If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newser)   The morning of one school shooting, another may have been averted: Police arrested a teenager in northern Oklahoma yesterday for allegedly planning a Columbine-style attack on his high school   (newser.com) divider line 271
    More: Scary, Oklahoma, school shootings, Tulsa World, Sammie Chavez, Oklahoma yesterday, .22 Long Rifle, 2nd amendment, high schools  
•       •       •

8592 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Dec 2012 at 11:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



271 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 03:57:32 AM

GladGirl: I feel sorry for YOU, whyknot, and the state of paranoia you live in? You really think citizens of all those countries with strict gun control are oppressed and powerless against their government? Those poor enslaved folks of England, or Japan? If "freedom" means everyone armed to the tooth and a culture of fear - where people like many in this thread think 20 children's deaths are an acceptable tradeoff if it means you get to protect your home against an intruder who almost certainly doesn't exist - well, fark that: there needs to be limits to these freedoms. I knew a family in that school yesterday. Wait until you know someone this has happened to. It may change your opinion.


So because some other countries with stronger gun control haven't become tyrannies, it's not necessary to allow for the possibility of the people needing to fight back against tyranny?

I lean toward prevention in this debate, but you are absolutely and without question missing the point of the 2nd Amendment. Let's put the shoe on the other foot here for a moment. Let's go back in time to when some on the left were afraid that George W. Bush might try to stay in office beyond his term-limited 8 years. Let's say he let the religious right run amok, putting prayer in schools, passing laws that establish christianity as a force in governance and - to go to a ridiculous extreme for the sake of making my point - restricting access to voting for non-whites and non-Christians, and more importantly, restricting the right of assembly.

Should not the reasonable people of the United States be allowed the means to overthrow such a government by force, if necessary?

Such an overthrow would be very difficult in any country, but certainly if such changes were to happen in England or Japan, the people of those nations would have a hard time with the stricter gun controls.

The point is, it is written into the US Constitution that we as a people have a right to defend ourselves against government tyranny - and he unlikelihood of such tyranny is entirely beside the point.

A solution needs to be found for the rise in gun violence in this nation. The people who are Chicken Littling about their 2nd Amendment rights need to man up, come to the table and help solve the problem, because right now they're helping to create it.

The solution may include some additional restrictions on gun ownership and guns themselves. But more importantly, the solution needs to be more systemic. It must include mental health services, and other things that will cost money. And one of the biggest problems in this debate is that people screaming about their gun rights are, by and large, the same people who flat-out refuse to help (or even allow) the government pay for any social programs or anything that benefits the people as a whole. By and large these people believe in every man for himself, even though, by and large, they also profess themselves to be christians.

To quote something a friend posted online a couple days ago:


Gun people: fix this yourselves. It is YOUR right to carry, then it is YOUR responsibility to find a solution to this madness of random killings. Step up and stop whining, find a way to make this NOT be a regular part of our society's experience.

It is not the guns, you say; then find a way to filter out THESE people yourselves - make the good faith legislation that does this with your big lobbies.

I don't want your guns. I don't want to take away a responsible gun-owner's gun. But even you must admit that this is out of control, out of line, out of any sense of reason or humanity. The status quo will not do.
 
2012-12-16 04:10:46 AM
Sammie Chavez

will get little media traction. next article please.
 
2012-12-16 04:23:30 AM

JohnnyC: Homeschooling my kids is sounding more and more attractive.


A 5 sigma event is a 5 sigma event, even if you eliminate the possibility of a few kinds those events, you have radically altered your lifestyle, and possibly quality, without meaningfully altering your odds of avoiding tragedy. Great misfortune may find anyone anywhere, all that we really control is how we respond should we be forced to confront it. What lesson is more important to pass on; living well in the face of uncertainty, or in fear because of it?
 
2012-12-16 04:46:06 AM
Satan's Dumptruck Driver: They NRA (I used to be a member until I got sick of their politics) and other (less politically motivated) shooting groups are *huge* proponents of gun safety and education. If somebody approached them about putting together classes on evading a shooter and surviving a school shooting, I bet you would have hoards of volunteers. The problem based on my small sampling of anti-gun friends is that they want an all-or-none approach-- they want legislation to eliminate the threat. And that's just not a timely or realistic solution.

So your solution is that we must all get firearms training and learn to defend ourselves against mentally ill person with a powerful, fast-shooting gun? Does that actually sound reasonable to you?

Why don't we just expect everyone to be trained in firefighting and have all the necessary equipment, rather than have electrical codes, flame retardant building materials, etc.? Why don't we let people just choose and install their own safety equipment on cars rather than mandating seat belts and air bags?

I don't believe legislation can completely eliminate the threat, but it can sure minimize it. Why is it so unreasonable to want to minimize the threat?

Accepting that mentally ill people are going to go on shooting sprees and we must all learn to defend against them is not a solution.
 
GBB
2012-12-16 04:54:48 AM
No love for the threat to Winter Park High School???
 
2012-12-16 05:02:38 AM
WhyKnot: If you are an American, I feel sorry for you. As already stated above, the founding fathers knew that in order to limit government, the people needed a way to stand up to the government. Without this check and balance, the govnment would again become too powerful and oppressive. They built resistance into the constitution. In a moment of panic and fear, to strip away one of the greatest gifts given to the American People by the founding fathers, would be tragic. Again, as pointed out above, you may like the president and not worry if he got a little grabby with power...but what if it was GW and his main man Chaney? Would you still feel okay with the president getting a little grabby on power? Once a citizenship is disarmed, only the government has the guns.

This is one of the more ridiculous rationalization for gun ownership. Do you listen to what you say? You honestly think the American people are going to rise up, strap on their guns and overthrow the government?

Do you think that's a good idea, to have people overthrowing the government? That's how we should express our displeasure with government actions and get things changed?

My history is rusty, but I don't think the founding fathers were trying to make sure people could overthrow the government. Their goal was to have a government that was responsible to the people and the people could peacefully advocate for change rather than overthrowing the government. That's why we have freedom of speech, of the press, the right to assemble; so that we can discuss and debate instead of armed insurrection. There's a reason why dictatorships don't allow those rights and freedoms.

Perhaps you should review the system of checks and balances. That's what protects us from power grabs. Not a bunch of gun nuts with overthrow the gub'mint fantasies.
 
2012-12-16 05:11:11 AM
OBBN: The kids have bb guns and have been taught gun safety from day one. The biggest problem I have with this tragic story is that while the mother purchases these guns legally, they were not secured. As with kombi, our three guns are secured in a gun safe. In addition each has a gun cable lock through the chamber, making it impossible to fire the weapon. The keys for the locks are kept hidden and the ammo is stored in a locked separate location.

Oh, okay, I understand now. We just trust all parents to give their children a thorough education on guns and gun safety and keep the guns locked up. That's what we have now and it doesn't seem to be working out so well. Your kids have been taught about guns and gun safety, that doesn't mean everyone has received that education.

In this case, the shooter's mother apparently did teach him about guns, took him to the shooting range, etc. And look how well that worked out.

This shooter was 20 years old. When your kids are 20 years old, will they have free access to their guns? I'm going to guess yes. What if one of your kids is 20 years old and asks you for the key because he wants to get in some target practice. I'm going to guess you'd hand him/her the keys because after all, you taught them about guns. And as we've seen, that's a fool-proof method for preventing a mass shooting.

Yeah, I know your kids are perfect and will never have any mental health issues so it's all perfectly safe.
 
2012-12-16 05:19:12 AM

Gulper Eel: serpent_sky: I guess there aren't really any answers, though...

There are if we can find out the causes for why somebody grows up lacking empathy.

I've been reading up on what Simon Baron-Cohen (yep, Borat's cousin) has written on the subject. Trouble is, it's the sort of work that doesn't lend itself well to politics or TV news yammerfests.


No, he wrote on the subject of "evil".

And it's not simply "lacking empathy". Many of us have little of that, some none, and would never do anything this monstrous.

What makes people do such things is psychosis/mental illness of one form or another. You'd do better to read the more science oriented DSM, not some quasi-religious babble about good vs evil.
 
2012-12-16 05:26:32 AM
Why do you 2nd ammendment lovers always forget about the "well-regulated militia" part? Do you understand that the Constitution was written at a time when the country did not have a standing army and citizens would be called upon to defend the country if necessary?

We have a well-regulated militia to protect us; it's called the army. Feel free to volunteer anytime.
 
2012-12-16 05:31:44 AM

Amos Quito: styckx: The only thing that bothers me is this.

What laws 5 years from now will be acted upon and when someone goes "When the fark did that bullshiat get passed into law and who the fark allowed it??" Then someone replies "Back in 2012 when panicky petes begged and pleaded at the feet of the Government to do something about all those shootings this is the result"


Does anyone REGRET the Patriot Act? The TSA? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan???

No???

Then QUIT trying to inject your reason, foresight and rationality into my emotionally fired frenzy, dude!

You're TOTALLY harshing by buzz.


STFU Amos - you speak for a minority. Most people in this country (look at the posters in these threads and talk to people in the real world) HATE the TSA and HATE the Patriot Act and those Wars. We regret ALL of them. Your stupidity is harshing everyone else's buzz.
 
2012-12-16 05:34:43 AM

Phins: WhyKnot: If you are an American, I feel sorry for you. As already stated above, the founding fathers knew that in order to limit government, the people needed a way to stand up to the government. Without this check and balance, the govnment would again become too powerful and oppressive. They built resistance into the constitution. In a moment of panic and fear, to strip away one of the greatest gifts given to the American People by the founding fathers, would be tragic. Again, as pointed out above, you may like the president and not worry if he got a little grabby with power...but what if it was GW and his main man Chaney? Would you still feel okay with the president getting a little grabby on power? Once a citizenship is disarmed, only the government has the guns.

This is one of the more ridiculous rationalization for gun ownership. Do you listen to what you say? You honestly think the American people are going to rise up, strap on their guns and overthrow the government?

Do you think that's a good idea, to have people overthrowing the government? That's how we should express our displeasure with government actions and get things changed?

My history is rusty, but I don't think the founding fathers were trying to make sure people could overthrow the government. Their goal was to have a government that was responsible to the people and the people could peacefully advocate for change rather than overthrowing the government. That's why we have freedom of speech, of the press, the right to assemble; so that we can discuss and debate instead of armed insurrection. There's a reason why dictatorships don't allow those rights and freedoms.

Perhaps you should review the system of checks and balances. That's what protects us from power grabs. Not a bunch of gun nuts with overthrow the gub'mint fantasies.


Any system, should it get bad enough, the people WILL rise up(or die trying), with or without guns, history has shown that to always be the case. We're not talking about a tax break for the rich, we're talking about crap like what goes on overseas in modern times(do you not watch TV, never heard of a riot?), or, duh-huh, our Civil War. I know you said your history wasn't that hot, but damn...

Our government, rightfully fears that happening, and that's what protects us from power grabs of that severity. Democracy is maintained by the people, if it's lost, it's due to the people(maybe multiple generations worth, but still). The only way to lose an existing democracy without it being the fault of the people, is to get conquered.

But whatever, pretend freedom is a granted right, not an earned status. All through history people have had to re-earn the status by fighting for it.
 
2012-12-16 05:36:44 AM

Phins: Why do you 2nd ammendment lovers always forget about the "well-regulated militia" part? Do you understand that the Constitution was written at a time when the country did not have a standing army and citizens would be called upon to defend the country if necessary?

We have a well-regulated militia to protect us; it's called the army. Feel free to volunteer anytime.


So many things wrong with what you wrote. I think the biggest being that because you don't think it applies it can magically be thrown out.
 
2012-12-16 05:37:00 AM

mamoru: Improved education and mental health care systems. A stronger societal focus on cultivating the mind and the ability to reason and think critically as well as a societal support system for those who have difficulty coping. I'm not saying that anti-intellectualism and extreme, irrational rhetoric are the causes of such incidents. However, I suspect that they are fertilizer which helps such seeds of violence grow unnoticed until the incidents themselves happen.


In the Newtown case, we have a kid from a wealthy family in a community that places a high value on education - the resources were clearly there to get him the care he needed, but if he refused, which he would be within his rights to do as a legal adult, well...right now we're SOL.

You could have the best-financed mental health system on the planet and if the person won't get help and the courts won't involuntarily commit until it's too late, it's all for nothing.
 
2012-12-16 05:39:15 AM
My history is rusty, but I don't think the founding fathers were trying to make sure people could overthrow the government. Their goal was to have a government that was responsible to the people and the people could peacefully advocate for change rather than overthrowing the government. That's why we have freedom of speech, of the press, the right to assemble; so that we can discuss and debate instead of armed insurrection. There's a reason why dictatorships don't allow those rights and freedoms.

Peaceful advocacy is definitely the first priority, but an armed populace allows a violent response if the populace deems it necessary (i.e., if the democratic/republican method laid out in the constitution is suspended or revoked). It's not necessarily "overthrowing the government" as being the last resort check/balance.

Why do you 2nd ammendment lovers always forget about the "well-regulated militia" part? Do you understand that the Constitution was written at a time when the country did not have a standing army and citizens would be called upon to defend the country if necessary?

It's still technically different, because, while there wasn't a standing army, the constitution did define how an army and navy would be raised and equipped by the government. The militia is supposed to be a group of people who arm themselves and act to defend the constitution of their own free will.
 
2012-12-16 05:43:31 AM
So your solution is that we must all get firearms training and learn to defend ourselves against mentally ill person with a powerful, fast-shooting gun? Does that actually sound reasonable to you?

Why don't we just expect everyone to be trained in firefighting and have all the necessary equipment, rather than have electrical codes, flame retardant building materials, etc.? Why don't we let people just choose and install their own safety equipment on cars rather than mandating seat belts and air bags?

I don't believe legislation can completely eliminate the threat, but it can sure minimize it. Why is it so unreasonable to want to minimize the threat?

Accepting that mentally ill people are going to go on shooting sprees and we must all learn to defend against them is not a solution.


Can't it be part of the solution? We do train basic firefighting (ever seen a fire extinguisher?), first aid, etc. as the previous poster said. We also lock our doors and utilize other basic methods of security to keep ourselves safe. Why can't we be proactive? It could simply be a class that taught how to recognize and avoid/escape violent situations, if nothing else. Women have basic classes on how to avoid rape- why don't we just outlaw penises?
 
2012-12-16 05:50:12 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: fta: "researching pipe bombs"

now we need pipe control.


lamest flippancy ever: "Oh, look everyone that person over there died by X! Now we ooooobviously need X control, just like those communists want to do with are guns!"

Pipes don't kill people. Sheeple kill people.
 
2012-12-16 06:05:02 AM

Amos Quito: Getting them back can be a tad more difficult.


My elbow is in no way firmly pointing at the Ukraine. Or the near east.
 
2012-12-16 06:38:06 AM

rappy: It's so obvious what needs to be done. Everyone hand over their guns and we destroy them. We hunt down the black market guns and destroy those.


And 3d printers?
 
2012-12-16 06:44:22 AM

whatshisname: Agent Nick Fury: How do you make sure all these mental health victims take their 'medications'?

You don't. What you do is make sure you don;t glorify gun violence and make it easy for people to obtain said weapons. Then you might become a typical western nation where you measure deaths by handguns in the dozens rather than the tens of thousands.


And start the odd World War, but hey, only soldiers get killed in those, right?
Seriously, the 20th century would like a word with you.
 
2012-12-16 06:46:20 AM
i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-12-16 06:49:12 AM

whatshisname: Amos Quito: Rights are easy to surrender. Getting them back can be a tad more difficult.

What a lame and entirely predictable response. The "right" to stick a gun down your pants and go to the mall is not a right at all. It's a weird privilege that seems to be in vogue in states where the IQ rarely creeps above room temperature.


Heh. You remind me of one of our early British governors, complaining about how hard it was to govern a populace that was 'armed and drunken'.

America: unlike weenie nations, we have GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT of booze and guns.
 
2012-12-16 06:49:51 AM

styckx: The only thing that bothers me is this.

What laws 5 years from now will be acted upon and when someone goes "When the fark did that bullshiat get passed into law and who the fark allowed it??" Then someone replies "Back in 2012 when panicky petes begged and pleaded at the feet of the Government to do something about all those shootings this is the result"


assuming of course that you are even free to pose the question 5 yrs from now.
 
2012-12-16 06:51:03 AM

OregonVet: [i.chzbgr.com image 500x374]


was that directed at anyone in particular or everyone in the thread, or the article writer?
 
2012-12-16 06:51:55 AM

whatshisname: Amos Quito: It's an authoritarian's dream come true, is what it is.

Good God.

Would you rather be living in a cave and looking over your shoulder for the next club to come along and whack you? People are stupid. A civilized society requires rules and regulations.


There is a massive gap between total anarchy And getting sexually assaulted whenever I want to fly. Perhaps society could come to a reasonable compromise that keeps basic rights intact
 
2012-12-16 06:53:39 AM

kombi: What about the story yesterday? I think it was 13 kids killed in Japan or China with a sword?

BAN ALL SHARP METAL.. Think of the children.


China. They were injured, not killed...so not really helping the pro-gun argument.
 
2012-12-16 07:00:06 AM
Whenever I hear a pro/anti gun argument it reminds me of James Clavell's Shogun... Toranaga's thoughts on Guns specifically.
 
2012-12-16 07:04:44 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: everyone in the thread


This thread is off the rails. In particular one can see a person honestly looking at the Constitution like a jumble of post-it notes on the wall and only picks the ones that suit him. They are not mutually exclusive. This is not a reasonable person. The sad part is that he is apparently not trolling.
 
2012-12-16 07:14:25 AM

shower_in_my_socks: I'm sure he was planning to launch the attack with kitchen knives and Louisville sluggers, since they're just as deadly as semi-automatic guns.

FTA: "Chavez was already practicing with a Colt .45"

I guess I stand corrected again. What a crazy coincidence that easily concealable firearms with 7+ round magazines that can be reloaded in seconds keep popping-up as the weapon of choice for mass-murderers. We should spend another 50 years studying this to see if we can figure out how these killers operate.


A person used to be able to buy a machine gun from Sears, and pistols have been around for 100 years. Likewise, gun laws have become stricter over the decades. By all logic, there should have been daily mass shootings in 1920's, 30's, 40's...... The only thing anyone wants to talk about is guns..... but is it possible there is some other problem occurring?

/maybe he wanted a Twinkie, and they were sold out?
 
2012-12-16 07:18:57 AM

PunGent: kombi: What about the story yesterday? I think it was 13 kids killed in Japan or China with a sword?

BAN ALL SHARP METAL.. Think of the children.

China. They were injured, not killed...so not really helping the pro-gun argument.


You are missing the point of that story. A madman snapped and started stabbing and slashing every kid he could get his hands on before security guards took him down. Do you think their parents find that much comfort in that their kids were "merely" injured? Do you think that those kids weren't terrified as he did his butcher's work? That it still didn't hurt like hell? That a knife attack isn't as violent as a shooting, if not more? Their children were attacked by a madman where they thought they were safest outside their own home. They're still going to be living fear for some time regardless.
 
2012-12-16 07:24:42 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: Whenever I hear a pro/anti gun argument it reminds me of James Clavell's Shogun... Toranaga's thoughts on Guns specifically.


That's Toranaga-sama, and one of the greatest novels of all time.
 
2012-12-16 07:53:43 AM

OregonVet: HindiDiscoMonster: everyone in the thread

This thread is off the rails. In particular one can see a person honestly looking at the Constitution like a jumble of post-it notes on the wall and only picks the ones that suit him. They are not mutually exclusive. This is not a reasonable person. The sad part is that he is apparently not trolling.


aaaah understood.
 
2012-12-16 07:55:05 AM

p4p3rm4t3: HindiDiscoMonster: Whenever I hear a pro/anti gun argument it reminds me of James Clavell's Shogun... Toranaga's thoughts on Guns specifically.

That's Toranaga-sama, and one of the greatest novels of all time.


well, I didn't give him the honorable part because he is just the fictional version of Tokugawa Ieyasu-SAMA :)
 
2012-12-16 08:06:23 AM

dogblue: Linkzvoidx: Coco LaFemme: When diseases are in epidemic/pandemic mode, we come with a vaccine. What's the vaccine for this shiat?

Perhaps, on some level, they're seeking a rush/chemical change in the brain that is achieved, or at least they think will be achieved, by going through with a shooting.

I bet they fantasize, going through how they think it will go and how people react, for days on end. Hour after hour of living it before they go through with it. This way they have lived it so much that killing oneself is logical, they've already had the pleasure many times over. If they are not fully delusional* they may have several grudges [with real people] that they also re-live repeatedly.They think of what would be the best revenge for the grudge and go over it many times, getting their jollies finally getting even etc.

* I am talking delusional as thought processes that are not logical nor make sense even in the affected's mind.

That is my guesses about what this type of person goes through before they commit the crimes.

Calling them "crazy" and forgetting about it just makes it worse.

They are just as human as you and I . The question is how did they start with their disordered thinking? What caused it? Then, most important, medically, psychologically do something to prevent or mollify such anti-social [to the point of planning killings] feelings and thoughts. Someone needs to do that. It may not be you [who just call it "crazy" and walk away] but this is what psychologists are for. Here is a great post on why stigmatizing mental illness just brings more shooters to the fore. http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2012/12/14/when-you-tie-shoot ings-to-mental-illness/ "But I'm asking you-begging you, really, to not decide that Lanza had a mental illness. I'm asking you not to make "being a good person" the standard for mentally healthy.
Do not try to rationalize this away with mental illness. Stop talking about how it could have been schizop ...

''

My comment didn't mention mental illness.

Seems people keep asking "why" these shootings keep happening. I am proposing perhaps. at least with some shooters, they're consciously or unconsciously seeking out a brain rush; that, on a base level, the "thrill" of the shooting and the chemical reaction that it causes in the brain is more the desired goal than hatred, vendetta, etc. This would be whether or not they have a diagnosable illness or not.

As to why this would be sought out with this kind of act would be have to be examined. It doesn't make these kind of acts any less criminal or excusable..just considering that possibility into the discussion.
 
2012-12-16 08:07:57 AM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7488124/81313934#c81313934" target="_blank">NEDM</a>:</b> <i>PunGent: kombi: What about the story yesterday? I think it was 13 kids killed in Japan or China with a sword?

BAN ALL SHARP METAL.. Think of the children.

China. They were injured, not killed...so not really helping the pro-gun argument.

You are missing the point of that story. A madman snapped and started stabbing and slashing every kid he could get his hands on before security guards took him down. Do you think their parents find that much comfort in that their kids were "merely" injured? Do you think that those kids weren't terrified as he did his butcher's work? That it still didn't hurt like hell? That a knife attack isn't as violent as a shooting, if not more? Their children were attacked by a madman where they thought they were safest outside their own home. They're still going to be living fear for some time regardless.</i>

No, I get the point. And I'm pro-responsible-gun-ownership, btw.

The difference in the two attacks was 20 fatalities, and ZERO fatalities.

Guns ARE more dangerous than knives, that's why we equip our armies with them. Arguing otherwise is just as silly as trying to ban knives, and doesn't really advance the discussion at all.
 
2012-12-16 08:16:46 AM
I'm pro variable fighter ownership. I swear I'll only use it to get to work.

img708.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-16 08:17:09 AM

PunGent: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7488124/81313934#c81313934" target="_blank">NEDM</a>:</b> <i>PunGent: kombi: What about the story yesterday? I think it was 13 kids killed in Japan or China with a sword?

BAN ALL SHARP METAL.. Think of the children.

China. They were injured, not killed...so not really helping the pro-gun argument.

You are missing the point of that story. A madman snapped and started stabbing and slashing every kid he could get his hands on before security guards took him down. Do you think their parents find that much comfort in that their kids were "merely" injured? Do you think that those kids weren't terrified as he did his butcher's work? That it still didn't hurt like hell? That a knife attack isn't as violent as a shooting, if not more? Their children were attacked by a madman where they thought they were safest outside their own home. They're still going to be living fear for some time regardless.</i>

No, I get the point. And I'm pro-responsible-gun-ownership, btw.

The difference in the two attacks was 20 fatalities, and ZERO fatalities.

Guns ARE more dangerous than knives, that's why we equip our armies with them. Arguing otherwise is just as silly as trying to ban knives, and doesn't really advance the discussion at all.


Just out of curiosity, how come when you attempt t quote someone, it goes wonky?
 
2012-12-16 08:30:01 AM
Home school for every kid.
 
2012-12-16 08:33:13 AM

Deep Contact: Home school for every kid.


It's what Jesus would have wanted when he rode Dinosaurs.
 
2012-12-16 08:39:51 AM

BronyMedic: Deep Contact: Home school for every kid.

It's what Jesus would have wanted when he rode Dinosaurs.


What was his favorite dinosaur?
 
2012-12-16 08:40:47 AM

Gulper Eel: Coco LaFemme: What's the vaccine for this shiat?

Look in the mirror.

Turn off the TV...or at least the sensationalized coverage as provided by the major networks. The thing that spree shooters want is notoriety in death that they couldn't achieve in life.


I think you've nailed it here. Film Critic Roger Ebert put it best way back in 2003:

The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them.
I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.
 
2012-12-16 09:03:54 AM
The authorities went in and stopped this kid? Aw man, this is just like the plot of Footloose. Those stuffy adults!
 
2012-12-16 09:07:35 AM

BullBearMS: I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1.


Looks like they changed they're front page policy since then...Link
 
2012-12-16 09:08:20 AM
/THEIR
 
2012-12-16 09:16:25 AM

PunGent: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7488124/81313934#c81313934" target="_blank">NEDM</a>:</b> <i>PunGent: kombi: What about the story yesterday? I think it was 13 kids killed in Japan or China with a sword?

BAN ALL SHARP METAL.. Think of the children.

China. They were injured, not killed...so not really helping the pro-gun argument.

You are missing the point of that story. A madman snapped and started stabbing and slashing every kid he could get his hands on before security guards took him down. Do you think their parents find that much comfort in that their kids were "merely" injured? Do you think that those kids weren't terrified as he did his butcher's work? That it still didn't hurt like hell? That a knife attack isn't as violent as a shooting, if not more? Their children were attacked by a madman where they thought they were safest outside their own home. They're still going to be living fear for some time regardless.</i>

No, I get the point. And I'm pro-responsible-gun-ownership, btw.

The difference in the two attacks was 20 fatalities, and ZERO fatalities.

Guns ARE more dangerous than knives, that's why we equip our armies with them. Arguing otherwise is just as silly as trying to ban knives, and doesn't really advance the discussion at all.


So tehn the fact that 90% of all gunshot wounds are survivable with proper treatment means little to you? And that the goal, going back to the Hague Conventions of the late 1800s, is to wound an enemy combatant so that he is no longer participating in the fight, not killing them outright...
 
2012-12-16 09:35:18 AM
It's the old joke about prank calling a pizza place to delivery 20 pizzas to the target of the prank.

I mean how is that even funny. What are you doing? Sitting there with Mr. Burns fingers giggling like a school girl over what you "think" might be happening? I mean you never get to see it and only if you know the person will you ever hear about it. So why not just make the entire thing imaginary?

If only we could convince these psychopaths to just "imagine" going on a shooting rampage.
 
2012-12-16 09:42:33 AM

whatshisname: Amos Quito: Rights are easy to surrender. Getting them back can be a tad more difficult.

What a lame and entirely predictable response. The "right" to stick a gun down your pants and go to the mall is not a right at all. It's a weird privilege that seems to be in vogue in states where the IQ rarely creeps above room temperature.


As an Iowan I take offense to that. It is very easy to get a concealed carry permit here. Take a class, pay some money and its yours. Not only that but we are avid hunters, the majority of our population is armed in some way. Either you have a gun or you directly know someone who has one. I doubt the degree of separation goes too much farther than that. Last time I checked we haven't had any mass shootings in the news.

A gun is just another tool in the shed. That goes for not just us in Iowa but most of the mid-west. Our current gun laws are good, we do not need new ones. New ones will not stop the people who are insane enough to shoot up a school, they'll still find a gun, or a knife or a baseball bat.
 
2012-12-16 09:48:41 AM

bratchaman: It's the old joke about prank calling a pizza place to delivery 20 pizzas to the target of the prank.

I mean how is that even funny. What are you doing? Sitting there with Mr. Burns fingers giggling like a school girl over what you "think" might be happening? I mean you never get to see it and only if you know the person will you ever hear about it. So why not just make the entire thing imaginary?

If only we could convince these psychopaths to just "imagine" going on a shooting rampage.


That's what Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Halo, etc. are for.
 
2012-12-16 09:52:48 AM

NEDM: PunGent: kombi: What about the story yesterday? I think it was 13 kids killed in Japan or China with a sword?

BAN ALL SHARP METAL.. Think of the children.

China. They were injured, not killed...so not really helping the pro-gun argument.

You are missing the point of that story. A madman snapped and started stabbing and slashing every kid he could get his hands on before security guards took him down. Do you think their parents find that much comfort in that their kids were "merely" injured? Do you think that those kids weren't terrified as he did his butcher's work? That it still didn't hurt like hell? That a knife attack isn't as violent as a shooting, if not more? Their children were attacked by a madman where they thought they were safest outside their own home. They're still going to be living fear for some time regardless.


All of that is true. Controlling guns will not eliminate incidents like this. It will greatly reduce deaths. Stop, ffs, looking for or demanding some sort of universal panacea for violence and concentrate on mitigating the results and reducing the incidences due to impulse and sudden rage. At the same time start taking steps to try to reduce the causes of the violence.
 
2012-12-16 11:24:33 AM

Sirveaux: kombi: ok a knife. cant find the link to the story

You mean this one?

The one where 22 people were injured and not killed?


All that does is teach the next guy with a knife to stab harder, maybe do some research as to what the best place to stab them would be

If at first you don't succeed try try again.......
 
2012-12-16 11:46:46 AM

my lip balm addiction: Amos Quito: styckx: The only thing that bothers me is this.

What laws 5 years from now will be acted upon and when someone goes "When the fark did that bullshiat get passed into law and who the fark allowed it??" Then someone replies "Back in 2012 when panicky petes begged and pleaded at the feet of the Government to do something about all those shootings this is the result"


Does anyone REGRET the Patriot Act? The TSA? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan???

No???

Then QUIT trying to inject your reason, foresight and rationality into my emotionally fired frenzy, dude!

You're TOTALLY harshing by buzz.

STFU Amos - you speak for a minority. Most people in this country (look at the posters in these threads and talk to people in the real world) HATE the TSA and HATE the Patriot Act and those Wars. We regret ALL of them. Your stupidity is harshing everyone else's buzz.



t.qkme.me
 
Displayed 50 of 271 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report