abaga129
The Apprentice
Someone like him deserves the worst. I hope there is a hell just so he can burn in it for eternity.
Elementary school shooting
- Thread starter bryan_kilco
- Start date
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
You, sir, like to misinterpret. And yeah about the previous statement, Im 100% sure about it, unless specific conditions occur. It's not me, it's from, y'know, specialists in the security field.
lanky noob
Member
Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday :
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news"
Seemed like the place to put it.
And on a final note, gun control won't wipe out the problem, but it'll help, as is obvious by the fact that throughout all of europe we've had 1000's less annual deaths due to gunfire than the usa,and anyone who's pretending it won't help in the slightest is deluding themselves.
Gun control, mental health research, better home lives (cough cough licence to breed needed) and changing the news so it doesn't make everyone who does anything wrong out to be a legend. I've not seen much american news, but what I have seen of it tends to be murder, rape, celebrity, murder, useless crap about a bird that can jetski. I'm not saying don't report these things, but don't focus on them entirely for months and years on end making the perpetrators household names and forgetting the victims completely.
But i'm done arguing with modern day cowboys, I just want a cup of tea and a cigarette.
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news"
Seemed like the place to put it.
And on a final note, gun control won't wipe out the problem, but it'll help, as is obvious by the fact that throughout all of europe we've had 1000's less annual deaths due to gunfire than the usa,and anyone who's pretending it won't help in the slightest is deluding themselves.
Gun control, mental health research, better home lives (cough cough licence to breed needed) and changing the news so it doesn't make everyone who does anything wrong out to be a legend. I've not seen much american news, but what I have seen of it tends to be murder, rape, celebrity, murder, useless crap about a bird that can jetski. I'm not saying don't report these things, but don't focus on them entirely for months and years on end making the perpetrators household names and forgetting the victims completely.
But i'm done arguing with modern day cowboys, I just want a cup of tea and a cigarette.
Boerboel666
Member
- Apr 17, 2010
- 468
- 0
- 16
This is the most ridiculous example yet , fiirearms are designed for killing and no other purpose . They are ruthlessly efficient and well designed to this end . Your countries gun laws are fucked , you have a situation where it is too damn easy for disturbed young men to get their hands on weapons . The sale of military grade firearms to the general public is also fucking retarded . For the record I grew up in the UK in a household with semi automatic pistols , hunting rifles etc
I still enjoy clay pigeon shooting and have a few shotguns at home but if the law changed tomorrow I would hand them back without argument .
viralz
Member
kaomao
Member
Too sad for the children!
But I'd like to see american ammo shops selling bazooka and rocket launcher like the one in commando movie
It would be fun to watch on tv america blowing up
....kidding guys
But I'd like to see american ammo shops selling bazooka and rocket launcher like the one in commando movie
It would be fun to watch on tv america blowing up
....kidding guys
Mago
Austrian Blech Machine
If some is so gay for his guns, then he shouldn't have a problem to show an inspector the safe environment in which you keep it, or at least in which every sane person should keep it anyway. They aren't showing up to inspect your homes, but the box/safe wherever you keep your guns.
Pretty weird for me, that this seems to cause such an outrage, if it's a price to pay to have your beloved guns at home.
If my neighbor has a gun, I wan't to be 100% SURE, that it's locked in a way that it won't affect me at all. And as it seems common sense can't be counted on, and there are always idiots you can't trust, so how do YOU wanna tackle that elsewise, if I may ask?
I'm not sure how things work in the US with all the different state laws and such, but over here in Austria we also have to bring the car to an inspection every other year, to make sure that it's still in working order and doesn't turn into a weapon too, because of a fucktard who doesn't feel like behaving responsible for his own, and the lives of others.
Just FTR, I'm not an Euro-anti-gun-nazi, I actually find guns pretty interesting, altho not enough to want to possess one, and I enjoyed shooting when I was doing my military service. But if you feel like you need to have a gun at your home for whatever reason, then I wanna be sure that you are forced to keep it safe in a way that nobody else than you can get access to it, and it's gotta be inspected too.
Since someone could still force you to give away the combination for the safe/box whatever by torture or thelike, it's obviously never going to be 100% safe. And that's the problem I have with the whole topic. At least over here, I'll also admit that in the US stuff works different, because of the cowboy attitude the constitution seemed to have encouraged, intended or not.
Thanks for that, brought some
and shed some light on what kind of person I'm arguing with!
Mutant
I hate that supercow !
There is only one way to interpret "whatever" in this context.
You seem to think that there are only criminals who will stop you on the street and ask you to give them your wallet, sure if that is the cost to avoid the confrontation, then you may go for such a deal - the robber will remember how easy it was and will try to do it again.
But no, this is not the reality on this planet.
Some criminals will want to kill you for stupid reasons like for fun, for gaining reputation among his buddies, or even because neighbors dog told them to do it.
A real life example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson#Tate_murders
Yeah let them do whatever they want... if you really want to be a victim of a murder.
Or arm yourself properly and fight back for a chance to survive.
As i said earlier no one will convince anyone here - the idealistic moral code brain programming and realistic outlook on this matter are simply incompatible.
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
Dead kids on TV in America, everyone goes ape shit and tries to blame an inanimate object.
Dead kids from lack of water dying every second, watch Dexter and facebook "So, how many licks to a monkey's arse does it take to pass a peanut?"
Dead kids from lack of water dying every second, watch Dexter and facebook "So, how many licks to a monkey's arse does it take to pass a peanut?"
Boerboel666
Member
- Apr 17, 2010
- 468
- 0
- 16
You are right, it is society that is sick but knowing that's the case should it be so easy for fucked up folk to get their hands on firearms.
drew_drummer
Dancefap
MKS
Member
- May 24, 2005
- 836
- 0
- 16
Nathan Gale got the gun used to kill Dimebag from his mother as a gift. Even though she knew he had mental problems.
Mutant
I hate that supercow !
Well i live in a city with the highest crime statistics in the country so it doesn't hurt to be a little paranoic here.
Good thing that most "muggers", football hooligans and other scum are like 20(+-5) year old thin weaklings here, so all the local ones respect my superiority hehe.
But when i need to visit some other neighborhood at night... it is a whole different story (knives, metal bars etc).
Jind
Grrrr!!! (I'm a bear)
- Mar 7, 2009
- 2,542
- 0
- 36
Since we are all clearly entitled to our own opinions, I'll share some of my thoughts on the topic of gun control requirements.
First off - I do own a legally purchased, registered 9mm handgun. I have a concealed carry permit - I've had it for over 13 years now. I also have a small Marlin .22 caliber rifle from my youth that was only used for target shooting. While I have a concealed carry permit, I've never brought my gun with me anywhere other than maybe once or twice a year to a local range. Even then I transport it in a secured gun carrying safe. The handgun I own has a eight shot capacity - 7 in the clip, 1 in the chamber if one was to keep it loaded. my rifle only has a 6 shot clip. While I'm sure I could purchase higher capacity clips - I see no need. Both guns are secure in a gun safe which only I know the combination for - even my wife has no interest in knowing what it is even though a third gun in the safe is a Savage 30/30 bolt action rifle her father left to her upon his passing 8 years ago..
All that said it's pretty clear I have practiced my right to own a firearm (or in my case 3 - 2 of which are mine) under current laws. Given that I still believe we need tighter restrictions on both the ownership and acquisition of firearms. Looking back - it was too easy for me to get my carry permit, and I only have to renew it every five years. I'd have no problem if they shortened the renewal window as a method to both track ownership and individual possession. In my case I'd probably be willing to forgo my carry permit entirely as I don't use it and have already considered not renewing it when it comes up in 2 years - once again, a choice I've made as the handgun has never left my house in a concealed carry form.
I also have no problem with limiting capacity of privately owned firearms (those owned by everyday citizens). With the Supreme Courts ruling in 2008 on the District of Columbia v. Heller case, they reversed centuries of interpretation and likened the right to own guns for "hunting and defense" to the rights to free speech. This decision, which interpreted the 2nd amendments extremely nebulous wording, wording that was written when the firearms of the day were still stuffing a ball down a barrel after putting a black powder and a patch - all requiring a ramrod to pack them down, were the guns they thought of, not the essentially unlimited firepower now possessed by everyday citizens. A room full of "children" could have run from the shooter in the days the second amendment enactment (1791) before the shooter could reload. Now hundreds of rounds can be fired before a few steps can be taken. But yet the court still takes those nebulous words and give a restriction-less tact on ownership.
With my thoughts on capacity restriction, it's probably pretty clear that for the general populace, I tend to also have no issues with "assault rifle" bans. If you are one of those that believe you need to be ready for the coming revolution in which you will be fighting your government or a horde of zombies than this somewhat intelligent debate is pointless as you probably have greater "concerns" than classes full of children being gunned down.
I also would have no issues with closing every loophole that skirts all the checks that should be in place for who and who should not own a gun. Plus I'm good with the need to license and register all firearms (if you meet the requirements to own a firearm) - including those designed for hunting which in most states currently require no license/registration. My son required a learners permit and then a license to drive a car which requires registration and even insurance so that he can operate it within the bounds of the law. It's clear we put restrictions on the use of many things in our society, many of them are designed to protect the public. Hell, you can't go into a pharmacy and buy pseudofed (because it's used to manufacturer meth) without providing an ID (which is recorded) and the number of packages you purchase is limited, but you can go buy unlimited ammunition with little to nothing required other than cash on hand (but I'm sure your credit card will do).
Now I know - some will say crime will still happen and we can't prevent every situation. It's a weak argument to do nothing. We create laws to protect us all the time, even with the understanding that we can't guarantee protection. Doing nothing is not an argument just as doing something does not immediately equate to the inability to own a gun. As I said before, "gun control" is not equal to "takin' away my guns" as the NRA would like to paint it as.
Given what I've set out I have no doubts that my three firearms would remain in my possession to both hunt (if I hunted) and to defend my home (should the zombie horde come knockin' on my door).
As always, individual mileage may vary - true debate makes us better people.
First off - I do own a legally purchased, registered 9mm handgun. I have a concealed carry permit - I've had it for over 13 years now. I also have a small Marlin .22 caliber rifle from my youth that was only used for target shooting. While I have a concealed carry permit, I've never brought my gun with me anywhere other than maybe once or twice a year to a local range. Even then I transport it in a secured gun carrying safe. The handgun I own has a eight shot capacity - 7 in the clip, 1 in the chamber if one was to keep it loaded. my rifle only has a 6 shot clip. While I'm sure I could purchase higher capacity clips - I see no need. Both guns are secure in a gun safe which only I know the combination for - even my wife has no interest in knowing what it is even though a third gun in the safe is a Savage 30/30 bolt action rifle her father left to her upon his passing 8 years ago..
All that said it's pretty clear I have practiced my right to own a firearm (or in my case 3 - 2 of which are mine) under current laws. Given that I still believe we need tighter restrictions on both the ownership and acquisition of firearms. Looking back - it was too easy for me to get my carry permit, and I only have to renew it every five years. I'd have no problem if they shortened the renewal window as a method to both track ownership and individual possession. In my case I'd probably be willing to forgo my carry permit entirely as I don't use it and have already considered not renewing it when it comes up in 2 years - once again, a choice I've made as the handgun has never left my house in a concealed carry form.
I also have no problem with limiting capacity of privately owned firearms (those owned by everyday citizens). With the Supreme Courts ruling in 2008 on the District of Columbia v. Heller case, they reversed centuries of interpretation and likened the right to own guns for "hunting and defense" to the rights to free speech. This decision, which interpreted the 2nd amendments extremely nebulous wording, wording that was written when the firearms of the day were still stuffing a ball down a barrel after putting a black powder and a patch - all requiring a ramrod to pack them down, were the guns they thought of, not the essentially unlimited firepower now possessed by everyday citizens. A room full of "children" could have run from the shooter in the days the second amendment enactment (1791) before the shooter could reload. Now hundreds of rounds can be fired before a few steps can be taken. But yet the court still takes those nebulous words and give a restriction-less tact on ownership.
With my thoughts on capacity restriction, it's probably pretty clear that for the general populace, I tend to also have no issues with "assault rifle" bans. If you are one of those that believe you need to be ready for the coming revolution in which you will be fighting your government or a horde of zombies than this somewhat intelligent debate is pointless as you probably have greater "concerns" than classes full of children being gunned down.
I also would have no issues with closing every loophole that skirts all the checks that should be in place for who and who should not own a gun. Plus I'm good with the need to license and register all firearms (if you meet the requirements to own a firearm) - including those designed for hunting which in most states currently require no license/registration. My son required a learners permit and then a license to drive a car which requires registration and even insurance so that he can operate it within the bounds of the law. It's clear we put restrictions on the use of many things in our society, many of them are designed to protect the public. Hell, you can't go into a pharmacy and buy pseudofed (because it's used to manufacturer meth) without providing an ID (which is recorded) and the number of packages you purchase is limited, but you can go buy unlimited ammunition with little to nothing required other than cash on hand (but I'm sure your credit card will do).
Now I know - some will say crime will still happen and we can't prevent every situation. It's a weak argument to do nothing. We create laws to protect us all the time, even with the understanding that we can't guarantee protection. Doing nothing is not an argument just as doing something does not immediately equate to the inability to own a gun. As I said before, "gun control" is not equal to "takin' away my guns" as the NRA would like to paint it as.
Given what I've set out I have no doubts that my three firearms would remain in my possession to both hunt (if I hunted) and to defend my home (should the zombie horde come knockin' on my door).
As always, individual mileage may vary - true debate makes us better people.
MarcusGHedwig
Member
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
I don't get it, how can you use your shotguns for shooting clays if the the only purpose of those shotguns is for killing?
FWIW, I own guns. I do not personally use them for defense (what I mean by this is that I don't keep any loaded guns or load guns in my home and they are locked up).
Honestly, what I really think should happen is the USA comes down harder on gun crimes, and people that are not supposed to have them. Lets face it, the guy fallowing the rules isn't a threat anyway. I have no plan to ever go killing anyone with a gun. As far as I'm concerned there should be major penalties (and prison time) if your a convicted felon with a gun on your person or on your premises, harsher than what is already in place. IIRC if you are a convicted felon and are found in possession of a firearm the max is like 5-10 years. 5-10 years is bullshit. They dole out longer sentences for weed... which is RUTARDED.
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
Tell me why an international organization based solely on teaching how to react to armed robberies / hijacking / etc recommends what I just said ? The idea is to let the dirty work for specialists, and limit as much as possible innocent casualties. I don't see how this is even debatable, unless you watch too many hollywood movies. Unless it's objectively the only issue possible or a risk worth taking, which apparently you don't know how to evaluate.
If someone asks for your wallet with a gun in the street, by any mean, give it to him. Then call the cops 2mn later, give them his description. You lost 30 bucks, and didn't risk your life just for that. He's not gonna shoot you afterwards, he would have done already, and he clearly has a defined goal which is inherently not "to kill you". I don't see how in the world doing otherwise is intelligent. Someone who has too much of a pride for that and prefers standing against the gunner is a retard and if someone else is in the same room/stree is jeopardizing their security as well. Even if you point another gun at him, and "win" by having him turn down his and run away, you were pretty stupid for doing so in the first place. That was a bad example. If you still don't understand this, I am not gonna argue anymore on this subject.
FYI, first result I get on google from "How to deal with robbery" (the first example I have in mind with gun assault) at least on my local google search using english words :
http://www.securitymattersmag.com/security-matters-magazine-article-detail.php?id=23
Now plane hijack example (you know, 911, blablabla)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking#Dealing_with_hijackings
A general page about "robbery" (like street / ATM cash machine)
http://www.secretsofsurvival.com/survival/armed_robbery.html
An extract :
No one can always prepare for every eventuality, and you may still find yourself the sudden victim of a robbery attempt. During an armed robbery, it's most prudent to adopt the following tactics:
* do precisely as you are told, and no more;
* avoid eye contact with the robber;
* speak only when spoken to;
* tell the robber exactly what you are doing;
* make no sudden movements;
* don't activate alarms unless it is safe to do so;
* try to remain calm and control your emotions; and
* remember as many details as possible about the bandit and the incident.
Most robbers slip apprehension because of bad or faulty information from witnesses or from the crime scene. Many experts, such as those at the Australian Institute of Criminology or the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), a nonprofit organization that provides free and confidential business counseling as a community service, insist that following these procedures are some of the slickest, safest ways to ensure the police will get their man.
And so on and so on. I didn't even select my sources, I simply searched for one, and copied the link here or the extract, didn't even have to find "the one that suits my theory". You can find all the counter examples you want, and you might be right sometimes, because there is always discretion involved wether the safest course of action is to make a move or not... But those don't even make your point because they are specific examples, that's even why they are "famous" and have a wikipedia page for themselves in the first place.
If someone is obviously crazy and unstable and points at your little daughter at night in your house, this is a totally different case, you might wanna take a shot at it (pun intended) if he didn't see/hear you coming. Still doesn't make the point fully since this is not the good attitude from the first place and is only a case of absolute last possibility.
If you're suggesting than doing exactly what he wants only lets him fly away safe from the police... You're so wrong there and you're actually not helping the police. I know "here" is only my own example, but "here" if someone gets somewhere with a gun, all the policemen of the whole city are immediately starting a search and an investigation, aggressively, so the robber has to really think twice (or to be brainless btw) to make his move in the first place. Unless it happens every 5mn in your city or the druglords do the justice, in which case I would suggest you to relocate before buying an AR-15 for home because the solution to your problem is not the AR-15.
tl;dr : The argument "if you have a weapon, you're safer in case of an encounter" is invalid, unless you're someone with a brain and know how to use it and don't make it a solution. Which apparently is not one of the boxes to check/tick to obtain a firearm permit (when one is needed)
"Moral Code Brain Programming". Yeah right
EDIT : I know it's biased because it's not as easy nor black and white as it is but that picture just cracked me up
Normally it comes with "over 15 years : 450 000 deaths vs 2"
Mutant
I hate that supercow !
[edit]Nah i give up, nothing will work here...
I wish you good luck in your life and may nothing bad happen to you and your family ever.
And may you be strong enough to protect yourself and your family against all tough situations.
I wish you good luck in your life and may nothing bad happen to you and your family ever.
And may you be strong enough to protect yourself and your family against all tough situations.
