News Stories

[flying ^]

hmm someone's unhappy with Gifford lately
http://www.youtube.com/v/OAho724BwmU

[Anh_Minh]

Oh, the argument's simpler than that. They were in Arizona. There was a crowd full of average joes, any of whom could have had guns. See how that helped?

[synaesthetic]

Knowing Arizona, there probably were some average Joes with sidearms in the crowd. They probably (and responsibly) did not try to return fire at a shooter in a dense crowd surrounded by innocent people. That would be monumentally stupid.

In any case, there's a reason our founding fathers left us with the ability to own weapons. There are eighty million legal gun owners in the US. That's some big numbers to overcome if the government ever decides to go whole-hog 1984-dystopic-future mode.

It's also a lot harder for foreign aggressors to invade a country whose populace is pretty well-armed. Vietnam taught us that the hard way.

The Second Amendment is pretty important, and people are willing to piss it away in the naive belief that it will stop madmen from going berserk and killing people. What was to stop that madman from driving his car into the crowd? He could have killed or injured many more people with a self-propelled vehicle--it'd be like fucking Carmageddon in that parking lot. He could have put together a homemade pipe bomb from stuff bought at the local hardware store.

A lock only keeps out an honest man. Outlawing guns ensures that only outlaws have guns. Or do you really think a murderer is going to stop and say "oh yeah, guns are illegal, I better not use one to murder someone!"

[Asuras]

This woman was just shot in the 'effing head along with a dead child and several other wounded, and you're trying to argue that guns should still be in the hands of the populace? I don't get it! I just don't! what possesses people to stress to keep their damned weapons?

Oh really? A car and a bomb? If that were as easy as you say, a bomb and all, don't you think he would've done it? Hm? If bombs were so easy, no one would use a gun, they'd make a damn bomb and kill whoever they needed to without being there! By the way, people can dodge a car. You can't dodge a bullet. And when engines are roaring towards an open crowd in broad daylight, I'm pretty sure someone would notice it coming.

This isn't a damn third world country girl. If guns were outlawed they wouldn't be so easy for criminals to get to as you wish was true. And at least if they are outlawed, there will be at least many fewer with guns, no? It's better than having much more right?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

A lock only keeps out an honest man. Outlawing guns ensures that only outlaws have guns. "

But allowing anyone to get a gun is making the job of the ''shooter than is going to do is first offence'' a damn too easy, no ? Just tell me in what realistic scenerio could you see a civilian using a automatic weapon outside the shooting range ?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by flying ^

here's the shooter's youtube channel and he's got interesting clips
http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitu.../0/7uRjwPWaxiY
his favorite clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L1lsLU-kUw
he is/was obsessed with grammar control, brainwashing, terrorism,
currency, revolution, and so on.

That boy has some serious issues.

What is with his idea about always being in a state of sleepwalking and the whole conscious currency thing is just bizarre.

This guys no Tea Partier, or any kind of political type either left, right, center, or otherwise.
It's been a long time since I studied abnormal psychology, but this individual seems quite detached by my estimation.
I'd even go so far as to say his ramblings are akin to schizophrenic expressions.

http://www.medicinenet.com/schizophrenia/page3.htm

Clearly this young man lacks a vertical grip on reality, my question here is why didn't anyone around him notice these obvious signs?

This young man saying that labeling him a terrorist is an ad hominem attack is just plain weird since he never says WHO is labeling him this way.

His mention of a second Constitution is also troubling.
There is no second US Constitution, it doesn't exist, so this seems like a delusion this Jared Loughner has about the state of this country.
He's just rambling on about random things in an incoherent manner.

I watched the "The Student at Pima College..." and whew-hoo, this guy really goes into the realm of lunacy.

How getting a grade from Pima Community College is "unconstitutional" because it violates the bill of rights is too wacked out for me to comprehend.
He goes on to ramble about the police taking you out of class for talking and how it is unconstitutional then states that police are unconstitutional.
Aparently in this guy's view Algebra is free entertainment from the internet.
Also, most teachers and stundents at Pima College were illiterate according to Jared...which is just...too outlandish for words.


Upon watching his clip entitled "How to mind control" I was blown away.
This guy believed he could control [in his own words] "Every belief and religion by being the mind controller!"

In his "How to: The New Currency" he goes even further into a nonsensical delusional yarn about creating a non-existant currency to replace the old one with a new one that is the center of the universe, etc. etc.
This boy is definitely a basket case or a manchurian candidate, I don't know which.

As for people calling for gun-control due to this.
Get off it and deal with the fact that no amount of gun-control stops these kinds of people.
Charles Whitman shot and killed numerous people from a tower at the University of Texas in 1963. That was back when you could buy a gun through the mail across state lines without a FFL, background check, waiting periods, or high prices.

The 1968 FFA was supposed to stop these kinds of shootings by making it so a person has to fill out a form to buy a gun and have a license to sell across state lines.
Didn't work did it, as numerous shootings over the post-NFA68 years have shown.

Total bans on guns don't work either, as Mexico has proven.
Doesn't matter where the guns come from, civilians in Mexico are not supposed to have them...period.
Which shows how worthless such laws actually are.

The 1934 NFA was supposed to stop machine guns from being used by criminals.
Lots of good that did, even in 1997.

Gun control DOES NOT WORK.
Deal with it, and stop using these tragedies as a means to push this hoplophobic agenda.
It's disgusting when people try to use the victims of these crimes as a political tool to push more useless laws that only hurt law abiding people.

[Asuras]

I feel very attacked when you say I'm using victims as tools. Quite, really. Thanks a lot broski.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Asuras

This woman was just shot in the 'effing head along with a dead child and several other wounded, and you're trying to argue that guns should still be in the hands of the populace? I don't get it! I just don't! what possesses people to stress to keep their damned weapons?

Oh really? A car and a bomb? If that were as easy as you say, a bomb and all, don't you think he would've done it? Hm? If bombs were so easy, no one would use a gun, they'd make a damn bomb and kill whoever they needed to without being there! By the way, people can dodge a car. You can't dodge a bullet. And when engines are roaring towards an open crowd in broad daylight, I'm pretty sure someone would notice it coming.

This isn't a damn third world country girl. If guns were outlawed they wouldn't be so easy for criminals to get to as you wish was true. And at least if they are outlawed, there will be at least many fewer with guns, no? It's better than having much more right?

*facepalm*

Oh my god I don't even

what part of "outlawing guns ensures only outlaws have guns" do you not fucking understand?!

Gun control laws only affect law abiding people. Criminals will TOTALLY IGNORE them. It's nothing but feel-good legislation that accomplishes nothing but unjustly punishing the people who do follow the law and use their firearms in a responsible manner!

Banning anything results in a brisk black-market trade. The arms market is already lucrative; banning guns entirely will merely turn it up to eleven. Criminals will still get guns... sure, they might have to go through more hoops to get one, but they'll still do it. Ordinary citizens won't be able to get anything, and America will have one of its most potent checks against tyrannical government utterly removed.

I cannot understand how you can't see this. It's painfully self-evident.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Asuras

I feel very attacked when you say I'm using victims as tools. Quite, really. Thanks a lot broski.

It's not an attack on you personally Asuras, it's simply an attempt at showing you what the kind of rhetoric that you are putting forward actually does.

When the North Hollywood bank robbery took place both the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban was in place, the Brady Law, and California's own Roberti/Rossi law which outlawed high capacity magazines and all semiautomatic rifles of a military nature that had a detachable clip.

What good did any of those laws do?
None.

Therefore, with that knowledge it is irresponsible for anyone to push for banning guns from law abiding citizens because of the actions of criminals or insane individuals.
It is using a horrific event to push emotionally driven agendas that do nothing to prevent these types of incidents from happening.

Keep in mind that Charles Whitman wounded 31 people and killed 16 in 1963, a flood of new gun laws have been passed since then which could fill a small phonebook and yet with all these laws on the books Seung-Hui Cho walked into the VA tech campus and killed 33 people in 2007.
Even with all the new laws since Charles Whitman, the VA shooter did more damage.
Why?
Because the problem is not now, nor has it ever been, guns.
It is the people that are using these weapons that are the problem and the only solution to that it is early detection.
This guy Jared, the terrorist Hasan, Cho, Whitman, Harris and Kleibold, all of them showed signs that were going to commit these acts but no one did anything to stop them.
In Whitman's case his wife knew he wanted to shoot people, he told her, yet she did nothing.
In Cho's case, he expressed his hatred at being bullied and picked on, yet no one did anything.
Eric Harris and Dillan Kleibold plead with the Columbine faculty to stop the jocks from bullying them and the faculty did nothing.
Hasan had contact with terrorist orgs and the army turned a blind eye.
I won't be surprised if this Jared fellow also telegraphed his intent to others and yet they did nothing.

[cors8]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

I don't feel like argumenting agains the right to bear gun, using such even for a argument isn't much of my taste but would be appropriate.

And before someone start the refrain '' and if Average Joe of the public also had a gun ? '' lets's think again. Average Joe's reaction wouldn't had been fast enough to stop the shooter firsts shot and would probably been far less precise than he would be at a firing range... increasing the probability than Average Joe's gun could increase the number of injuried/dead

My theory about everyone having guns:

Either no one shoots the shooter or there ends up being a shoot-out because not everyone knows who shot first or who is the "good" and "bad" guys.

Pretty sad this happened. At least I hope this tones down some of the stupid veiled gun references. No more Second Amendment remedies please.

[Asuras]

"Most potent checks against a tyrannical government removed"? You honestly think an untrained country would be able to handle armored vehicles, missiles, aircraft and more with firearms alone? What a pointless hope.

Anyways, I suppose you may be right over the black market thing, or I may be wrong. Who knows? I'm not knowledgeable in such things to continue.

[FatPianoBoy]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

America will have one of its most potent checks against tyrannical government utterly removed.

You need to read up on modern military hardware if you think the 9mm in your nightstand or the 12-gauge behind the door is going to be useful in a revolution.

[Asuras]

Originally Posted by FatPianoBoy

You need to read up on modern military hardware if you think the 9mm in your nightstand or the 12-gauge behind the door is going to be useful in a revolution.

An M16 even means nothing when a Sherman rolls around the corner.

[synaesthetic]

You know, I'm not even going to argue about this anymore. I applaud you speaking your mind, but you don't really seem to understand that laws don't mean shit to people who routinely break them on a daily basis.

But this is a free country, and we can agree to disagree. I regret that this incident happened, just like I regret every other time someone off their rocker goes nuts and kills a bunch of people. I hate it, I don't want it to happen again, but honestly, outlawing guns will not prevent people from going off their rocker.

Why am I so adamant about it? That's actually quite simple. I'm alive today because of it.

If it hadn't been legal for me to own a weapon, if guns were illegal in America, I would be dead right now. I wouldn't be here arguing about you with this. That's why I come on so strongly about this.

Perhaps if that incident had never taken place, I might have a different view on it. But the ability to own a weapon saved my fucking life. I can very, very easily imagine a situation in the future where owning a gun would prevent me from dying again, and I'm not terribly willing to risk that a second time.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Gun control DOES NOT WORK.
Deal with it, and stop using these tragedies as a means to push this hoplophobic agenda.
It's disgusting when people try to use the victims of these crimes as a political tool to push more useless laws that only hurt law abiding people.

How can you tell if it works or not? Rather, how do you even define "working"?

Anecdote time: a few years ago, a nutjob tried to kill one of our politicians. I don't really remember why, and I guess it doesn't matter. He didn't use a car as a weapon. He didn't make a pipe bomb. No, he just stabbed the guy. Harder to kill random people with a knife. Maybe that little girl'd be alive if they nutso had had a knife instead of a gun - I mean, he was crazy, but he didn't purposely kill her, did he? And hey, it'd harder to pull a big rampage with a knife.

Now, does that mean I'd support gun control for the US? Not really. I mean, it was just an anecdote. It doesn't prove anything. Even if it bears thinking about... Maybe the main difference is cultural. Americans like to shoot people, when they decide to murder them. Maybe, with stricter gun control laws, he'd just have made more of an effort to get a gun anyway. Got it, too, in the end, and it wouldn't have changed a thing.

Then again, I don't really believe in the armed average joe doing any good either, whether it's to stop crimes or rogue governments.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

*facepalm*

Oh my god I don't even

what part of "outlawing guns ensures only outlaws have guns" do you not fucking understand?!

Gun control laws only affect law abiding people. Criminals will TOTALLY IGNORE them. It's nothing but feel-good legislation that accomplishes nothing but unjustly punishing the people who do follow the law and use their firearms in a responsible manner!

Banning anything results in a brisk black-market trade. The arms market is already lucrative; banning guns entirely will merely turn it up to eleven. Criminals will still get guns... sure, they might have to go through more hoops to get one, but they'll still do it. Ordinary citizens won't be able to get anything, and America will have one of its most potent checks against tyrannical government utterly removed.

I cannot understand how you can't see this. It's painfully self-evident.

Your culture and education is your most potent check against a tyrannical government (which by all right ought to scare the piss out of you, considering). It's impossible to establish such a government without the cooperation of the army. Which means that as long as your soldiers feel strongly against such a course of action, well, you can't make them.

But really, assuming the worst, how would one even go about pulling off such a coup d'état? And how relevant would privately owned small arms be, against trained soldiers in body armor?

[Asuras]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

You know, I'm not even going to argue about this anymore. I applaud you speaking your mind, but you don't really seem to understand that laws don't mean shit to people who routinely break them on a daily basis.

"Anyways, I suppose you may be right over the black market thing, or I may be wrong. Who knows? I'm not knowledgeable in such things to continue."

Eh...?

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Perhaps if that incident had never taken place, I might have a different view on it. But the ability to own a weapon saved my fucking life. I can very, very easily imagine a situation in the future where owning a gun would prevent me from dying again, and I'm not terribly willing to risk that a second time.

Sounds like a story.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Therefore, with that knowledge it is irresponsible for anyone to push for banning guns from law abiding citizens because of the actions of criminals or insane individuals.
It is using a horrific event to push emotionally driven agendas that do nothing to prevent these types of incidents from happening.

I won't argue with you about the criminals, once the heavy artillery is on the black market it's too late. More restrictive mesure won't work much. But thoses insane individuals in another hand, don't they get usually their weapon the legal way ? After all, they are law abinding citizen... until they start shooting those around them.

[synaesthetic]

Shit, I didn't see that before I posted. Sorry.

Anyway, concerning that incident, I was attacked by a man with a knife a few years ago. I didn't shoot him, I just pointed it at him, but had I been unarmed, I'd be extremely lucky to have gotten away without being at least seriously wounded. Not making it up, not a story, but what actually happened.

[Asuras]

Wow. Uh, may I ask; why were you carrying a gun anyways?

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Asuras

Wow. Uh, may I ask; why were you carrying a gun anyways?

I lived in Oklahoma in a shitty part of town. There was a lot of bad stuff going on in the area, so I got a permit.

Some drug guys (I guess? that's what the police told me) shot two people on their balcony in the complex next to mine and then were chased by the police to the parking lot right outside my apartment window. The police shot one of them and the other one was arrested.

After that I was a little worried about my safety, so I looked into getting a permit to carry, went down to the sheriff's office and did so.