Man Who Shot 4 Firefighters Leaves Suicide Note

Submitted by: fancylad 4 years ago in

Says ...killing people is what he liked "doing best." We should arm firefighters now, right NRA? Just like teachers, no?
There are 167 comments:
Male 2,672

0
Reply
Male 2,357
@jinxjinx34

I should also clarify that I`m not one of these NRA morons. I do not think we should arm all teachers, because that is just as bad as trying to disarm all teachers. As for posting guards in all schools, with what money?

However, since we won`t ever ban all guns, I don`t think that we will ever abolish mass shootings; the best we can hope to do is limit their devastation. Therefore, I think it should be the right of all citizens to be capable of defending themselves. If a citizen, teacher, professor, etc. is properly trained and licensed (according to their state legislation... dead horse yet?), I think they should be allowed to carry a firearm without limitation.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@jinxjinx34

I agree with you that something most likely needs to be changed; I think I`m one of the extremely few pro-gun advocates willing to admit that there is a problem right now.

My problem is, I don`t know what the solution is. Most of the propositions I`ve heard don`t make any sense. An assault weapons ban? I could kill or injure far more people while sitting in a tower with a Model 700 (bolt-action) than going into a theatre with an AR-15.

Then again, I think there`s merit to the argument for registering, licensing, educating, and testing. Afterall, with automobiles, we must title and register the vehicle; also, we need to demonstrate proficiency and physiological ability to get licensed.

I don`t personally consider these restrictions to violate the Second Amendment. I would only recommend that this be done by the states or by a state conglomerate.
0
Reply
Male 184
@HumanAction, Point taken. I agree with you in the shortcomings in the system, I intended to convey that in my post. Sorry for not being more clear. And again, this is so multifaceted as an issue it is really difficult to table. I, maybe not so simply, posit, that we need to treat firearms with the respect they deserve. This is not being done collectively by the community. The community needs to be held responsible. Someone needs to be accountable for holding them responsible. Any responsible gun owners should be DEMANDING that other gun owners be educated and be held INDIVIDUALLY responsible for their actions so that this ceases to be an issue. We have identified that there is in fact an issue. Do we solve this with more guns or better gun owners? I think the choice is clear.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@jinxjinx34

[quote]You are mistaken though in your interpretation of the Bill of Rights. The bill is a list of LEGAL rights, not Natural/Inalienable rights.[/quote]
I don`t think there is a difference between the two. In either case, for something to be a "right", it needs to be stated by and enforced by a body with such power. In this context, I think legal and inalienable are interchangable.

Regarding the three branches, they are all part of the federal government. Therefore, they all act on behalf of the federal government. While the intention of the House and Senate is to represent the states, they represent the states in the federal government.

The problem with this method is that it is democratic and not republican. The result is a "winner takes all" scheme in which the masses instill their desires on all others. Within a republic, this is less so.
0
Reply
Male 184
@HumanAction, You are correct, the prescribed process for reform would need to take place. I am not one for trampling on the system. I do believe in our constitution. You are mistaken though in your interpretation of the Bill of Rights. The bill is a list of LEGAL rights, not Natural/Inalienable rights. These are matters of legislative, executive, and judicial branches, which powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress. These are the branches which make the federal government. The House of Representatives and the Senate act on behalf the the individual states in legislation. This is so the fed cannot act on it`s own. This is obviously not a perfect system because it does allow statistically unpopular laws to come to fruition. But, it is the system we are working with and it is abused equally by politicians in many situations. There is no popular vote or options by states, our elected representatives in the House and Senate carry the vote for their respective states.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote"> did not say germany won the war...even though if the allies teamed up with them the world would have far less problems today[/quote">



Told you he was a Frenchie! France had alot of nazi supporters so much so they had their own SS division amongst many other ones.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@pompousass7

Those damn arrogant, greedy, war-mongering, cheeseburger-eating, backwards, hill billy, gun-toting, football-watching, tea-baggers! Am I right???

Haha - this is how you sound to me.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@pompousass7

Have you forgotten that our debate is regarding whether or not the US won these wars? You seem to think that economic state decades or centuries later has something to do with the winner at that time.

[quote]i did not say germany won the war...even though if the allies teamed up with them the world would have far less problems today[/quote]
Are you seriously suggesting that, had the Nazi regime been allowed to further their plans, the world would be a better place? Really?

Also, the Allies, of which the US was a part, won the war. Therefore, the US was one of the winners of the war. Therefore, the US won the war. So did, Canada, Australia, France, England, China, Russia, etc.

The Persian Gulf War was fought to repel Iraq`s invasion of Kuwait. The end result was the repulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. That`s a win in my book.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@jinxjinx34

Regarding the Constitutionality of authority in the matter, I disagree. The Bill of Rights merely ensures that some rights are inalienable.

Simply because the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms does not give the authority to regulate arms to the federal government. In fact, the Tenth Amendment purposefully implys that after the Consitution, the States have the most authority to create legislation.

Now, regarding amendments, you are correct. I certainly oppose any such proposition, but, as long as we take the proper road and repeal the amendment, then I would change my opinion on the matter.

I`m trying to draw a fine line between what I deem acceptable and what I deem "moral". For example, I do not think a federal income tax is "moral"; however, it was created and ratified via the proper routes. Therefore, I find it to be acceptable.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@jinxjinx34

No worries - I`m always willing to have a reasonable debate.

Now, I agree that any change that would be effective would need to be federal, or at very least would need to be a pact among many states. However, I see the former as a forceful takeover and the latter as a willing participation. Of course, the distinction to some is merely a nuance.

I think a good example is Obamacare. About half of the states don`t want to participate while the other half do. Unfortunately, because it was dictated at the federal level, we (as in the states) must all partipate - many against our will. I don`t understand why we decide to go this route rather than have the pro-healthcare states create a state-level or multi-state union.

In this way, if the system becomes corrupt, states have the option to leave. As of now, if Obamacare is a complete failure, we are all stuck with it.
0
Reply
Male 259
oh and by the way everyone....happy new year.....will continue our discussion when back in the office next week
0
Reply
Male 259
human..also take note on how all of the countries that have been defeated have better economies and social networks than the u.s. so i want to thank you on behalf of the world for allowing us to focus on economic development, health and social issues and education while you keep spending money on development of better methods of destruction...like the pivotal zombie bullets you guys buy in case of a zombie apocolypse...yes i know outward seemingly normal americans that have hundreds of rounds...just in case
0
Reply
Male 259
sorry..you are right re: persian...of course that war was not won by anyone...thats why you guys had to go back to kill saddam as we (as a world)did not do it to completion the first time which we should have...oh...who stopped us from finishing and why??? right...must have had nothing to do with an agenda for the future of haliburton and the likes that make all of your leaders rich
0
Reply
Male 259
human...i did not say germany won the war...even though if the allies teamed up with them the world would have far less problems today
but most importantly you perhaps unknowingly conceded it was all of the allies not the u.s. that won WW2 which you previously staed was one of the wars the u.s. won..so well done..we are learning here
0
Reply
Male 259
jinx....if you guys could even find us on a map LOL
0
Reply
Male 505
@McGovern1981, I did say I was joking although I think the majority were british - still think that means it was largely the british that won the war of independence if you look at where they came from. (I`ll admit the government lost but the British people won - forerunners of the second ammendment n all that)
0
Reply
Male 184
O.K. I will be the one to say it. @pompousass7, even if we all conceded to your convoluted logic, America could kick Canada`s ass with one hand tied behind it`s back. lol.
0
Reply
Male 184
@HumanAction- First, thank you for keeping this conversation academic and not knee-jerk and ad-hominem. Unfortunately, for any real reform to take place, it would have to happen across the board at the federal level. Morality is simply the intention. The argument from authority, weather it is from the state or fed is irrelevant as long as the intentions are "moral". On top of that, it is the fed that has constitutionality over this issue. This comes from the same constitution you cite that gives you the right to "bear arms". The bill of rights was designed to be amended as times change, to hide behind an amendment blindly as something unchangeable despite the overwhelming evidence of the necessity is foolish. We have been stymied as a society for such parochial thinking. If the gun owning community had been more responsible, this would not be an issue and there would be no need for oversight. Funny cartoon btw.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]human...germany has one of the most "successful" economies in the world[/quote]
So you correlate a war that happened 70 years ago and the current economy of Germany and see this as evidence that Germany won WWII?

In a previous statement you assumed that the Japanese economy is doing well. Let`s assume that to be true and utilize the logic you`ve displayed.

By your logic, Japan won WWII because, despite losing horribly and conceding victory to the allies, they have a good economy. I hope this helps you to realize the faults in your logic.

By the way, the Japanese economic situation is not one to envy. Just saying.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@pompousass7

OK - let`s do this again (the whole proving you wrong thing).

So you claim that, because Britain was engaged with other forces, the US did not legitimately win the Revolutionary War. With this logic, the Germans won WWII because they were engaged on multiple fronts. See how silly you look?

The War of 1812 was declared by the US. The reasons were impedement and trasgressions by Britain, such a the Chesapeake affair and British support for Indian raids. The outcome of the war accomplished all of the US goals. Thus, it was a win.

No US jobs were lost as a result of the Mexican-American war. Quite contrary, much land was gained that continues to contribute to the US economy today.

As for WWII, conspiracy theory much?

Lastly, Saddam was not killed during the Persian Gulf War. In fact, he remained the leader of Iraq for the following decade. Your history is off.
0
Reply
Male 259
human...germany has one of the most "successful" economies in the world
0
Reply
Male 259
human...you only "won" revolutionary war because of the help of dutch,french and spanish..not on your own..end of story
1812...you guys started it dumba$$ ever here of your slogan 54 or war...probably not in your textbooks...next
mexican war...30-40000 jobs lost..yup you won
WW2 you know they knew japan was coming to pearl harbor and wanted to get in the war..hence why they let it happen..ever wonder why no aircraft carriers were there??? oh sorry conspiracy again..thinking u.s. makes all their money by being at war. oh right...look at who made money developing nukes...hmmmmm
and yes persian gulf war ended but you did not win ..yet again..oh killing sadam..big deal..killed a person..not the movement
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]mcgovern..the u.s. brings allies and then tries to pretend they did it all themselves..or more often..lets the allies do all of the work and then comes in at the end to pretend they did all the work. [/quote]
Oh ya sound about right if it`s opposite day! Example the Gulf war "U.S. troops represented 73% of the Coalition’s 956,600 troops in Iraq."-Wiki. Now who`s see thing one sided again?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]by the greed of a prior republican government[/quote]
Ah... Now I get it. You`re one of "those" people, eh?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]thanks for screwing up the war and helping the russians instead of letting germany take them...how did that work out for you??[/quote]
So far so good. We don`t speak Russian or German. The Cold War is over. Neither Russia nor Germany are the aggressors they once were.

So yea, I`d say it turned out pretty well.

Perhaps we have some confusion over the terms "success" and "win"? See, I consider one to be successful when they achieve the goal set out to achieve. What is your definition?
0
Reply
Male 259
mcgovern..the u.s. brings allies and then tries to pretend they did it all themselves..or more often..lets the allies do all of the work and then comes in at the end to pretend they did all the work.
human..forgot to tell you..thanks for screwing up the war and helping the russians instead of letting germany take them...how did that work out for you?? oh..i guess fine as your whole country is propped up on war and arms sales...just such a shame when your own troops are killed by your own weapons sold by the greed of a prior republican government
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@McGovern1981

Haha - this guy is out there...

@pompousass7

OK; let`s pick through your mess and contradict the points you`ve made, shall we?

[quote]that britain was fighting your allies in other places in the world[/quote]
So, despite the fact that the Britain conceded everything that was being fought for by the US, we should throw this in the "L" category?

[quote]the war of 1812[/quote]
So, despite the fact the Britain failed at reclaiming US territory, we should mark this one an "L" too... because some buildings were burned down. I guess we owned Vietnam in that case.

[quote]mexican war...despite all of your casualties[/quote]
US Casualties: 13,283
Mexican Casualties: 16,000 and the Mexican Cession...
F*ck it - "L" column.

[quote]you say you won WW2...did you really[/quote]
Yes...

Oh - and the Persian Gulf War ended on February 28th, 1991.

*facepalm
0
Reply
Male 14,331
None of what you said made any sense whatsoever.

Revolution the US exsists so = WIN.

1812 we still exsist and ports were no longer blockaded along with Britian never trying to get US back = WIN.

Mexican American War we got alot of their land = WIN (not even sure how the f**k that has something to do with jobs heading there now grasping at straws much)

It goes on and on you`re insane!
0
Reply
Male 14,331

VV THIS GUY! VV
0
Reply
Male 259
omg human..you are so screwed up..i already explained how you did not win the war of independance..that britain was fighting your allies in other places in the world. the war of 1812...don`t you remeber the white house and capital building being burnt down?? you didn`t make it an inch forward after that war. not even sure why i would continue explaining to a guy that thinks you won that war??? mexican war...despite all of your casualties, you may think you won, but then again where are all of your jobs heading...like japan when you say you won WW2...did you really...look at your economy...persian gulf...you still haven`t won..never will. sorry..i am getting bored....anyone outside of american propaganda want to weigh in on this???
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@jinx

OK - here is where I get weird (fair warning)... If the states were to enact such restrictions and regulations, I would accept that. Since I believe in a republican system, I consider the states to have that authority; I do not consider the federal government to have the authority to do so.

However, I would not agree with it on a moral level. I actually do believe that any law-abiding citizen should have the right to purchase and/or own a firearm; to me, this is liberty.

In my mind, your suggestion is akin to a big group tramping all over the little guy. We would be sacrificing the rights of individuals (to bear arms) in order to protect the group from something that may or may not happen.

Of course, we could all be making a huge mistake:


0
Reply
Male 2,357
@pompousass7

I really think you are missing my point here. I am saying that China could not wage a war against the US. Yes, they have 1.5 billion people - that they could never hope to send to the US mainland.

If a war occurred, it would need to be fought in China. Therefore, China could never truely defeat the US military globally as they do not have that capacity. The same cannot be said of the US.

As for wars the US won:

Revolutionary
War of 1812
War with Mexico
Civil War (does this count?)
Spanish-American War
Phillipine-American War
WWI
WWII
Korean War
Persian Gulf War
... to name a few.

Now, if you are going to suggest that some don`t count because the US recieved supply aid, then you cannot suggest that anyone but the US won WWII. Russia was the biggest recipient of US arms and raw materials. Without them, Russia would not have been successful.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Finker

Alot more than brits were living here during that time. As for the ones that were I`d say when they declared their independence and fought against Britain they were no longer British.

@pompousass7

So when the US brings allies the it dosen`t count. You`ve just negated most of what the world considers victors then and for some reason left out the Mexican American war hoiw convienent. You`re a buffoon and I`m willing to bet a Frenchie.


0
Reply
Male 184
@HumanAction- I have a difficult time myself asking for further restrictions placed on us as U.S. citizens. I am NOT a Lefty or a Liberal lol. It seems to me that we have 3 choices in the matter. We can leave the situation alone and let the violence continue. We can ban guns. Or, we can take a critical look at the shortcomings in the current system and modify it appropriately. Again, I think we agree that guns are only a part of the problem, but reducing the numbers and availability would provide the fastest impact while we tackle the other social issues contributing to this dilemma. Making it more difficult for someone to own a firearm is exactly what should be done. Do you honestly believe that mandating some training and education could be a bad thing? Or do you really believe any idiot should be able to walk into a store and purchase a pistol? Getting firearms is too easy, that is why so many end up in the hands of criminals. They are not respected.
0
Reply
Male 505
@McGovern1981 "Never knew we were still a British colony"

Wasn`t it mainly ex brits that won that war though? Either that or a strange choice of language you use.

(I am not entirely serious but interesting point)
0
Reply
Male 259
mcgovern..again you guys have no idea of your history
france ( who ironically you guys hate now) the dutch and spain bailed you guys out with weapons, supplies etc...so i state again...you did not win that war on your own either...your allies did...as usual...try again mcgovern
0
Reply
Male 259
humanaction conspiracy theorists are in the u.s. outside of your jaded media; the rest of the world see the facts as they are. now if you think 11 air craft carriers are going to defeat 1.5 billion people you are sadly mistaken..you cannot even defeat 1000 guys in caves..any war would come down to nukes which statistically 1.5 billion people would have more survivors than 325 million.
as for showing you the wars the u,s, has won in their heads but not i reality..it may be quicker for you to list the ones you think you won..like WW2 etc and for me explain how at best you come in at the end to try and take the glory and split the land...check something like the battle of kapyong as an example of where you history books will say you won the battle..when really you just came in to hold the position and relieve the real victors
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]when really you have never won a war in history when you look at it[/quote]

ROFL!!!! Never knew we were still a British colony oh Texas is still part of Mexico LOL! I could do this all day!! You certainly are an ass!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@pompousass7

So, you`re one of those conspiracy theorists aren`t you?

Do you know what force projection is? It is the capacity to project your forces overseas; relative to the US, China lacks this. Consider the holy grail of force projection - aircraft carriers. The US has 11; China has 1.

The point in all of this is that China would not be able to wage a war with the US because they cannot sufficiently assault the US mainland. If a war were to occur, it would take place in China.

As for wars that the US never won, I`m not sure how you`ve managed to come to that conclusion. can you explain further with specific details?
0
Reply
Male 259
human action....china already has a force living in your country as do the muslims...the comment was made to show how arrogant some americans are that they are the ultimate force in the world when really you have never won a war in history when you look at it. You would never have a chance of taking out china when they can reproduce more quickly than you could kill them
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@pompousass7

[quote]humanaction...try picking a war with china then[/quote]
Uh... why? They don`t even have the force projection capability to land a significant force on the US mainland. I`m not 100% sure what you are getting at...

@jinxjinx34

I agree that something needs to be done for the sake of unity within the country. As of right now, we continue to find ourselves being pulled into increasingly polarized divisions and I don`t see it ending well.

Now, I agree that introducing new restrictions on firearms will likely reduce the homicide rates (though I personally believe it will lead to an increase of total crime). However, I`m a pretty strict libertarian when it comes to individual rights. I do not believe it to be fair to punish an individual (make it difficult to obtain a firearm) for something they may or may not do with it. Of course, now I`ve gotten to philosophy.
0
Reply
Male 184
@McGovern1981- Have you even bothered to read my comments? To compare different states and statistics in regards American gun control laws is useless. This could go on ad nauseam and the stats work for both sides of the discussion. There are just way too many variables in the interpretation of the data. This is also a hugely multifaceted issue with multiple issues that we need to address. There is one thing that is clear to me, making it easier to get guns, allowing more people to conceal or open carry, and allowing assault rifles to be privately owned, will not solve the issue. Neither will ignoring the problem and sticking with status quo. What do you propose? Maybe you can post another picture. Btw- how much tougher are the gun laws from state to state really? Merely requiring permits is not the type of reform I am talking about here so you can use your lazy excuse for an argument somewhere else.
0
Reply
Male 505
@johnkelley, just because people sometimes use murder to kill people I guess we should allow that too?
0
Reply
Male 628
"This guy also killed his Grandma with a hammer. Maybe we should ban all hammers, right, you stupid liberal F**KS?"

Restricting rights to things isn`t a liberal philosophy. Unless you`re making a sarcastic point for gun control here....
0
Reply
Male 32
http://www.gunfacts.info/
0
Reply
Male 2,220
Good idea Johnkelly, at least stop typing with one for drats sake!
0
Reply
Male 59
This guy also killed his Grandma with a hammer. Maybe we should ban all hammers, right, you stupid liberal F**KS?
0
Reply
Male 59
This man killed his Grandma with a hammer. We should ban all hammers now, right, you stupid liberal F**KS?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@jinx

0
Reply
Male 184
@dbss- I have not, nor would I ever suggest a prohibition on private ownership of firearms. As for the stats. Most of what you have read in my posts have been responses to specific points. I do understand that less guns=less gun violence by default. However, I am not yet convinced of the argument that less guns=more crime. I have been unable to find reliable data verifying that claim. This is mostly because of huge variables in the different ways the comparable data is collected. Also, there are studies that make an equally strained argument for the opposite. To your other point, mass shootings are only a tiny fraction of gun violence in the U.S. Your point doesn`t carry much weight against the 8583 gun homicides in 2011. This does not include non-fatalities or robberies. In 2008, 303,880 people reported being victimized by a person with a firearm.
0
Reply
Male 184
@HumanAction- I think we can both agree that we need a change. I know this is a hugely multifaceted issue. I got side tracked in my original conversation with statistics. My point with the stats is that they are NOT very useful to either side of the discussion. Mental health, social economics, education,prison system, ect. are huge players in this dilemma and need to be addressed asap. But I still believe that we, as a country, need to reign in some of the guns floating around and make it tougher for people to build arsenals of assault rifles and allow guns to fall into the wrong hands. This cannot be accomplished with the status quo gun laws. I would NEVER suggest a ban! Prohibition does not work. But to posit that making guns MORE readily available at this time is absurd.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@cynicalgamer: If you`re going to parrot statistics you should probably understand them better. Britain considers affrays as "violent crime." Why they do this I don`t know, but the point is that "violent crime" is not a standard set of crimes in every country.
0
Reply
Male 259
humanaction...try picking a war with china then
0
Reply
Male 259
JUST REPLACE THE WATER CANNON WITH A REAL ONE..PROBLEM SOLVED
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]HumanAction, but why are we more violent?[/quote]
There are many different theories, most of which I think have at least some merit. For instance, some blame race - which is statistically significant. Some people blame poor mental healthcare, which I think contributes. Many Southern states close to the border have disproportionately high crime rates too.

In my opinion, the biggest causes are the increasing social division and glorification of fame. Consider the latest election or the Trayvon Martin shooting; have you ever seen groups of people so divided? I haven`t.

[quote]Could it possibly be our gun culture that is contributing to that as well?[/quote]
That`s certainly one theory, though I do not personally agree with it. My issue with this theory is such: imagine if we had a strong crossbow-culture - would we argue that it contributes to violence?
0
Reply
Male 5,413
Does anyone want to have an argument with me on here? Everyone`s already been partnered up. Fancy?
0
Reply
Male 14,331


0
Reply
Male 14,331
MacGuffincat.......
0
Reply
Female 2,674
MacGuffin, not sure why you`re going on this tirade about separating country from its people when you said this: "I`m all for you Americans having all the guns you want. I`d much rather you spent your free time shooting one another than bombing poor countries."

Most Americans who you want to "spend our free time shooting one another" aren`t the ones who are "bombing poor countries". That`d be our government, not our people. You`re being kind of hypocritical.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
HumanAction, but why are we more violent? We definitely aren`t born that way. Could it possibly be our gun culture that is contributing to that as well? The feeling of needing to "protect" ourselves from the bad guys. Vigilante justice and the like. The NRA promotes these kinds of feelings because they know it leads more people to buying guns and doing crazy stuff. Shooting people who weren`t doing anything wrong because they thought they were doing something wrong, that sort of thing. Not doing anything to change our mindset or our laws isn`t going to solve anything. Gun control (for example limiting the types of guns allowed and requiring training classes) is one step toward reducing deaths and gun violence, but it`s definitely not the only thing that needs to be done.
0
Reply
Male 505
@MacGuffin, no need for names. You talk about not going to war but without an army that is a moot point if not misleading. I am not brainwashed and I get the point you are trying to make but as has been pointed out by others you slip between representing yourself and your country without any real rigour - normally, you only clearly make that distinction when you trip yourself up.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]@MacGuffin - what is this Scottish Army that didn`t go to war? You are not fully independent yet so you can`t act like you are only when it suits.[/quote]

Who mentioned anything about a "Scottish Army", dickhead? You really are that brainwashed that you *still* don`t get the distinction between the Individual and the State, aren`t you? Because for you they are one in the same thing. I differentiate between myself and the UK by stating that "I have" never bombed anyone, and you assume that must mean I`m talking about Scotland if I don`t mean the UK. Here`s a thought that`s probably completely alien to your limited, parochial, borg-like way of thinking: I am not my country, nor any part of it. That`s why I`m quite happy to criticise the UK, Scotland, Glasgow, or my next door neighbour, if criticism is due.

And - here`s the kicker - none of that self-awareness changes any of my preceding criticism of America.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Lillian

[quote]I don`t understand why people use statistics within the US to prove their side for gun control (either way, for or against it).[/quote]
At least in my case, it is because I believe violence is a cultural issue in the US. I think that, regardless of firearms, the US tends to be more violent than most other "first world" countries. Because of this, I do not consider the comparison of international homicide rates a fair indicator of the causality between firearm-availability and crime.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
I don`t understand why people use statistics within the US to prove their side for gun control (either way, for or against it). No matter how much gun control is in a certain city, it`s irrelevant when you can easily get a gun by going one city over. I do see this situation as more of a keep murderers in jail story rather than a gun control story.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Finker

But that would require the military being complacent in doing that. Whenever something like that happens it`s never so clearcut some would be other would join resistance along with whatever the government handed them. Not a pretty picture but niether is what you said either way nasty stuff.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
dandomxnp, wrong. Every country that has decreased the availability of guns, or outlawed them has seen a noticable decline in gun crime.

Also, who is talking about getting rid of guns all together? The ONLY thing that has been discussed by politicians is the outlawing of assault weapons, which needs to happen.

The regular member of public has no reason to need or use any kind of assault weapon at all.
0
Reply
Male 505
@MacGuffin - what is this Scottish Army that didn`t go to war? You are not fully independent yet so you can`t act like you are only when it suits.
0
Reply
Male 505
@McGovern1981 "Actual evidence says otherwise. Ex: Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan"

Yep, I thought of those too but this would be on home territory & if the US government were killing it`s own citizens then I think avoiding civillian casualties might be out the window so heavy weapons could be used far more effectively.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]I know that living in a fascist state you find it very difficult to differentiate between your individual self and your country[/quote]
In your previous statement, you address "all Americans" rather than America. Therefore, you either need to redact that statement, or your response conflicts with your initial statement.

Either way, as it is currently framed, your statements are hypocritical. If all Americans can be blamed for bombing smaller countries, then certainly all citizens within the UK can also be.

[quote]America`s cowardly policy of repeatedly picking fights with countries smaller than itself[/quote]
In terms of military, all countries are "smaller". It would be impossible to pick a fight with a country that was not smaller. Perhaps you simply should have stated that the US should not be picking fights.

P.S. I consider you to be an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 14,331

0
Reply
Male 14,331
@thunderkunt

SO you don`t want to be put in the same boat as the UYK while putting all Americans in the same boat ROFL!!! Hello hypocricy!!!

0
Reply
Female 2,602

[quote]Oh the ones you bombed too...yada yada[/quote]

I`ve never bombed anyone, dear. Perhaps that`s the UK you`re thinking of? I know that living in a fascist state you find it very difficult to differentiate between your individual self and your country (residents of the GDR had the same difficulty), but really you must get over this little thing that you have whereby anyone criticising America = an automatic psychological trigger for you to criticise where they live as a response. It just makes you look quite stupid.

Sooner or later, I`m sure, you`ll realise that I *agree* with most criticism of the UK`s foreign policy over the past decade. And that my doing so doesn`t diminish my criticism of America`s cowardly policy of repeatedly picking fights with countries smaller than itself.
0
Reply
Male 6
Try reading the Federalist Papers to get a real understanding of the U. S. Constitution. Yes the second amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" that does not mean the framers wanted only state powers to hold firearms. They knew as many here don`t, that "
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." is what keeps the people free. It is not the guns fault that we as a culture have cheapened life and glorified murderers so much that people think the only way they will ever be noticed is through the wholesale slaughter of their fellow man. Blame the guns all you want, but until we create a society that believes life is worth defending and not destroying then people will kill each other with anything they can get their hands on... remember fertilizer and diesel fuel killed lots of people in Oklahoma, 4 air planes and some box cutters made a pretty big impact and a lot of carnage tooâ
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@MacGuffin

Oh the ones you bombed too. Nice try thunderkunt!

@Finker

Actual evidence says otherwise. Ex: Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan... it`s a pretty long list.
0
Reply
Male 505
@TruTenrMan, thanks - clear on that bit now
0
Reply
Male 505
@McGovern1981, the American Revolution was a while ago - the nature of warfare has changed(& that is I think what is being talked about). Not conviced it is the possession of guns that would swing it these days.
0
Reply
Male 519
Another day, another gun post by fancy. Nothing to see here.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
FWIW, I`m all for you Americans having all the guns you want. I`d much rather you spent your free time shooting one another than bombing poor countries.
0
Reply
Male 2,552
@Finker, no, I said, "The local militias were originally set up to settle disputes between states." I was merely stating why the original militias were set up. Yes, the national government took over settling disputes between states, but it did not disband all states` militias.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Finker

Irony the same was said about the American Revolution.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@deputy

People said the same thing when the American revolution was fought and they ended up winning. Besides if it came down to something like that you don`t think the military would wind up getting divided between sides? Also Vietnam and many other wars prove your thoughts about an armed population wrong. The UK learns nothing from it`s mistakes. BTW a hunting gun is a sniping gun people who know nothing about guns shouldn`t try to make laws for them.
0
Reply
Male 505
@TruTenrMan - are you saying the right to carry arms is still for disputes between states? Might be my misunderstanding of role of national government over there but wouldn`t they step in before there were two sets of opposing militia fighting on the borders between states?
0
Reply
Male 505
@TruTenrMan & McGovern1981 - I get the theory but government controls the really big guns so not convinced it would be any more effective than people fighting the government with sticks. Surely a mass uprising without guns is likely to be more effective as they have less excuse to shoot people - that actually plays into the hands of a corrupt government unless the people have a similar military power.
0
Reply
Male 448
addition to previous:

I am not saying guns in america should be completely outlawed, but the reasons that a lot of people use to justify the ownership of guns are just insane.
If it is for self defense, a normal pistol with a limited amount of rounds would be sufficient. Jus allow people a hand gun or hunting gun that can be used for self defense, and limit the amount of ammo, and make the punishment for breaking those laws big.
This allows people to self defend and prevents a lot of problems with mass shootings and sniper attacks.
0
Reply
Male 448
@mcgovern "Also giving the added benafit of if ever invaded practically everyother house would be fighting back."
This is so lolworthy. Get real. An invasion would not only be done with hand weapons. My guess is there would be tanks and planes and other guided weapons involved. That is also why I think the militia idea is insane. I men, fighting your government is a real idea, but as long as the army is supporting your government you won`t stand a chance in the real world.
0
Reply
Male 32
Jinx, don`t look at gun crime when guns are outlawed. Look at crime as a whole. Is there more violent crime? No guns equals less gun crime, but other crimes tend to skyrocket due to the fact that criminals know their victims are handicapped when it comes to defending themselves. This is why you don`t see mass shootings at gun ranges, NRA meetings, police stations, and other places where people are allowed to carry. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country, yet the worst gun violence. Go figure. People aren`t allowed to carry in the streets, assault weapons are banned, no high capacity magazines, and rifles and shotguns have restrictions. Drugs are banned in this country, and we have high times magazines, and movies that celebrate it. Bans don`t work, seems like they only encourage the behavior.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Also notice The peoples republic of California has the strictest gun laws in the US. They also have Oakland one of the most violent cities in the US amongst others.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Also giving the added benafit of if ever invaded practically everyother house would be fighting back.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Finker

What TruTenrMan it`s a government power abuse check. They wrote it for a good reason it was exactly what they fought the revolution over.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@jinxjinx34

At the same time, New Hampshire, with very weak gun laws, has a homicide rate of 0.8/100k and Vermont has a rate of 1.1/100k. Clearly there must be another issue at hand - whether it is population density, big city prevalence, etc.

There are a variety of different laws in place in "strict" states that differentiate them from "loose" states. Typically, the differences fall to registrations, permits, record retention, and concealed carry laws (shall issue vs. may issure vs. no concealed carry).

However, there are quite a few different ways states have attempted to curb gun violence. This site goes into much more detail on the subject that I can hope to: Brady Campaign
0
Reply
Male 2,552
@Finker, yes, it does. The local militias were originally set up to settle disputes between states. Also, God-forbid our government becoming tyrannical, rising up against said "authorities" with advanced weaponry can only be done by having access to the same technology.
0
Reply
Male 2,672
[quote]We can fill prisons with Joe average smoking pot, but THIS guy gets paroled?[/quote]


^^^^
This.

The real crime here isn`t even being discussed.
0
Reply
Male 505
McGovern1981, does this still really stand up given advances in weapons the authorities have access to, it doesn`t really sound like it still serves the purpose it was meant to?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@LillianDulci

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE <--(see that part) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[
0
Reply
Female 465
That crack about the NRA shows you don`t understand a thing. The issue to revisit is mental health and protecting society at large from people who are unstable. We need to reopen the asylums we closed in the 1980s.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
A big difference with the reporting of this guy and other killers is that its hard to imagine it being glamourising. He shot unarmed heroes and then ran away as soon as people with guns turned up, then shot himself rather than be caught.

The perception is of a cowardly monster rather than a lone gunman surely. (Ignoring the obvious mental health aspect).

As for frying him.. I think a humane execution when he first murdered his grandmother would have been better all round, as a calculated solution rather than a painful punishment.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
@cynical gamer.. there you go again, mashing up statistics, you can`t compare something as broad as `violent crimes` even if the figures you state are genuine (which I doubt) as the definition of violent crimes and the rate of reportage is going to differ across countries and states.

Stick to a more comparable measure - murder.

Still not a level playing field, but a much truer picture

How does the UK come out now? Not well for europe, but miles ahead of the US. The truth about South Africa as a violent place becomes a bit clearer. No-one bothers reporting a little fisty cuffs in Saffer.. just not worth it.
0
Reply
Male 58
@TheeAJ123
that would be our prison system, who is to blame. for instance in countries like Norway, their prison system focuses on rehabilitation as opposed to capital punishment and solitary confinement. Norway`s repeat offender rate is at 20%, the US is around 50-60%.
0
Reply
Male 39,614

We can fill prisons with joe average smoking pot, but THIS guy gets paroled?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Whose bright idea was it to let him out of prison after he murdered his grandmother with a hammer? What are the odds of his lawyer being a Democrat?
0
Reply
Male 612
great idea to arm firemen, because bullets don`t misfire at all due to high heat. the lack of common sense on this site never ceases to amaze me.
0
Reply
Male 184
@HumanAction- Many states with loose gun control also have higher than average crime rates- S. Carolina was number 1 in 2006. Arizona, Alaska, ect. This can be used easily for both sides. What is the major difference in gun laws between strict and lenient states anyway? How much less is the crime rate? Does it justify the gun murder and gun crime rate? I do not believe most are looking for a ban on private gun ownership, just a critical look at the laws concerning them.
0
Reply
Male 118
The guy should have been fried in 1980 when he killed his grandmother with a "Hammer", not a "Bushmaster ASSAULT weapon" but a hammer.So Who is to blame?
0
Reply
Male 210
0
Reply
Male 2,675
Caption says it very well.
0
Reply
Male 210
A tiny percentage of the mentally ill become mass killers. Just about everyone around Tucson shooter Jared Loughner sensed he was mentally ill and dangerous. But in effect, he had to kill before he could be put away — and (forcibly) treated.

Random mass killings were three times more common in the 2000s than in the 1980s, when gun laws were actually weaker. Yet a 2011 University of California at Berkeley study found that states with strong civil-commitment laws have about a one-third lower homicide rate.
0
Reply
Male 210
Mental Health is the real issue.

Charles Krauthammer, pundit and former practicing psychiatrist, wrote recently in the Washington Post:

Monsters shall always be with us, but in earlier days they did not roam free. As a psychiatrist in Massachusetts in the 1970s, I committed people — often right out of the emergency room — as a danger to themselves or to others. I never did so lightly, but I labored under none of the crushing bureaucratic and legal constraints that make involuntary commitment infinitely more difficult today.

Why do you think we have so many homeless? Destitution? Poverty has declined since the 1950s. The majority of those sleeping on grates are mentally ill. In the name of civil liberties, we let them die with their rights on.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]To those in a well regulated militia only? I`m for that.[/quote]
The Supreme Court cases United States v. Emerson, District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. Chicago all uphold the notion that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals - not a collective as you suggest.

To quote Justice Scalia:

"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a `right` attributed to `the people` refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention `the people,` the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset."

Furthermore:

"Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to `keep and bear Arms` in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as `the people`."
0
Reply
Male 1,920
To expand on my comment below, militia is not the same as the people in the 2nd amendment, they in fact are two different entities. Why would you need an amendment to the constitution to guarantee that a militia would have arms? A militia without arms is just a group of people.
0
Reply
Male 450
Saw this on Dvorak News Blog:
Per the Daily Mail:

Britain’s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed. Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa – widely considered one of the world’s most dangerous countries. The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiraling violence.

In the decade following the party’s election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million – or more than two every minute. According to the Mail, Britons suffer 1,158,957 violent crimes per year, which works out at 2,034 per 100,000 residents. By contrast the number in notoriously violent South Africa is 1,609 per 100,000. The U.S., meanwhile, has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, which is lower than Franceâ&
0
Reply
Male 1,920
@LillianDulci
"To those in a well regulated militia only?"

The 2nd Amendment is an amendment to the Original constitution. Most people tend to read past the part where it says "being necessary to the security of a free State"

So what does this mean? Let`s try looking at the opposite of what it means:
An unregulated militia jeopardizes the security of a free state

Well then, just how do you regulate a militia and ensure a free state?

we could try this solution:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]What "evidence" can you cite to substantiate that?[/quote]
Many "shall issue" states with loose gun-control laws have homicide rates under 1.5/100k (Iowa, Utah, Minnesota, Idaho, North Dakota). This rate is less than many European countries and other states with stricter laws. This PROVES (by contradiction) that loose gun laws alone do not CAUSE homicide rates to increase.

Now, is there a correlation? Well yea, duh. Let`s say a country bans baseball bats. Do you think that their baseball bat crime rate will decrease? Obviously.

So then, what are progun advocates suggesting? Loose gun control laws inversely correlate with TOTAL CRIME rates (not just firearm-related crime, because that is a useless statistic as shown above).
0
Reply
Male 184
@randomxnp- What "evidence" can you cite to substantiate that? I can point to the fact that the countries with the strictest gun laws have substantially less gun violence. What do you have that suggests the opposite?
0
Reply
Male 2,528
Wow. One day this site posts videos regarding the irresponsible things the media does that influences people to go on shooting sprees and the next day they ignore these same warnings of irresponsibility and post the exact information that the experts say shouldn`t be released to the public!!!

0
Reply
Male 4,860
I`m not going to get in a partisan fight @randomxnp. It is clear that that is all you want.
0
Reply
Male 32
The guy wanted to kill people, he chose a gun to do it. He was not allowed by law to own a gun, but he found a way to get one anyway. Laws and bans do not stop criminals. Just like getting behind the wheel drunk doesn`t stop most people either, or doing drugs. If you want to do it, you will find a way. drat blaming guns, and the NRA. Blame the guy who shot the firemen.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"Yes. You need to implement the 2nd Amendment, which openly assumes the right to bear arms (not own, not use, not keep in a safe, but bear) and demands that this right not be infringed."

To those in a well regulated militia only? I`m for that.
0
Reply
Male 2,160
why don`t we just make murder in general illegal? oh, wait a minute....already is.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
" Can we agree that the status quo gun control is not working?"

Yes. You need to implement the 2nd Amendment, which openly assumes the right to bear arms (not own, not use, not keep in a safe, but bear) and demands that this right not be infringed.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Markust

It was a knee-jerk reaction! He blunders in with no thought to reality, reacting with emotion rather than rational thinking. That is knee-jerk.


As for "partisan BS" are you denying that the US DOJ was complicit in killing over 200 Mexicans and 2 US citizens by illegally supplying guns to Mexican criminals?

Perhaps you are denying that Obama is complicit? Given that he has personally obstructed the investigation, so is openly complicit as accessory after the fact to this crime, and given that if he did not know before about such a horrifying crime, with potentially grave diplomatic consequences then he is incompetent in his job, that is quite a thought. He is responsible for his government.

Of course it is known that people close to Obama, within the WH knew at the time. They are people who should have told Obama. They are people who should be sacked if they did not tell him. They have not been sacked. Hmmmmmm, so either Obama k
0
Reply
Male 1,293
jinx

"Less guns WILL equal less gun violence."

That is simply utter bullpoo.

The evidence suggests that the opposite is the case of course (the increase in ownership and carrying of guns in the US is correlated with a reduction in gun violence, and in all violent crime; across the US low legal gun ownership correlates with high gun crime) however even with actual evidence I would not state that gun crime will rise if gun laws become stricter; I think it would be the case, and I have evidence on my side, but no-one can be certain.
0
Reply
Male 184
To all of those who are riding the assumption that stricter gun control will do no good in the fight against gun violence and will simply arm criminals. There have been 62 mass shootings in the U.S. since 1982. 49 of them were carried out with LEGALLY obtained firearms.12 with illegally obtained guns. 1 undetermined. Where are the facts you guys are using to perpetuate this position? Less guns WILL equal less gun violence. Making it harder to obtain guns will equal less guns. It is a very simple idea and the right place to start to tackle this issue. Mental healthcare and education are the other things that we need to look at.
0
Reply
Male 184
@Nerd_Rage- First, what would you propose is the solution? Can we agree that the status quo gun control is not working? Please provide some facts to support your hypothesis that the media is to blame for gun violence. Also, why do countries with stricter gun laws invariably have LESS gun violence? Is this due to better media coverage? As for your analogies, we are not discussing knives. The issue is guns. But since you brought it up-2007 there were 10,086 gun murders in the U.S. to 1,796 cutting/stabbing deaths. You say we should simply "raise awareness of the possible violence..."- But do we ignore the realized violence? This isn`t an imaginary or "possible" problem. It is real and unfortunately it IS news.
0
Reply
Male 3,431
This S.O.B. should have been put to death in the 80`s when he beat his grandma to death.
0
Reply
Male 4,860
"And to whoever said less guns = less deaths. Too easy; A man in china killed 20+ elementary school children in CHINA, with a KNIFE."

You might want to get your news from an actual news source. The attack on school kids in China (on the same day as the Sandy shooting) left 23 injured. There were no fatalities.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
@Nerd Rage - the spate of horrific attacks in China resulted in 25 dead in total. That was from more than 10 attacks. The highest toll from a single attacker that I could find was Zheng Minsheng, who murdered 8 children.
0
Reply
Male 2,424
He attacked his gram-grams with a Hammer. WE NEED HAMMER CONTROL!

MC Hammer is complacent in this crime!

Certainly the murderer hummed "duhm duhm dah-dum-dum da-dum, dah-duhm-- Cant touch this!" as he blungeoned her to death.
0
Reply
Male 4,860
"Are you denying that Obama supported gun control?"

I removed your partisan BS that you had in quotes. No I am not denying that. I was just saying that he didn`t have the knee jerk reaction that @Amurika was claiming he had.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
This man was not allowed to own guns, so cannot possibly have shot anyone. Since gun laws prevent gun deaths this must be a conspiracy! The are all lying to us, it must have been an anti-Obama CIA faction that killed the firemen.

markust

Are you denying that Obama (who supports arming Mexican criminals but wishes to disarm law-abiding Americans) supported gun control? Regardless of what Carney said (it is a touching naivity with which you quote a man who is rarely allowed to be honest) Obama did so after the CT shootings.
0
Reply
Male 425
Hi.

Half the reason "tragidies" like this are so "tragic" is because of the mindless mass that buys into the media`s desperate cry for attention.

When things like this happen. We DON`T need to publicize it. as it will only lead to the solidification of the mastermind as an "Infamous" criminal, who will be used as a baseline for future criminals.

If we would simply raise awareness of the possible violence rather than making a big ruckus with all the news casts. then the next mastermind wouldn`t have to go bigger and harder than the last guy.

Does it make sense yet?

And to whoever said less guns = less deaths.

Too easy; A man in china killed 20+ elementary school children in CHINA, with a KNIFE.

RIGHT? Less knives = less deaths?

Less morons like you = less people like me wanting to kill people like you.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]After the CT shootings Obama jumped on gun control faster than a fat kid to a box of Twinkies.[/quote]
I actually think he has handled the situation very elegantly. In my opinion, he has been very careful to imply that "something" needs to change, while also leaving that "something" open to suggestions. That being said, I don`t agree with the "assault weapons ban" because it doesn`t make sense.

[quote]Hey.. why don`t you shoot them instead![/quote]
Because then we would have to listen to a bunch of Europeans use the gun-related capital punishment statistics to "prove" that guns are evil and we are stupid. I`d rather them have to try and prove that ropes are evil.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"The U.S. has a lower murder rate than europe, austrila, and asia? "

Ummm, what? The rate in the USA is 4.2 according to the website you listed. Asia is 3.1, Australia is 1.0, and Europe is 3.5. I`m not sure where you`re looking to draw that conclusion.
0
Reply
Male 4,860
"After the CT shootings Obama jumped on gun control faster than a fat kid to a box of Twinkies."

Funny how you threw out the word ignorant in your full comment. On the day of the shooting White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said today is not the day for a debate on gun control. The word gun was not even in Obama`s speech to the nation. Five days later Obama did setup a Gun Violence Task force to look into solutions. As per your saying, if it took a fat kid 5 days to get to his box of Twinkies he wouldn`t be fat.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
Hey.. why don`t you shoot them instead! Could have a weekly NRA raffle to see who gets to whack a whacko.
0
Reply
Male 2,552
HumanAction: Exactly! Not to mention the savings on not having to fund prisons anymore.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]Less guns = less gun deaths. Screw the NRA and the 2nd amendment.[/quote]
By this logic, we should hang criminals. Afterall, less criminals = less gun deaths. Let`s also hang anyone with mental problems.

See? I can play this game too.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
@amurika going by that post alone, you have zero right to speak or discuss the topic, as you are biased yourself.

ALso, they are not facts. They are merely your opinion.
0
Reply
Male 282
The establishments lap dog media is just doing their job asked of them by the their masters. Ted Turner, who owns CNN and other propaganda media channels, is a Bilderberg member. Name one positive idea thats come from that fascist bunch of phucktards. From here on out expect to see a shooting once a week in the media. This is all about gun control. After the CT shootings Obama jumped on gun control faster than a fat kid to a box of twinkies. With children`s faces plastered all over TV, the ignorant will play right into their hands for the elite know that everyone has a child in school and this hits home more than anything. Our illegitimate-illegal alien of a president wants nothing more than to disarm the country. After all, mother government hates competition. Leave your second hand debates at the door please, playing ignorant will not change the facts.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
@lordjim since its the US, he/they probably didnt have adequate health insurance so the medical industry didnt want to know.

As others have said, while PART of it is gun availability/control, the main cause for concern is the complete lack of help available for people in the us who suffer from Mental health issues.

Unfortunatly, republicans have stopped changes to the law time and time again, simply because the insurance companies which they are on the boards of, would not make any money.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Clearly disturbed guy living with a sister he hated in a house where he bludgeoned his grandmother to death. One assumes there was mental health care in place? At least a social worker or two aware? Or nothing?
0
Reply
Male 3,285
@whodat fancy needs to make captions like that as he knows this site is failing, yet will not admit it or hand the reins over to someone else.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
"...a loser mama`s boy..." "...gutless killer..."

what happened to impartiality in journalism? I mean, this is a horrible tragedy, but even so a news source is supposed to present the facts in a manner almost completely uncolored by opinion. That`s how you maintain journalistic integrity and get people to take you seriously.

Or at least, it was. I suppose now the news is geared more towards telling your specific fan base exactly what they want to hear.

I realize that it`s nigh impossible to side with the killer on this one, but at the very least treat the issue with some professional respect for the sake of the victims.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
@redspeed with 17 posts here, you wont be missed nor will we ever care.
0
Reply
Male 4,860
"Why does the media attack the NRA and guns in general, instead of adressing the issue that there are so many mentally disturbed people running around untreated?"

Because we are reactionary as a nation. Hopefully the few sensible leaders that have been pushing for years for more help with the mentally disturbed will get more traction. The problem is that congress is made up of mostly the mentally disturbed.
0
Reply
Male 55
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

What? The U.S. has a lower murder rate than europe, austrila, and asia? That cant be right with all those strict gun control regulations. You mean that every person whos been here for days bashing guns in the US and calling us stupid for our rights are themselves actually fcking idiots? huh....who`d of guessed. Now go back to your poo hole countries and leave ours ALONE. You should join them fancy you fcktard.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Why does the media attack the NRA and guns in general, instead of adressing the issue that there are so many mentally disturbed people running around untreated?[/quote]
Because they`re stupid f***ing liberal @$$holes who, by the way, are the same stupid f***ing liberal @$$holes who emptied out our insane asylums because the felt that keeping violent crazy people locked up against their will was a violation of their civil rights.

0
Reply
Male 16
Well with this post I`m not coming back to this site again. If I wanted political agendas, I would find a site for that but I`m here to be entertained not to be fed political crap! Time to go find some other site because this one is degrading over time.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
MAGIC!!
0
Reply
Male 14,331
GUNZ IZ EBILZ WE CHOULD MAKE DEMZ DISSAPPERZ WID MAGICAL LEFISTZ POWERZZ!! (the powers are handing them to Mexican drug cartels)
0
Reply
Male 3,908
Once again, another retarded caption by fancy. I live in NY, this happened in NY State which happens to have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. The guy who did this was a convicted felon, did 17 years killing his own grandmother. Convicted felons are not allowed to own weapons, can`t even live in a house with a spouse/roommate who has registered firearms. This has nothing to do with gun control, you fail.
0
Reply
Male 2,552
It seems like only crazy people are committing these crimes. Following the Left`s (and the media`s) logic, we should make being crazy illegal, then the problem would go away!
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]Guns around extreme heat. Only the NRA...[/quote]

If it`s hot enough to detonate a bullet the bullet is the least of your problems.

[quote]God, the Americans supporting guns are fcking stupid.[/quote]

Said the boy who thinks more laws would help against something that was already illegal.

[quote]Just recently I discovered you sell guns at supermarkets, you guys are fcking nuts.[/quote]

They call that Wal-mart they sell alot of things.
0
Reply
Male 143
"Less guns = less gun deaths. Screw the NRA and the 2nd amendment."

You have any other rights you want to give up ? I don`t.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
We know he left a note. IT was all over the news an hour after it happened.
0
Reply
Male 1,216
God, the Americans supporting guns are fcking stupid. You are in the top ten for gun deaths in the world, right after some third world countries. Just recently I discovered you sell guns at supermarkets, you guys are fcking nuts. Mental health should sure be taken better care of, but guns should not be available like that as well.

You guys are living in a bubble.
0
Reply
Male 535
GUSS ASKS, "Why does the media attack the NRA and guns in general, instead of adressing the issue that there are so many mentally disturbed people running around untreated?"

Because we can`t ban the mentally disturbed, you dolt...
0
Reply
Male 1,497
Guns around extreme heat. Only the NRA...
0
Reply
Male 573
Less guns = less gun deaths. Screw the NRA and the 2nd amendment.
0
Reply
Male 143
Instead of the NY Journal publishing the names and addresses of law abiding gun owners, I suggest an alternative........how about publishing the names and addresses of criminals and crazy people; you know, the ones that rob people, rapes women and children, assault and /or shoot people, break into our homes, etc........ At least then we`d know where they are and we can ALL keep an eye on them..............how `bout that ?
0
Reply
Male 642
they could, if they get bat poo crazy some day.

that said, how do they defend that countries with strict weapons laws have a less armed crime/shooting rate in percent (has nothing to do with that there are more US citizens than germans for example)?

s arming against the armed really the best solution or should weapons at all be removed and strictly enforced and people made sensible that guns are poopoo from a childs age and are to be despised? It`s like a civil war.. one gets a gun, the other ones get guns too.. soon everywhere will be full of guns and people live like in a big prison with armed guards everywhere.. is this what the gun community wants? A world like in the wild west where everybody can just kill everybody else for nothing, just because they just happen to have a gun at hand and it seems an easy thing to do? People who go mass murder don`t expect to survive.. they will shoot the armed guard(s) first and then do what they want and then get killed by poli
0
Reply
Male 762
Tabloids really shouldn`t report on atrocities. They have no tact and make everything worse.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
How`d them not being armed work out again??
0
Reply
Male 21
Why does the media attack the NRA and guns in general, instead of adressing the issue that there are so many mentally disturbed people running around untreated?
0
Reply
Male 439
49,999,999 legal gun owners did not shoot any firemen that day.
0
Reply
Male 20,830
Link: Man Who Shot 4 Firefighters Leaves Suicide Note [Rate Link] - Says ...killing people is what he liked `doing best.` We should arm firefighters now, right NRA? Just like teachers, no?
0
Reply