TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- *Updated* Shooting in Virginia school
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »

I had to lol at finding that Iraq and George Bush ended up in this thread. Can you terrorist lovers just create a 'George W. Bush is the devil and responsible for everything bad in the world' thread and go in there and circle jerk yourselves and quit polluting the other threads with that drivel?

I've said it once and I'll say it again, the liberal knee-jerk reaction to something like this is always 'we have to have more gun control, lets pass some laws'.

The problem with this is that you are assuming that criminals follow laws, which by definition, they do not. And when you pass a law and make something illegal, it makes it impossible to get right? How long have drugs been illegal in this country and how hard is it for you to get them? All it does is create a black market for the item among criminals. People who want to get a gun for something will still have no trouble getting them.

I understand that is is hard for liberals to think rationally, but please try hard here. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens will not stop crimes.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX I had to lol at finding that Iraq and George Bush ended up in this thread.

i had to lol that Q brought up dems before anyone mentioned bush.

the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. yes, there's going to be backlash from the gun control lobby, but the fact that the shooter used a 9mm and a 22 cal. is going to make it hard to rekindle the assault weapon ban. If anything, the university is going to receive the flack for not responding quickly enough (utter bullshit, but wait and see).

shit like this is bound to happen, and if the student didn't have access to guns, he would have just strapped dynamite on himself or utilized some other insane mechanism of destruction. it's a shame that people like that don't just jump of bridges and have to take innocent lives with them for whatever demented reason.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Can you terrorist lovers just create a 'George W. Bush is the devil and responsible for everything bad in the world' thread and go in there and circle jerk yourselves and quit polluting the other threads with that drivel?

my new sig!!! thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag shit like this is bound to happen, and if the student didn't have access to guns, he would have just strapped dynamite on himself or utilized some other insane mechanism of destruction. it's a shame that people like that don't just jump of bridges and have to take innocent lives with them for whatever demented reason.

Exactly. Those who wish to commit crimes like this will find a way. If he had no gun he could have killed as many or more people by hopping in a truck and driving around a busy campus full of pedestrians running people down. Maybe we better ban cars too while we are at it.

So, since it's generally agreed upon (or not) that gun control cannot stop the criminals and the people who just lose their shit and shoot up a school like this guy did, what would be the reason why you hear so many stories about some dude who snapped and went on some rampage in the US?

Be it wielding a gun, car, knife, box cutter, whatever.

I know the statistics that were posted earlier in this thread don't sound as bad when listed on a per-capita basis, but shit, is it wrong to say that you hear more stories like this out of the US than other parts of the world?

I'm just asking rhetorical questions here, not trying to bash the US.

I know a lot of it has to do with gang violence perpetuated by illegal alien gangs and other pieces of shit like that (LazFX's story as example ). But what keeps driving these otherwise semi-normal people to go postal and think it's a bright fucking idea to start killing random people?

I guess for me, it's somewhat easier to have some understanding of where someone is coming from if they have a beef with someone (ex-wife, current wife's boyfriend, dude who cut you off in traffic, other gangs etc ad nauseum) but when there's no connection between the killer and the victims, it's even harder to try and comprehend.

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse So, since it's generally agreed upon (or not) that gun control cannot stop the criminals and the people who just lose their shit and shoot up a school like this guy did, what would be the reason why you hear so many stories about some dude who snapped and went on some rampage in the US? Be it wielding a gun, car, knife, box cutter, whatever. I know the statistics that were posted earlier in this thread don't sound as bad when listed on a per-capita basis, but shit, is it wrong to say that you hear more stories like this out of the US than other parts of the world? I'm just asking rhetorical questions here, not trying to bash the US. I know a lot of it has to do with gang violence perpetuated by illegal alien gangs and other pieces of shit like that (LazFX's story as example ). But what keeps driving these otherwise semi-normal people to go postal and think it's a bright fucking idea to start killing random people? I guess for me, it's somewhat easier to have some understanding of where someone is coming from if they have a beef with someone (ex-wife, current wife's boyfriend, dude who cut you off in traffic, other gangs etc ad nauseum) but when there's no connection between the killer and the victims, it's even harder to try and comprehend.

two words: rap music



[/stupid joke]

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse I know the statistics that were posted earlier in this thread don't sound as bad when listed on a per-capita basis, but shit, is it wrong to say that you hear more stories like this out of the US than other parts of the world?

World Population Statistics
Rank Country Population
1. China 1,313,973,713
2. India 1,095,351,995
3. United States 298,444,215

Two factors:
1. Population
2. The media

The US has the third largest population in the world. More people = more wackjobs.

Also, the amount of news media in the US enormous, and there is no government control. Anything that happens in any little shit town is all of the sudden broadcast all over the national news.

In China obviously the government has some control over what gets out and what doesn't but the real difference is that in China and India every village of 1000 people doesn't have three local news channels plus two or three newspapers ready to broadcast anything that happens up to their national affiliate like we have here in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX If he had no gun he could have killed as many or more people by hopping in a truck and driving around a busy campus full of pedestrians running people down. Maybe we better ban cars too while we are at it.

well, that happened in chapel hill last year. there wasn't an executive order to lower the flags then.

XaNax, please be warned, I'm not in a particularly cheery mood.

So here we go:

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX I had to lol at finding that Iraq and George Bush ended up in this thread. Can you terrorist lovers just create a 'George W. Bush is the devil and responsible for everything bad in the world' thread and go in there and circle jerk yourselves and quit polluting the other threads with that drivel?

Can you jump out of your kindergarden narrow mindframe for one moment and try to comprehend that someone such as myself is attempting to put this issue on a bigger scale other than "OH MY GOD, RUN FOR THE HILLS!!! WE HAVE MADMEN EVERYWHERE!!!! SHOOT 'EM DOWN WITH YOUR OWN GUNS!!!! BLOW 'EM UP!!!! GET OUR YOUR PERSONALLY-OWNED BAZOOKAS!!!

Or on the flip-side:

"OH MY GOD!!! A GUN!!!! SOMEONE'S GOTTA PROTECT ME FROM ALL THE GUNS!!!! IT COULD BE ME THAT'S GONNA GET SHOT BY SOME RANDOM MADMAN!!!!! PROTECT ME!!!! BAN ALL GUNS AND LET'S FUCKING USE SLINGSHOTS FROM HERE ON!!!!! THAT WILL SAVE US ALL!!!!!"

You see, if you bothered to actually read what was written rather than skim any commentary that you seemingly don't agree with, you may have noticed that I told Shakka this:

quote:

My point was not to be tangential to the topic at hand. Rather, I was trying to point out that I don't think gun control laws is the stronger issue to bring up that points towards mass murders right now, and I used the Iraq War and the daily mass killings taking place there for a larger context. http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...66&pagenumber=9

Which if you find that comment invalid, by all means point that out rather than spew off another useless "LIBRULS HATE BUSH" drivel that completely and deliberately undermines the context that I was referring to here.

And if you've got a point to make in regards to anyone who opposes Bush's asinine Iraq policy as being a "terrorist-lover", which just so happens to BE THE FUCKING MAJORITY AMERICAN PUBLIC, THE MAJORITY OF THE FUCKING WORLD, and oh yeah, the Democrats and the Bush-appointed Iraq Study Group, then I suggest you attempt to make that point on another thread elsewhere as opposed to being coy and cute by laying that down as if no one would respond to it.

You want to call me out on who's the real fucking terrorist lovers, then open up another thread and we will have a joyful discussion on it. Otherwise, keep your snide comments away from the discussion at hand.

quote:

I've said it once and I'll say it again, the liberal knee-jerk reaction to something like this is always 'we have to have more gun control, lets pass some laws'.

You see, I could just as easily talk about YOUR Bush-lovin chickenhawk circle-jerkers talking about how big and tough they woulda/coulda/shoulda been in that situation, such as John Derbyshire of the National Review:

quote:

As NRO's designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake�one of them reportedly a .22. At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren't very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage�your chances aren't bad. Yes, yes, I know it's easy to say these things: but didn't the heroes of Flight 93 teach us anything? As the cliche goes�and like most cliches. It's true�none of us knows what he'd do in a dire situation like that. I hope, however, that if I thought I was going to die anyway, I'd at least take a run at the guy. http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007...because_th.html

You see, everyone but him are a bunch of worthless cowards for not attacking the killer. Ain't that grand?

Or how about Nathan Blake at Human Events Online?:

quote:

Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that. ... Like Derb, I don�t know if I would live up to this myself, but I know that I should be heartily ashamed of myself if I didn�t. Am I noble, courageous and self-sacrificing? I don�t know; but I should hope to be so when necessary. http://www.humanevents.com/rightang...re_were_the_men

But who wants to be called out for being a coward in comparison to these incredibly courageous keyboard fighters?

The funny thing is, I tend to agree with your point about this event needing to be held in context and not create a knee-jerk reaction to the cries of gun-control. The problem with you (among many) is, that's exactly the point that I laid out with my example of what is occurring in Iraq with these types of deaths occurring daily, fuck even hourly:

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5694330?source=rss

These examples of madmen in our country are the rare exception and not the rule. I do believe in more gun control personally, but it's NOT because of this event. If you actually read what I said in full context, you might have actually picked up on that.

quote:

The problem with this is that you are assuming that criminals follow laws, which by definition, they do not. And when you pass a law and make something illegal, it makes it impossible to get right? How long have drugs been illegal in this country and how hard is it for you to get them? All it does is create a black market for the item among criminals. People who want to get a gun for something will still have no trouble getting them.

Again I agree, which is just peachy, until you had to throw in another dipshit snipe:

quote:

I understand that is is hard for liberals to think rationally, but please try hard here. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens will not stop crimes.

And you see, the argument easily flips both ways. For example:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions...e_with_gun.html

Our dear Glenn tends to believe as do most Wingnuts that if everyone had a warm gun, not only would it bring Happiness, it would bring Safety. He pulls an incident out from Appalachian Law School and uses that instance as a basis for his argument to create a sweeping generalization of safety if everyone owned a fucking .45. Now we could easily dismiss all the other problems that occur with guns, namely the number of shooting accidents in the home and so forth that seems to put the Wild West sentiment on hold, but to me both extemes of this argument with guns are just that: extreme. I've seen figures that support and refute gun control and gun carry to live long day, and I still walk away with the same feeling as I had before: I'm not a fan of guns, but I'll still support the 2nd Amendment and someone's right to bear arms. I'd prefer there not being a law for concealed carry because the arguments for or against "safety" and "peaceful" society with such laws are unconvincing and tend not to wash out extraneous variables, but on the flip side the same can be said about the counter-studies on gun control.

So I'm not convinced either way, and until I am convinced I'm not going to support nor refute gun carry or gun control. But what I will do is continue to hold this event in larger context to the world around us, INCLUDING events occurring in Iraq. If you find that disagreeable, honestly tough shit. If I tend to think of the deaths there or perhaps elsewhere like Darfur that engulfs this tragedy that occurred in our country today, and if you find that disagreeable, I really could give two shits. I will continue regardless. But don't think I won't call you out on your bullshit remarks of "terrorist-lovers" (which arguably is exactly what you Wingers are, including a few traitors in our own Administration). Again I'll leave it up to you to start another thread if you wish to discuss that comment further.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX The problem with this is that you are assuming that criminals follow laws, which by definition, they do not.

The problem with this is that Cho DID FOLLOW THE LAW! (in terms of purchasing the gun) He went to a gun store, got a background check, bought a LEGAL weapon, and killed 33 people.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX World Population Statistics Rank Country Population 1. China 1,313,973,713 2. India 1,095,351,995 3. United States 298,444,215 Two factors: 1. Population 2. The media The US has the third largest population in the world. More people = more wackjobs. Also, the amount of news media in the US enormous, and there is no government control. Anything that happens in any little shit town is all of the sudden broadcast all over the national news. In China obviously the government has some control over what gets out and what doesn't but the real difference is that in China and India every village of 1000 people doesn't have three local news channels plus two or three newspapers ready to broadcast anything that happens up to their national affiliate like we have here in the US.

Very true, but what are their crime rates like in terms of gun related murders (which is the point of the discussion)?

I wonder if they even compare on a per capita basis to the US numbers? More? Less?

Getting good numbers out of China probably won't happen, and any numbers would need to be taken with an obvious grain of salt. India might keep better numbers though...

blah blah blah...

Did anybody catch Sanjaya last night? Is Anna Nicole still dead?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 But what I will do is continue to hold this event in larger context to the world around us, INCLUDING events occurring in Iraq.

I'm not sure how these events are connected to those in Iraq but if you want to try and make that point for me I'll listen.

And for once, I guess I agree with you. The comments posted by those two people about 'rushing' a gunman or whatever are complete and utter bullshit Monday morning quarterbacking. To suggest that someone under gunfire from an unknown attacker should have 'counted gunshots' and then rushed him is fucking ignorant. I'd like to ask that genius how I'm going to count shots when I don't know what kind of gun he has and how many bullets the magazine holds. And I'd like that other tool to make his comment about it not being a machine gun or whatever while I'm shooting a 9mm at him. I don't know the political affiliation of those two guys but they are idiots.

As for my 'liberal' comments, you may not like them but they are founded. Liberals love to use events like this to inact worthless gun control regulations in this country.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey The problem with this is that Cho DID FOLLOW THE LAW! (in terms of purchasing the gun) He went to a gun store, got a background check, bought a LEGAL weapon, and killed 33 people.

So what, should we ban all the guns then?

Ok, I'll go down to the car dealer, legally buy me a big ass Hummer H2 and drive it down a city sidewalk running over everyone in my way.

The point is that nutjobs will find a way to kill people. Getting rid of guns will not stop anything.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX So what, should we ban all the guns then?

Well let me ask you this, can you let me drink and drive?
No? why not?
Am I breaking a law if my alcohol level is above the limit, even though I personally know how to handle my alcohol? Regardless of how I conduct myself, it's still a crime in your "free" country to drive with an ABC greater than whatever?

And why is it a crime to possess drugs for personal use?
Shouldn't we apply your same reasoning to drugs, also?
Then how come the "individual-knows-best" rule doesn't apply to drugs in this very free country?

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd Well let me ask you this, can you let me drink and drive? No? why not? Am I breaking a law if my alcohol level is above the limit, even though I personally know how to handle my alcohol? Regardless of how I conduct myself, it's still a crime in your "free" country to drive with an ABC greater than whatever? And why is it a crime to possess drugs for personal use? Shouldn't we apply your same reasoning to drugs, also? Then how come the "individual-knows-best" rule doesn't apply to drugs in this very free country?

why dont you read the rest of his post

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd Well let me ask you this, can you let me drink and drive? No? why not? Am I breaking a law if my alcohol level is above the limit, even though I personally know how to handle my alcohol? Regardless of how I conduct myself, it's still a crime in your "free" country to drive with an ABC greater than whatever? And why is it a crime to possess drugs for personal use? Shouldn't we apply your same reasoning to drugs, also? Then how come the "individual-knows-best" rule doesn't apply to drugs in this very free country?

It's only a crime if you get caught.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX So what, should we ban all the guns then? Ok, I'll go down to the car dealer, legally buy me a big ass Hummer H2 and drive it down a city sidewalk running over everyone in my way. The point is that nutjobs will find a way to kill people. Getting rid of guns will not stop anything.

It might have stopped those 33 people dying.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey It might have stopped those 33 people dying.

And it might not've.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey It might have stopped those 33 people dying.

Or he might have killed more people with a huge bomb.

The 'might' game never goes anywhere

quote:

The Question Mark in Harper Hall By John Cloud The Chos of suburban Seoul, South Korea, didn't have much. They lived in a rented 430-sq. ft. basement apartment, according to the Korean paper Chosun Ilbo, and when they set off for the U.S. in 1992, Cho Seong-Tae told his landlord that the family was going to America "because it is difficult to live here" and that it would be better to live in a place where he is unknown. Cho's son Seung-Hui was only a first grader at Shinchang Elementary when the family left in August 1992. The boy mostly grew up in the U.S. and usually Americanized his name as Seung Cho. The Chos alighted first in Detroit but eventually settled in Centreville, Va., where they live in a two-story, cream-colored townhouse with two vegetable patches in the back, one with lettuces just beginning to sprout. They are said to be a hard-working couple who speak only a little English and run a dry-cleaning business. Their daughter graduated from Princeton in 2004 and, according to the Washington Post, works as a contractor for the State Department. The Chos are said to be cooperating with police; they allowed a 90-minute search of their home on Monday evening. At Westfield High in nearby Chantilly, Cho was a quiet boy. Joseph Boayu, a high-school acquaintance, said Cho was so withdrawn that "sometimes you'd ask him a question, and he'd not even acknowledge that you asked him." He also said Cho earned A's in math. At Virginia Tech, Cho sometimes referred to himself as Question Mark and spoke in a whisper, if at all; one of his suite mates told CNN last night that "he was just like a shadow." Mostly what he did every day was this: sit in the spare common area of the six-man suite in Harper Hall and type on his laptop. But he didn't spend endless hours on Facebook or wired into his iPod. He also never talked about his family. He didn't seem to have friends, and he rarely spoke, even to his roommate. He ventured out to attend class, to eat and, since February, to work out at the gym for the first time. It was a big deal in the second-floor suite to get a hello out of him. A suite mate, Karan Grewal, a senior from Northern Virginia, told TIME that "we just thought he was shy." Grewal said there was no sign of medication in Cho's room, no books, no posters on his walls. While Grewal acknowledged that it would have been possible for Cho to hide guns in the suite, he said Cho never talked about weapons or killing. He simply didn't talk at all. For years, Cho's odd behavior indicated to some university authorities that he could be dangerous. In coming weeks, the school will almost certainly have to explain why it did not do more to help him or expel him before his massacre. In December 2005, campus police and mental health professionals in Blacksburg, Va., arranged to have Cho committed to a state psychiatric facility. Cho's brief hospitalization for suspected mental illness was disclosed this morning by Virginia Tech police chief Wendell Flinchum, who said Cho was taken to St. Albans psychiatric hospital in Radford, Va., on Dec. 13 of that year after two women students (neither of whom was among Cho's shooting victims) called campus police complaining that Cho had made troubling contacts with them. A third person � identified last night on CNN as a suite mate of Cho's � had also told police at the time that Cho was contemplating suicide. Dr. Harvey Barker, head of the community mental-health agency called by campus police, told TIME's Michael Lindenberger that his agency had performed an involuntary psychiatric evaluation of Cho before he was committed to St. Albans. "We did an independent evaluation at the request of the police department," Barker said. "We did not make an recommendation [as to whether he was fit to remain on campus or in school]. That was not our role." Neither the campus police department's nor the hospital's records on Cho were part of the material accessed by the state's background-check system for firearms purchases. Nikki Giovanni, the feminist poet and teacher at Virginia Tech who stirred the campus convocation yesterday with a poem, had Cho in a poetry class two years ago � and it wasn't long before she had him tossed out. "There was something mean about this boy," she said. "Troubled kids get drunk and jump off buildings. It was the meanness that bothered me." Giovanni recalled that Cho came to class in dark sunglasses and a hat. And every day, from very early in the semester, she would ask him to remove the one and then the other. "We would have this sort of ritual," she said. Giovanni recalled that Cho "was very intimidating to my other students." Eventually, other kids began skipping class because of his behavior. The poet then wrote creative writing department boss Lucinda Roy a letter � in part to create a record � asking Roy to remove him from class. Giovanni said Cho turned in material that wasn't poetry but just junk. "He was writing weird things," she recalled. "It was terrible.... It was just intimidating." In two achingly bad plays Cho authored � they were posted by AOL yesterday � he suggests he may have been sexually abused. In both plays, a schoolboy named John accuses authority figures of molesting him. In a play Cho titled Mr. Brownstone, John says the eponymous teacher raped him. "I wanna kill him," John says. In the other play, Richard McBeef, the accused molester kills John with his bare hands in the end. Cho exhibited strange sexual behavior at Virginia Tech. Roy told CNN that he was taking pictures of women under desks, and two men identified as suite mates of Cho's told the network he had stalked three women. They said Cho usually slept fitfully and with the lights on. During the months that Cho lived in the dorm, his suite mates said he never had a single visitor � no girlfriends, not even family. "He seemed to be crying behind his sunglasses," Roy told TIME. "It was like talking to a hole sometimes.... Everything emptied out and seemed very dark when he entered." Roy shared her concerns with campus police and counselors, but they told her that unless his threats were explicit, there was little they could do. So Roy, in part because the school couldn't prevent Cho from taking courses, took him on for one-on-one classes herself to keep him away from other students. Campus security, meanwhile, offered Giovanni protection. But the poet said, "He didn't scare me." She learned about the shootings on Monday, while flying back from the West coast. When she first learned the suspect was an Asian male, she said, "In the front of my mind, I knew it was Cho." - Reported by Michael Duffy, Elaine Shannon, Michael Lindenberger and Tracy Samantha Schmidt/Blacksburg, Michael Weisskopf/Washington, and Adam Zagorin/Centreville http://www.time.com/time/nation/art...1612003,00.html

So the school is definitely going to have to explain why they didn't do more. There was certainly a disturbing history that they were aware of.

As for the gun debate, there are real questions on why Cho's mental hospital and police record backgrounds weren't evaluated in the gun purchases.

there's a new development in this story

apparently Cho forwarded some manifesto to NBC News after his first shooting, but before the second one.

Go to nbcnews.com for more info

http://view.break.com/271068

Here's a fine example of some of the honourable, responsible gun owners in action

(jokes, sarcasm...honest )

At least the retard who did this likely killed any chance of being able to breed.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX I'm not sure how these events are connected to those in Iraq but if you want to try and make that point for me I'll listen.

I believe I already did. Here it is again, just in case you missed it (again):

quote:

My point was not to be tangential to the topic at hand. Rather, I was trying to point out that I don't think gun control laws is the stronger issue to bring up that points towards mass murders right now, and I used the Iraq War and the daily mass killings taking place there for a larger context. http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...66&pagenumber=9

Which was my reply to Shakka (and he replied back saying he wasn't necessarily addressing his comment directly towards me). And then I replied to you:

quote:

The funny thing is, I tend to agree with your point about this event needing to be held in context and not create a knee-jerk reaction to the cries of gun-control. The problem with you (among many) is, that's exactly the point that I laid out with my example of what is occurring in Iraq with these types of deaths occurring daily, http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...6&pagenumber=12

So that was my point. If you still do not understand, ask away or PM me if you like. But honestly, I really don't know how I can clarify this any better.

quote:

And for once, I guess I agree with you. The comments posted by those two people about 'rushing' a gunman or whatever are complete and utter bullshit Monday morning quarterbacking. To suggest that someone under gunfire from an unknown attacker should have 'counted gunshots' and then rushed him is fucking ignorant. I'd like to ask that genius how I'm going to count shots when I don't know what kind of gun he has and how many bullets the magazine holds. And I'd like that other tool to make his comment about it not being a machine gun or whatever while I'm shooting a 9mm at him. I don't know the political affiliation of those two guys but they are idiots.

Well I'm glad we're agreeing on something here.

quote:

As for my 'liberal' comments, you may not like them but they are founded. Liberals love to use events like this to inact worthless gun control regulations in this country.

Your comments may be founded in some "libruls", but not all of them (including myself), just like comments like this from your Wingnut leaders like Michelle Malkin:

quote:

�Enough is enough, indeed. Enough of intellectual disarmament. Enough of physical disarmament. You want a safer campus? It begins with renewing a culture of self-defense � mind, spirit and body. It begins with two words: Fight back.� http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...selfdefens.html

Or this exchange with John Gibson and Andrew Napolitano who wants to arm all students and teachers:

quote:

GIBSON: So, theoretically, in this lecture hall where all 31 were killed, there could have been someone with a carry permit carrying their gun to shoot the shooter? NAPOLITANO: No, because the same people that just dropped the ball, as Bo just described, that allowed 32 additional people to die, also said: �Virginia lets you carry a gun at a gas station or a bank or a stadium, but not on a college campus, where you may protect kids.� http://mediamatters.org/items/200704170001

Who in essence want to do away with the weapons-free zones in schools, which by all accounts seems a wee-bit like a knee-jerk reaction to me, don't cha think?

So the bottom line is, I think all knee-jerk reactions are just that - knee-jerk without due rationale thought and discussion. You're welcome to point them out to live long day, sir, but just remember the extremist finger can easily be pointed right back towards your side of the aisle as well. And in the end, all the finger-pointing at the knee-jerkers gets us absolutely nowhere.

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse So, since it's generally agreed upon (or not) that gun control cannot stop the criminals and the people who just lose their shit and shoot up a school like this guy did, what would be the reason why you hear so many stories about some dude who snapped and went on some rampage in the US? Be it wielding a gun, car, knife, box cutter, whatever. I know the statistics that were posted earlier in this thread don't sound as bad when listed on a per-capita basis, but shit, is it wrong to say that you hear more stories like this out of the US than other parts of the world? I'm just asking rhetorical questions here, not trying to bash the US. I know a lot of it has to do with gang violence perpetuated by illegal alien gangs and other pieces of shit like that (LazFX's story as example ). But what keeps driving these otherwise semi-normal people to go postal and think it's a bright fucking idea to start killing random people? I guess for me, it's somewhat easier to have some understanding of where someone is coming from if they have a beef with someone (ex-wife, current wife's boyfriend, dude who cut you off in traffic, other gangs etc ad nauseum) but when there's no connection between the killer and the victims, it's even harder to try and comprehend.

It's because the media focuses on it because Americans dying are more important than anyone else that dies. Yesterday, when I was getting ready for work, in 45 minutes, I don't think I saw anything other than this shooting being reported on CNN.

In other news hardly being reported because our media has only focused on 1 story for over 2 days now, 170 people died in coordinated bombing in Iraq. Not to be insensitive to the victims and their families from the Virginia Tech incident, but that's 5x as many people. And they, too, were civilian, people going to class, shopping in the market, visiting the sick and wounded in the hospital, etc.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.