side.
     
His Dudeness
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seaford, Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 01:31 PM
 
See, I told ya! It all comes back to my SUV!! You're such a ****ing retard, dude! 32 innocent people were killed, and you call me the main thing wrong with America because I drive an SUV!! You ****ing kill me, man!

And so what if I love sports. I'm a big Tar Heel fan. Obviously you are not from Basketball Country. You're probably a shuffleboard fan.
     
TheWOAT
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by centerchannel68 View Post
1. To me, you represent everything wrong with America. You drive an SUV, you're obsessed with sports, and you Oprah-out on tragedies and say that you actually GRIEVE over complete strangers. You then call anybody who isn't 'grieving' with you (which you actually aren't, you just think you are) a cold, heartless bastard.

2. I said it sucked. Obviously. Any tragedy is a sucky thing. I feel bad for people who were there, but I don't GRIEVE over them. Hence, I have sympathy for them, but I'm not losing any sleep over it either. Nor am I going home early, crying while driving my car, or watching talkshows while stuffing my face full of oreos while sitting in my bath robe.
Ima hafta agree with you. It was a very sad event, but I still went to play golf yesterday afternoon. Sad, tragic event, but it didnt change my schedule.

As for the gun/violence debate, those who want to do away with guns, or keep guns, dont seem to care about the sex and violence that young children and adults are bombarded with on a daily basis.
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 01:33 PM
 
Good news. I've just received word we've been renewed for 3 more pages.
     
centerchannel68
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 View Post
wow you are one cold unfeeling person.

This is an unprecedented tragedy that effected young kids. Perhaps its your youth or ignorance or not being a parent causes you to be so unfeeling but my heart goes out to those people, I mean these kids were just starting their lives and to be cut short by a madman - its senseless.

And if you lookup grief the definition is as follows:
1 obsolete : GRIEVANCE 3
2 a : deep and poignant distress caused by or as if by bereavement b : a cause of such suffering
3 a : an unfortunate outcome : DISASTER -- used chiefly in the phrase come to grief b : MISHAP,

I think this awful event certainly qualifies for #2 at least for most people.
Sorry, if you feel DEEP and POIGNANT distress over the deaths of strangers, you suffer from a mental illness.

I'd also like to point out that although Voodoo and Cipher also share my opinions, you only attacked ME, and ignored them. His Dudeness did the same thing. So did Kevin.

Notice a trend? It's basically I say something that other people say, yet certain posters here attack me, and ignore them. Why? I think because they're unhappy with their guilt ridden lives. They feel guilt about driving SUVs, they feel guilty about their religion (then it's working!) or guilty about something else, so to counteract this guilt they attack me in order to feel better about themselves.
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by His Dudeness View Post
Yeah, you're right. I'm roasting marshmallows and singing Kumbayah over their ashes right now. I'm delighted as HELL that these kids were killed. Just thrilled to death! I love seeing punk ass rich kids killed. It makes me joyous.
You're a ****ing moron.

Has any, single person in this thread, other than you, said anything even remotely like being happy about this? No.

Get a ****ing grip and learn to read.

Originally Posted by TheWOAT View Post
Ima hafta agree with you. It was a very sad event, but I still went to play golf yesterday afternoon. Sad, tragic event, but it didnt change my schedule.

As for the gun/violence debate, those who want to do away with guns, or keep guns, dont seem to care about the sex and violence that young children and adults are bombarded with on a daily basis.
Sorry to stray off topic again... but what's wrong with being bombarded with sex? I hate this anti-sex crap going around. It is the single most natural thing in existence, and yet some people try to make it taboo. Really lame.
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2007, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by His Dudeness View Post
And so it starts:

Shootings draw global condemnation - Massacre at Virginia Tech - MSNBC.com

How many people in this country that own guns and have never committed a crime? It's the gun's fault. The gun made him do it.
I like the quote from a German editorial that in the US it's "easy to get a machine gun." Yep, it's started. And the anti-gun nuts are having a field day.

I think my wife has the right take on this issue, and I'll cruise through the previous pages to see where everyone else is on it. She points out that folks nowadays are basically taught that guns are so evil and so dangerous that they didn't have any idea what to do in the situation. None of us KNOW what we'd do, sure, but the mentality of "OMG he's got a gun" probably helped this guy kill a few more. When there's 17 of you, and one of him, the odds are good that someone will have a chance to get the guy on the floor. Maybe that happened, we'll see. But we've been conditioned by the hysterical media and Hollywood that people with guns are invulnerable.

I'd like to know if anyone fought back. If not, that says a hell of a lot about where we are today in America.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:37 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,