A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
Very cool to see that Christian Bale has been in Colorado visiting the victims - privately and with no media notice(news got out when victim posted photo)
Congressman Carolyn McCarthy, a.k.a. "The Gun Lady", wants Obama to ban guns by executive order. Eveidently, she had the same civics teacher as Sarah Palin if she thinks a President can use executives order to repeal constitutional amendments, but even an attempt to do such a thing would be the greatest gift he could give Romney.
jazzcyclist wrote:Congressman Carolyn McCarthy, a.k.a. "The Gun Lady", wants Obama to ban guns by executive order. Eveidently, she had the same civics teacher as Sarah Palin if she thinks a President can use executives order to repeal constitutional amendments, but even an attempt to do such a thing would be the greatest gift he could give Romney.
Which is why it was so idiotic and ignorant of the masses to rush out and buy guns because the NRA said Obama would ban guns. They (the NRA) knew he couldn't; the arms industry knew he couldn't; but the sheeple bought it hook line and sinker. More billions for the gun folks.
jazzcyclist wrote:Congressman Carolyn McCarthy, a.k.a. "The Gun Lady", wants Obama to ban guns by executive order. Eveidently, she had the same civics teacher as Sarah Palin if she thinks a President can use executives order to repeal constitutional amendments, but even an attempt to do such a thing would be the greatest gift he could give Romney.
Which is why it was so idiotic and ignorant of the masses to rush out and buy guns because the NRA said Obama would ban guns. They (the NRA) knew he couldn't; the arms industry knew he couldn't; but the sheeple bought it hook line and sinker. More billions for the gun folks.
Perhaps she's getting money under the table from the NRA to say carzy stuff like this.
Which makes one wonder who they are allowing in to the program? The fact that he was mediocre and struggled may indicate a motive. Failure attempting notoriety.
Which makes one wonder who they are allowing in to the program? The fact that he was mediocre and struggled may indicate a motive. Failure attempting notoriety.
I guess so, but the guy is a nutter no matter what. School is not going well, geez I think I will spend thousands of dollars on guns and ammo. He should have spent more time on his studies and less time, and money, on planning a massacre.
Which makes one wonder who they are allowing in to the program? The fact that he was mediocre and struggled may indicate a motive. Failure attempting notoriety.
I guess so, but the guy is a nutter no matter what. School is not going well, geez I think I will spend thousands of dollars on guns and ammo. He should have spent more time on his studies and less time, and money, on planning a massacre.
Most of these shooters are either insane or have deeply rooted inferiority complexes, or both. The most dangerous human in society is not the nutter but the depressed/suicidal individual who wants to take out others (projecting his own hatred of their "normalcy") before killing himself. The number of men taking out their families, and then killing themselves, is astounding.
jeremyp wrote:Which makes one wonder who they are allowing in to the program?
The best in the lab are not always the ones with the high GPA. Sounds like they took a risk on a student that appeared to be motivated. Obviously they realised their mistake and were about to ask him to leave. That normally means writing a thesis towards a masters or, in his case, withdrawing from the program.
Which makes one wonder who they are allowing in to the program? The fact that he was mediocre and struggled may indicate a motive. Failure attempting notoriety.
I guess so, but the guy is a nutter no matter what. School is not going well, geez I think I will spend thousands of dollars on guns and ammo. He should have spent more time on his studies and less time, and money, on planning a massacre.
Most of these shooters are either insane or have deeply rooted inferiority complexes, or both. The most dangerous human in society is not the nutter but the depressed/suicidal individual who wants to take out others (projecting his own hatred of their "normalcy") before killing himself. The number of men taking out their families, and then killing themselves, is astounding.
Thank god he's got the freedom to buy guns and make his dream come true
I heard this quote from Romney, about the Colorado gunmen, this morning.
Well this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't.
Has he moved the bar on gun control? What illegal 'things' was Romney referring to?
Daisy wrote:I heard this quote from Romney, about the Colorado gunmen, this morning.
Well this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't.
Has he moved the bar on gun control? What illegal 'things' was Romney referring to?
Who knows?
Despite Mitt Romney’s Claims, Aurora Suspect’s Gun Purchases Were Legal
Mitt Romney brushed off suggestions that the Aurora, Colo. theater shooting should renew a national conversation on gun control Wednesday, saying that it “was illegal” for accused Aurora shooter James Holmes to have the “kind of weapons and bombs and other devices” he used in his deadly attack.
Not exactly. Holmes legally purchased the weapons used in the attack, and legally bought thousands of rounds of ammunition online. One of the guns would have been illegal under the federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
I think European-style gun laws would reduce spontaneous gun murders (eg. crimes of passion, bar room brawls, etc.), IF you could get guns out of circulation, but they wouldn't stop determined nutjobs who are willing to put a lot of time and thought into carrying their acts. They might effect what weapons the nutjob uses, but that's about it.
jazzcyclist wrote:I think European-style gun laws would reduce spontaneous gun murders (eg. crimes of passion, bar room brawls, etc.), IF you could get guns out of circulation, but they wouldn't stop determined nutjobs who are willing to put a lot of time and thought into carrying their acts. They might effect what weapons the nutjob uses, but that's about it.
And Norway was a case in point. I believe he got his weapons through the internet.
jazzcyclist wrote:I think European-style gun laws would reduce spontaneous gun murders (eg. crimes of passion, bar room brawls, etc.), IF you could get guns out of circulation, but they wouldn't stop determined nutjobs who are willing to put a lot of time and thought into carrying their acts. They might effect what weapons the nutjob uses, but that's about it.
Of course if someone is determined enough to do something, they will find a way to do it. But the harder you make it to do whatever it is they want to do, the more you'll find that the "determined" nutjobs really aren't as determined as you thought.
Not everyone who can pick up a gun at Walmart and go shoot 20 people is a "determined nut-job" who will stop at nothing to carry out their evil plan. Rather, as you suggest, those are "crimes of passion" -- literally shoot first, think later.
jazzcyclist wrote:I think European-style gun laws would reduce spontaneous gun murders (eg. crimes of passion, bar room brawls, etc.), IF you could get guns out of circulation, but they wouldn't stop determined nutjobs who are willing to put a lot of time and thought into carrying their acts. They might effect what weapons the nutjob uses, but that's about it.
Of course if someone is determined enough to do something, they will find a way to do it. But the harder you make it to do whatever it is they want to do, the more you'll find that the "determined" nutjobs really aren't as determined as you thought.
Not everyone who can pick up a gun at Walmart and go shoot 20 people is a "determined nut-job" who will stop at nothing to carry out their evil plan. Rather, as you suggest, those are "crimes of passion" -- literally shoot first, think later.
I don't consider the spontaneous murderer to be determined, but I certainly think that the vast majority of mass murderers are (eg. Colorado, Virginia Tech, Norway, etc.). Most mass murderers don't carry out their acts on a whim or in a fit of anger, and usually the evidence they leave behind proves this (eg. email, websites, magazine and newspapaer clippings, etc.). Do you think stricter gun laws would have prevented the Colorado shootings?
jazzcyclist wrote:I think European-style gun laws would reduce spontaneous gun murders (eg. crimes of passion, bar room brawls, etc.), IF you could get guns out of circulation, but they wouldn't stop determined nutjobs who are willing to put a lot of time and thought into carrying their acts. They might effect what weapons the nutjob uses, but that's about it.
Of course if someone is determined enough to do something, they will find a way to do it. But the harder you make it to do whatever it is they want to do, the more you'll find that the "determined" nutjobs really aren't as determined as you thought.
Not everyone who can pick up a gun at Walmart and go shoot 20 people is a "determined nut-job" who will stop at nothing to carry out their evil plan. Rather, as you suggest, those are "crimes of passion" -- literally shoot first, think later.
I don't consider the spontaneous murderer to be determined, but I certainly think that the vast majority of mass murderers are (eg. Colorado, Virginia Tech, Norway, etc.). Most mass murderers don't carry out their acts on a whim or in a fit of anger, and usually the evidence they leave behind proves this (eg. email, websites, magazine and newspapaer clippings, etc.). Do you think stricter gun laws would have prevented the Colorado shootings?
If stricter gun laws don't help prevent these kind of events can you explain why i can only think of 2 in my lifetime in the UK (Hungeford and Dunblane) while you have about 2 a year in the US ?!!
If stricter gun laws don't help prevent these kind of events can you explain why i can only think of 2 in my lifetime in the UK (Hungeford and Dunblane) while you have about 2 a year in the US ?!!
And those were about 10 years apart and Dunblane was back in 1996.
mump boy wrote:If stricter gun laws don't help prevent these kind of events can you explain why i can only think of 2 in my lifetime in the UK (Hungeford and Dunblane) while you have about 2 a year in the US ?!!
1) The U.S. has five times as many people as the U.K.
2) The U.S. is more violent than the U.K. in general, and the fact that the American non-gun murder rate is many times higher than the British non-gun murder rate proves this.
Also, you only mentioned gun massacres. I know enough about British history to know that you have had many more massacres than two over the last 25 years. Have you forgotten about the 7/7 bombings already?
jazzcyclist wrote: Also, you only mentioned gun massacres. I know enough about British history to know that you have had many more massacres than two over the last 25 years. Have you forgotten about the 7/7 bombings already?
Geez that is a great point, but if you want to include terrorism, which is not part of this discussion, you forgot 9/11...and Oklahoma City.
And what other massacres are you talking about? Enlighten us with your knowledge of UK history.
No one is advocating banning all guns. The problem are these semi automatic guns that hold 30 or more rounds. Something no one needs.
Even Bill O'Reilly is in agreement.
O’Reilly, who has long been a proponent of gun control, said on Fox that it makes sense for Congress to pass a new law that requires the sale of all heavy weapons to be reported to the FBI. O’Reilly then invited Chaffetz on to dissent.
jazzcyclist wrote: 2) The U.S. is more violent than the U.K. in general, and the fact that the American non-gun murder rate is many times higher than the British non-gun murder rate proves this.
Actually the crime rate and murder rate is down in the US in the last 30 years. However, mass murder still goes on and on...
muckin 4on wrote:The need to possess a gun is, for the most part, an admission of fear. Apparently Americans are very afraid.
There's no doubt about that. I'd like to know how the percentage of home security sytems and gated communties compares to that of other Western nations.
jazzcyclist wrote: 2) The U.S. is more violent than the U.K. in general, and the fact that the American non-gun murder rate is many times higher than the British non-gun murder rate proves this.
Actually the crime rate and murder rate is down in the US in the last 30 years. However, mass murder still goes on and on...
It may have gone down, but it's still much higher than the British crime rate. Here's the link to an interesting read.
That's interesting. I would have thought that most of the killings were done with homemade bombs, since Ireland has strict guns laws too which means guns would have to cross water.
That's interesting. I would have thought that most of the killings were done with homemade bombs, since Ireland has strict guns laws too which means guns would have to cross water.
as does cocaine but it doesn't stop it coming into the country. Of course people have guns in the UK just you have to be pretty determine and criminal to get one. You can't just buy them and shoot people on a whim and you certainly can't get hold of automatics.
One of the local businesses that has been advertising heavily during NBC's Olympic coverage is a firearms dealer. During their commercial, not only do they talk about their large stock of AR-15's in various configurations, but they also brag about their class III license which allows them to sell automatic weapons and silencers, and their experience in helping customers walk through the many steps you have to go through in order to buy one of these weapons. I wonder how much class III business they're getting these days. I personally don't know anyone with an automatic weapon and I work with plenty of gun nuts. The common feeling among them is that once they found out that buying an automatic weapon was more invasive than being audited by the IRS, they decided it wasn't worth it.
