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 10)
Thread Tools
pooka
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by design219 View Post
This argument is so lame. If it is not the device, would it be OK for everyone to have nuclear weapons as well?
Well, yeah. If Israel has them, why shouldn't I?

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by design219 View Post
This argument is so lame. If it is not the device, would it be OK for everyone to have nuclear weapons as well?
I can't think of a situation in which someone could even remotely having a nuclear weapon, unlike a firearm.
     
design219
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 05:54 PM
 
No, we don't let people have nuclear weapons because they are lethal. Handguns are lethal, but easy to get and legal to own in the US. Handguns serve no purpose other than hurting and killing people. They should be controlled.
__________________________________________________

My stupid iPhone game: Nesen Probe, it's rather old, annoying and pointless, but it's free.
Was free. Now it's gone. Never to be seen again.
Off to join its brother and sister apps that could not
keep up with the ever updating iOS. RIP Nesen Probe.
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by design219 View Post
No, we don't let people have nuclear weapons because they are lethal. Handguns are lethal, but easy to get and legal to own in the US. Handguns serve no purpose other than hurting and killing people. They should be controlled.
Could you show me the last time a single handgun firing caused 140,000 deaths?
     
design219
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gossamer View Post
Could you show me the last time a single handgun firing caused 140,000 deaths?
At what number does death become bad.
__________________________________________________

My stupid iPhone game: Nesen Probe, it's rather old, annoying and pointless, but it's free.
Was free. Now it's gone. Never to be seen again.
Off to join its brother and sister apps that could not
keep up with the ever updating iOS. RIP Nesen Probe.
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by design219 View Post
At what number does death become bad.
120,000
     
design219
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 06:07 PM
 
Thanks for lightening the tension.

__________________________________________________

My stupid iPhone game: Nesen Probe, it's rather old, annoying and pointless, but it's free.
Was free. Now it's gone. Never to be seen again.
Off to join its brother and sister apps that could not
keep up with the ever updating iOS. RIP Nesen Probe.
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 06:16 PM
 
Eh...I can't take things too seriously. No point in needlessly stressing myself out.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by design219 View Post
This argument is so lame. If it is not the device, would it be OK for everyone to have nuclear weapons as well?
A nuclear weapon is not at all comparable to a firearm. A firearm is a mechanical device that's usually about as complex as a can opener.

Originally Posted by design219 View Post
No, we don't let people have nuclear weapons because they are lethal. Handguns are lethal, but easy to get and legal to own in the US. Handguns serve no purpose other than hurting and killing people. They should be controlled.
MY handgun IS controlled. By ME. And as I posted above, no firearm I've ever touched has ever been involved in harming anyone. On the other hand, my handgun has indeed shown a useful purpose other than killing. I put holes in paper. Over long distances. It builds concentration, physical coordination and dexterity, and quite a lot of self discipline.

The argument that something is dangerous in the wrong hands so it should be banned does not hold water. You may as well ban automobiles, which by the way were the method of inflicting deadly injury over 43,300 times in 2000, while firearms were the method in 10,801deaths that same year (ref National Safety Council, Injury Facts: 2003 Edition).

I should point out that nuclear weapons are more dangerous than just about anything because they are very hard to control. A firearm in trained hands is very controlled. Nuclear weapons are intended to produce vast amounts of destruction without selecting what or who is destroyed, while firearms are very precise devices that the user can very easily render safe, and can very easily select what or who is targeted. The whole nuclear weapons argument shows a lack of knowledge about both nuclear weapons and firearms. Fearing what one doesn't understand is natural, but curable.
( Last edited by ghporter; Apr 18, 2007 at 07:17 PM. )

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 07:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing of your own. Helps a lot!

Originally Posted by wolfen View Post
I think any university that takes state or federal money should require mental health screenings/evaluations during the summer before school. This is not just for campus safety, but could help tens of thousands of students with disorders and social problems of all kinds.
OK while that is not a bad idea, its a very expensive one.
The academic major counselors at universities are already assigned hundreds and hundreds of undergraduate students. So many students that they use cookie cutter advice to help the clueless kids wade though the plethora of available classes usually leading to them taking the wrong courses and delaying the graduation of many of them. These guys just deal with helping students through their chosen academic majors. If the university can't adequately provide services that relate to the institutions primary purpose how well would they fair with mental health issues?
This is far less complex of a job that psychological counselors would face.

You'd have to first hire far more of these psychologists so they could handle the load of students. Then you'd have to find ones to specialize even further for those kids with eating disorders, substance abuse problems, victims of rape and abuse, etc..,
By the time you hire all these people you would have more of them on staff than you would academic faculty.

Who would pay of that? The cost would get passed down to the parents and students increasing already high tuitions that many of them struggle to afford.
And that's not even talking about the inevitable law suits that would arise when someone was misdiagnosed or they injured themselves because the counselors screwed up.

Its a good idea in theory but the implementation and cost would cause all sorts of problems.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
Tiresias
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Korea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 08:15 PM
 
Cho's video is... well... hilarious.

I watched it, expecting to be chilled. But I found myself laughing.

"I did it for the children..."

It's so sad that such a nutty little twit was able to murder so many innocent people.

I think it's okay to speak as I am. After all, my reaction is the last one he was seeking.
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 08:22 PM
 
I heard that when you get a gun, you have to sign something saying you've never been committed. Which the gunman obviously lied on when he filled it out.

I find interesting that you can get a gun under the honor system.
     
design219
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
A nuclear weapon is not at all comparable to a firearm. A firearm is a mechanical device that's usually about as complex as a can opener.

MY handgun IS controlled. By ME. And as I posted above, no firearm I've ever touched has ever been involved in harming anyone. On the other hand, my handgun has indeed shown a useful purpose other than killing. I put holes in paper. Over long distances. It builds concentration, physical coordination and dexterity, and quite a lot of self discipline.

The argument that something is dangerous in the wrong hands so it should be banned does not hold water. You may as well ban automobiles, which by the way were the method of inflicting deadly injury over 43,300 times in 2000, while firearms were the method in 10,801deaths that same year (ref National Safety Council, Injury Facts: 2003 Edition).

I should point out that nuclear weapons are more dangerous than just about anything because they are very hard to control. A firearm in trained hands is very controlled. Nuclear weapons are intended to produce vast amounts of destruction without selecting what or who is destroyed, while firearms are very precise devices that the user can very easily render safe, and can very easily select what or who is targeted. The whole nuclear weapons argument shows a lack of knowledge about both nuclear weapons and firearms. Fearing what one doesn't understand is natural, but curable.
I'm glad that you are a responsible gun owner and your gun has a useful purpose...only paper has to fear you.

An automobile, on the other hand, is a very useful device, and serves humanity well. A hand gun is designed to either kill or severely hurt people. It is designed to be concealed and used at short range.

Those statistics are VERY alarming. 10,801 deaths in a year from firearms. How you can compare that to auto deaths with the millions and millions of autos on the road every single day is mind boggling. And by the way, when a death occurs in an auto, it's usually called an accident, not a homicide.

Hand guns are not precision weapons. That being said, it's not an issue of control anyway. The guy at Virginia Tech seemed to be well in control of his weapon. That's the problem.

And yes, hand guns can be rendered safe. Turn them into the police and have them run through a press.

By the way, the only nuclear weapons used were used VERY precisely.
__________________________________________________

My stupid iPhone game: Nesen Probe, it's rather old, annoying and pointless, but it's free.
Was free. Now it's gone. Never to be seen again.
Off to join its brother and sister apps that could not
keep up with the ever updating iOS. RIP Nesen Probe.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing of your own. Helps a lot!
You're welcome. Any time I can be of service, please let me know.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
sknapp351
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
The only people I've known who own handguns are somewhat mentally unstable.
Or it could be that the majority of legal handgun owners don't feel the need to wave it around in your face. I carried one in Florida for years, and very few people knew. It was the law that the weapon could not be visible when carried.

Originally Posted by design219 View Post
Hand guns are not precision weapons.
Do you really believe this? What do you consider a precision weapon?

SAm
     
monkeybrain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 09:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by His Dudeness View Post
Well, us across the pond don't like the government telling the people what they can and can not have. It's the other way around. I don't know how it works in the UK, but people tell the government what to do and not vice versa.

And what do you care? You're thousands of miles away in a country where you have to ASK the government if you can own a gun, right?
You should really try and understand that no one in the UK wants a gun. This is simply a complete non-issue in the UK and most other Western countries. Honestly, we just can't understand why so many American's are so adamant to defend this right of gun ownership. I can understand the argument that it is needed to defend your family, but this should be seen within the context of the wider gun culture: person A needs a gun because person B has a gun, B needs a gun because A might have a gun, person C needs a gun because he fears everyone else has a gun. The majority of the police in the UK (save for airports, big terrorist targets etc.) don't even carry a gun because of this reason.

I know the situation is too far gone now that actually banning guns would probably have little effect, if only the US had banned guns 30 or 40 years ago the situation wouldn't have arisen and yes, you would still have a high crime rate, but less people would die (including by accident, it's harder to accidentally stab someone).
     
doctorkeyser
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 10:36 PM
 
What I want to know is where the hell were the parents???

Having been through more years of higher-ed than I care to remember, I've seen it so many times in cases like this.

"You get A???????? All that matter is you get A!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I'm surprised nobody is really talking about this in the media.
"More seldom than not, the movies gives us exquisite sex and wholesome violence that underscores our values. Every two child did. I will." -George W. Bush, Two weeks ago at a meeting of the Economic Club of Detroit.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 11:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by SirCastor View Post
Small Arms Exports for the US in 2005 was around $533 million. at $250mil, Italy is 2nd, Russia and China are 4th and 5th respectively behind Germany.
Source: Small Arms Export Sales
IMO, Russia and China have their reputations because of the Cold War and western dramas associated with the cold war.
All of that makes plenty of difference to the folks in Africa who are being slaughtered with 30-year-old AK-47s. China and Russia have pumped more guns into the world than can be counted. I guess the US sells a lot of quality stuff to have current numbers like that. Again, check your facts. Watch some news video from the Third World some time -- they're not shooting Colts.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 11:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by design219 View Post
They should be controlled.
You mean "more controlled." They're already controlled. They're expensive, and risky, and hard to get. Unless you're a criminal or a looney, I guess.

I agree that the wider gun culture needs to be considered: Person A needs a gun because some looney Person B might grab a machete or a hammer and break in Person A's house. Policeman C will take 15-20 minutes to get there with her chalk, and Person A will therefore need the most reliable and efficient method of dealing with Person B and his or her threat to Person A and everyone else around the block.

Here's the rest of the whole gun culture context for you: If Person B thinks that anyone among Persons D, E, or F might have deadly force training and means, then Person B's drug-crazed mind just might be able to realize that even a machete is not up to snuff and defer the housebreaking until some other time. Say, after everyone's been disarmed by a bunch of anti-gun nut politicians.

As for "the folks I know who've carried guns were all a little off" argument that I've seen here -- next time you see them, shake their hand. Their willingness to carry helps make you a little safer at night.
( Last edited by finboy; Apr 18, 2007 at 11:20 PM. )
     
wolfen
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On this side of there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2007, 11:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by monkeybrain View Post
I know the situation is too far gone now that actually banning guns would probably have little effect, if only the US had banned guns 30 or 40 years ago the situation wouldn't have arisen and yes, you would still have a high crime rate, but less people would die (including by accident, it's harder to accidentally stab someone).
This did not work with alcohol. It is not working with drugs. It is highly unlikely that it would work for guns (loved and adored by people with alcohol and drugs). Or anything else. We suck at controlling markets because our country is designed to create markets and keep the flow of goods steady. We are optimized to burn resources quickly, shuffle them to point B, and ask questions later. This is why we have the hottest economy in human history.

Not to mention the 9000+ miles of unmilitarized borders and coasts.

Ironically, I'd be much more afraid in an English bar than an american bar late at night. Something about knowing that the biggest bloke in the pub probably has no fear. Meanwhile, I've met many large American men with black belts and so on who openly admit they avoid any conflict they can because someone is likely to just pull a gun on them and be done with it.

I like my drunk gorillas a little on the wary side, if you get my drift.
Do you want forgiveness or respect?
     
wolfen
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On this side of there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 12:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakarʒ View Post
I heard that when you get a gun, you have to sign something saying you've never been committed. Which the gunman obviously lied on when he filled it out.

I find interesting that you can get a gun under the honor system.
This is beyond laughable. I keep hearing radio interviews and they always stop at the same point. It goes something like:

"Wait, am I reading this right? They can just deny they were ever hospitalized?"
"Uh...yeah."
"But, doesn't it seem like if someone was disposed to murder people that this would be about the stupidest question in the world?"
"Well, you know, the background checks are just not that thorough."
"And that's because...?"
"It's the legislators' fault! Yeah, that's the ticket!"
"But doesn't your organization lobby for them to minimize impediments to owning a gun."
"Yeah but...I mean...they don't have to listen to us...and stuff like that."
"You're a f___ing moron. Get the f___ out of the studio."
Do you want forgiveness or respect?
     
Cipher13
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 01:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Um I was still wrong about what? And how was I wrong? You making a statement that has nothing to do with what I said, then later just claiming it was wrong doesn't make it so.
Can you not read? You were wrong when you said only Africans get SSA. That isn't true. If you follow the flow of the conversation you'll see I was dispelling the misinformation you were using as an example. You used it as an example even though you were WRONG about it.

Well that is funny cause I felt the feelings listed in the few definitions I looked up on the word. For those that are wanting to argue semantics. Not that I had to look the word up. But this has pretty much turned into a semantics "you don't know the meaning of the word, I DO" silly chest pounding.

So for you to tell me no, no I didn't have those feelings is a bit absurd. When indeed I did. And others here have said they too have.

Ah here comes the condescending pretension. I know what grief is I assure you.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they lack understanding. That is kinda conceited to think as much.
No... you obviously don't know what it means or you'd be on my side.

I'm done with you. Our discussion has been played out to its fullest. Let the readers decide who they want to agree with from here... and if they agree with you, they're wrong too.

By the way, it's hard not to be conceited with so many idiots hanging around.
     
Cipher13
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 02:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
There are nutcases in every country. The difference in the US is the ease and speed with which you can buy a gun and the types of guns you can buy without any qualification. The signs seem to have all been there for this guy. His roommates had called the cops on him, the stalked girls had called the cops, his teacher had removed him from class and called the cops, the cops had had him committed (well, they "referred him to psychological counselling in an institution), he was suspected of arson, potentially of bomb threats too ... And yet, he was able to walk into a gun shop and walk out 5minutes later with a 9mm and ammo. No background check, no licence required, no one even asked him what he was planning to do with it. You don't have to ban guns completely to control gun violence. But unless you're okay with this sort of thing happening 1.9 times a year, you need better gun control than Virginia has in place.

Other countries have less of a problem because it's more difficult for a nutcase to get a gun not because they have fewer nutcases.
Everyone should read this post again.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 04:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by monkeybrain View Post
You should really try and understand that no one in the UK wants a gun. This is simply a complete non-issue in the UK and most other Western countries. Honestly, we just can't understand why so many American's are so adamant to defend this right of gun ownership.
This is BS. I'm in the UK and I want a gun (which renders your first statement completely invalid). And I understand why the Americans defend their right of gun ownership.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 05:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
This is BS. I'm in the UK and I want a gun .
Looks like the law in the UK is working perfectly.
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 05:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Gossamer View Post
120,000
9/11 is what for you then?

General unrelated questions I wanted to ask since quite some time:
Who manufactures silencers and for what (legal) purpose???
Can you buy them in a shop in the US or are they illegal?
***
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 05:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
Ted Kenedy's car has killed more people than any firearm I've ever touched.
Virginia seems to recognise the inherent danger of cars which is perhaps why you need a licence to drive a car in Virginia. You don't need a licence to buy or use a handgun.
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
OK while that is not a bad idea, its a very expensive one.
...
Its a good idea in theory but the implementation and cost would cause all sorts of problems.
Why is cost a problem? In countries where there is a licensing system for guns, the cost of the system is passed on to the gun owner in the form of a licence fee. The fee pays the administrators who run checks on the person applying for the gun. The checks involve things like consulting with the local Police, checking what other weapons the applicant owns, requesting information from the applicant and verifying it (and refusing the licence if he lies), perhaps checking with his physician.

A responsible gun owner wouldn't have any problem with this extra cost. If he's prepared to spend money buying a gun to protect his family, surely he's prepared to spend money to prevent guns getting into the hands of an unqualified person? People recognise that putting a motor vehicle in an unqualified person's hands is dangerous and so they're prepared to pay for a system that screens drivers. In fact, they pay car licences every year part of the proceeds of which go to paying for the accidents cars cause. Why not for guns? A gun licensing system doesn't have to be a very complicated system and it doesn't have to cost the government a cent. In fact, government should be making a small profit off gun licensing that goes to emergency services to deal with gun accidents and shootings. We do this with cigarettes and alcohol and cars and all kinds of things but for some reason, in the US, guns are untouchable. It doesn't make sense.
     
His Dudeness
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seaford, Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 07:13 AM
 
Since when is the US Federal government a For Profit Agency?
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 07:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by monkeybrain
You should really try and understand that no one in the UK wants a gun. This is simply a complete non-issue in the UK and most other Western countries. Honestly, we just can't understand why so many American's are so adamant to defend this right of gun ownership. I can understand the argument that it is needed to defend your family, but this should be seen within the context of the wider gun culture: person A needs a gun because person B has a gun, B needs a gun because A might have a gun, person C needs a gun because he fears everyone else has a gun. The majority of the police in the UK (save for airports, big terrorist targets etc.) don't even carry a gun because of this reason.
Eh?

About thirty years ago, coppers didn't carry guns. If coppers don't carry guns, there's little incentive for normal citizens to carry guns.

Today, there are plenty of coppers who walk around with bullet proof vests and fully automatic weapons, plus plainclothes piggies shooting dead innocent people. Except for some incredibly naïve sheeple who actually believe that this protects them from the Evil Terrorists, a lot of rational individuals are justifiably intimidated and angered that a once free country is being turned into a police state.

I no longer recognise my own country.

The reason the Yanks have their 2nd Amendment is to prevent exactly this kind of shit from happening.

Liberty-loving people not only need to arm themselves, they need to upgrade their weaponry to something that can compete with what the pigs and military have available to them.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 09:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie View Post
So you're saying it's just as easy to commit mass murder with a knife?
You just took a post I made, and spun it into a argument I wasn't making.

Congratulations.

Why people do this is beyond me.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 09:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Ted Kenedy's car has killed more people than any firearm I've ever touched. It is simply NOT the device that is the problem, but the HUMAN BEING who uses it. People have committed murder with axes, hammers, nailguns, icepicks, trucks, bricks, you name it. It's NOT ABOUT GUNS. It's about PEOPLE. In the case of the VT shooter, it's about someone who OBVIOUSLY had mental problems but was never treated or even properly evaluated.

The people YOU know who own handguns are far from representative of the population that owns handguns.

Two words: Jeffrey Dahmer. yes, it IS possible to commit mass murder with a knife.
Winner.
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 10:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by design219 View Post
This argument is so lame. If it is not the device, would it be OK for everyone to have nuclear weapons as well?

But.."EVERYONE" would STILL include nutcases right??


Do nukes just target and launch themselves without HUMAN INTERVENTION??

Ya see, IT IS THE PEOPLE who need to be put away as nutcases, that are the current problem.

1st, grab all the nutcases with disturbing BS, loads of guns etc on every website, and send them to shrinks to be evaluated.
2nd create a database of those nutcases, available to the cops and gun dealers.
3rd, on the list, NO GUN!!!
4th badly disturbed - never go out again!
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 10:26 AM
 
You can kill lots of people just dumping poison into the water supply. No weapon, just a chemical.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 10:27 AM
 
OK first thing I am going to do is skip all the pretentious chest pounding cipher is so known for spewing

Originally Posted by Cipher13 View Post
Can you not read?
No... you obviously don't know what it means or you'd be on my side.
I'm done with you. Our discussion has been played out to its fullest. Let the readers decide who they want to agree with from here... and if they agree with you, they're wrong too.
By the way, it's hard not to be conceited with so many idiots hanging around.
Ok, now we are done with that.
You were wrong when you said only Africans get SSA. That isn't true. If you follow the flow of the conversation you'll see I was dispelling the misinformation you were using as an example. You used it as an example even though you were WRONG about it.
Cipher what you didn't understand on purpose or not was, your point was irrelevant to my point.

Just because something is right or wrong, doesn't suddenly make someone saying it, or the reason they say it wrong.

It would be like someone explaining a math problem to you and saying "Say you have 8 oranges" and you attempt to argue with them that you only have 4 oranges in your fridge, not 8!!!111 when it doesn't matter.

Dig?
( Last edited by Kevin; Apr 19, 2007 at 10:36 AM. )
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
Eh?

About thirty years ago, coppers didn't carry guns. If coppers don't carry guns, there's little incentive for normal citizens to carry guns.

Today, there are plenty of coppers who walk around with bullet proof vests and fully automatic weapons, plus plainclothes piggies shooting dead innocent people. Except for some incredibly naïve sheeple who actually believe that this protects them from the Evil Terrorists, a lot of rational individuals are justifiably intimidated and angered that a once free country is being turned into a police state.

I no longer recognise my own country.

The reason the Yanks have their 2nd Amendment is to prevent exactly this kind of shit from happening.

Liberty-loving people not only need to arm themselves, they need to upgrade their weaponry to something that can compete with what the pigs and military have available to them.
why don't you get some stats on police shootings in the UK and the number of armed police officers. And evidence of widespread deployment of fully automatic weapons.

or you could look here:

Shootings by police officers in England and Wales since 1985

btw, hardly any UK police carry automatic firearms, most are semi, ie you pull the trigger for each shot. One of the largest areas of resistance to police being routinely armed is from the police themselves.

One more thing, UK coppers carrying guns isn't a new thing - they started off that way and only made it a more formal arrangment in the 1930s. Then in the 60s after some coppers were killed, they started setting up specialist teams.
( Last edited by moodymonster; Apr 19, 2007 at 11:48 AM. )
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 11:45 AM
 
"The silicone chip inside her head gets switched to overload." You guys know the story of that Boomtown Rats song "I don't like Mondays"? A 16 year-old nutcase by the name of Brenda Ann Spencer with a gun in 1979 firing on the school across the road. Why?
"I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day ... I had no reason for it, and it was just a lot of fun ... It was just like shooting ducks in a pond, [and the children] looked like a herd of cows standing around, it was really easy pickings."
The VT killings were committed on a Monday too. Wonder what it is about loons and Mondays. Either way, it's not like the US hasn't had decades of notice that they need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of crazy folk. Stand up for your right, as a sane, responsible individual, to own a gun if you like. But so far I haven't seen a single valid argument as to why crazy people should be allowed guns. And there's only one way to prevent that and it's called licensing.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 11:51 AM
 
All i gotta say is, im sick of seeing pictures of this dude on news websites (like CNN) pointing a gun at the camera (the viewer). it seriously freaks me out.
     
His Dudeness
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seaford, Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 11:57 AM
 
What freaks me out is how someone can kill two people and then calmly drive to the post office and mail something to NBC like he did. Nice and calm like, like it was a Sunday after church, you know?
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 12:04 PM
 
at first I though he has obvious mental issues, but thinking about it, he seems to be quite cold and calculating + he has a history. I mean, 90% of his class didn't turn up because they were worried about what he might do. People were concerned by the content of his 'creative' writings, he took pics of his class'mates'.

I don't know, just sad, very sad.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by moodymonster View Post
at first I though he has obvious mental issues,
I still think he does. And judging by his manifesto and his plays, they appear related to some kind of abuse by a teacher
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by moodymonster View Post
btw, hardly any UK police carry automatic firearms, most are semi, ie you pull the trigger for each shot. One of the largest areas of resistance to police being routinely armed is from the police themselves.
Really? I thought the MP5 was switchable?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 12:49 PM
 
different fire selectors - the UK police typically use the SF trigger group - safe or single fire.

HKPRO: HK Trigger Groups
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
I still think he does. And judging by his manifesto and his plays, they appear related to some kind of abuse by a teacher
He did. We may never know where his issues came from.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by badidea View Post
9/11 is what for you then?

General unrelated questions I wanted to ask since quite some time:
Who manufactures silencers and for what (legal) purpose???
Can you buy them in a shop in the US or are they illegal?
Silencers are illegal for civilians in the US. Besides, they mess up your stopping power and accuracy, so they're not really useful unless done very carefully.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 02:56 PM
 
Found a poem that talks about how the focus shouldn't be on the killer, but on the Holocaust survivor professor...

I think the point is that the constant attention that the killer gets is just going to inspire copycat killers.

Tears of Spring
(Written April 19, 2007)

Arms raised high in so-called victory
In pixilated glory is displayed
A gaping hole now replacing protection
Of a twisted maze of reckless hate

A tiled road littered with tears
Untested gates torn down by rage
Only a few red stains of innocence
Saved by a survivor without fame

A world watching, waiting
Not in sympathy, but curiosity
A focus on bringing forth again
Out of a mistake, mistakes are made

The answer, clear, is blurred away
By those with ties and microphones
The people, hoping, waiting, wishing
But without the will to fight the tide

For will without wisdom is in vain
A man of years could tell us so
If not swept away by the macabre
The focus of those who will cry again

Why set the empty gaze on wrath
And assure the stage is set once more
Why not find the love that saved a few
That was taken twice in a second’s time
Through the solid, then golden doors
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 03:03 PM
 
I agree, it would be very good if more focus was put onto Liviu Librescu's actions that day.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 03:44 PM
 
After this little gem of jouralism, any credibility Fox News had is long gone.*

As for the Monday thing, most people hate Monday for one reason or another. One of the most prevailent(sp?) ones is that it is the beginning of the work/school week.

*Sorry if the link was posted already. The hampstor doesn't like my work PC much and can take quite some time to load pages.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2007, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
The argument that something is dangerous in the wrong hands so it should be banned does not hold water. You may as well ban automobiles, which by the way were the method of inflicting deadly injury over 43,300 times in 2000, while firearms were the method in 10,801deaths that same year (ref National Safety Council, Injury Facts: 2003 Edition).
These statistics show about the opposite of what I think you wanted them to show. Are they accurate? (Did you double-check?) That's amazing that there are so many deaths from firearms.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 12:30 AM
 
I'm going to make a speculative comparison which some may think is insensitive, but which I still think needs to be considered.

I'm a university student at a school similar to Virginia Tech. Suppose I had been among those students senselessly murdered by Cho. I'm a good person, I don't think I would have deserved to die, I have friends and family who would cry because I was killed. But I'm also careless, I cynically manipulate my workload to make sure I get good grades, I drink and party a lot, and I haven't been to church in ages.

Now, consider one of the nearly 200 innocent people who were killed in those Baghdad blasts around the time of the VT shootings. Consider how one of the women killed was very likely a god fearing person, who took the trouble all her life to abide by god's law and to make her husband happy, who never wanted excess or luxury in her life, who wanted to raise a family and watch her children grow like any mother. She and dozens of others die in explosions that day, and the West hardly bats an eye.

With VT the media instantly goes into overdrive. Suddenly everyone "cares" about the victims, everyone wants to know "why", people want to come up with all sorts of reductive explanations for it (it was Bush's fault, it was videogames, it was society, etc). People who don't know anyone in VT and who live hundreds of miles away feel as though they share in the grief of these events.

If you're going to grieve for people on the TV who you don't even know, why pick and choose? Should American TV viewers not feel the slightest bit sad for all the innocent people dying in Iraq? This should arouse not only grief but guilt too, as these deaths are directly connected with the policies of elected officials.

My main point in this is that death should be treated with dignity. It is a private matter for those involved, and the media should not manipulate the nation's feelings by turning this affair into a circus, with constant needless updates and idiotic speculation.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 01:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
My main point in this is that death should be treated with dignity. It is a private matter for those involved, and the media should not manipulate the nation's feelings by turning this affair into a circus, with constant needless updates and idiotic speculation.
That's a good point, but, if we were really honest with ourselves, we'd admit that we feast on this sensationalism. The media only gives us what we want. This thread is an excellent example; 500 replies with all kinds of speculations and guessing about what caused this, and everyone's sure-fire solutions and opinions on gun control, etc. We're a nation that feeds off this stuff. The National Enquirer is one of the best selling papers in the country, Jerry Springer has been broadcasting his crap for years, we want to know more about Anna Nicole Smith than we do about the horrible treatment and conditions that our soldiers receive when they come back, American Idol is one of the most popular shows on TV, because we love to watch people make fools of themselves, and on and on it goes. Good grief, there are even people arguing over nuclear weapons in this thread! Where's the national outpouring of grief for the families of the 30 military persons that were killed in Iraq in the last ten days? This certainly isn't to minimize what happened at VT, or that we shouldn't feel grief for the victims and their families, because it was indeed heinous and a tragedy, but overall, we've got our priorities sincerely screwed up, and we're going to pay the fiddler some day.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
 
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 09:14 AM.
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.,