|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
04-18-2007, 05:20 AM | #201 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Indiana
|
Quote:
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize. |
|
04-18-2007, 05:51 AM | #202 (permalink) | |
spudly
Location: Ellay
|
Quote:
So much of what people are saying now is hindsight. The creative writing thing is relatively significant. The fact that he was a "loner"... Well, that's only significant after the fact. If we had tried to refer every kid who met the threshold this guy was at, you'd end up intervening with 5-10% of your population at one point or another. Of course, the social patterns combined with the school thing look significant, but you won't realistically have all the people who see these different facets in a position to compare notes, even at a smaller school. Some schools are uneasy about even attempting stuff like that in light of privacy concerns, which can lead to court cases. And most places are unable to MANDATE counseling. You can suggest it, but it nigh impossible to MAKE someone go. I became really adept at phrasing my suggestions so that they sounded like mandates without actually being so. I guess what I'm getting at is that a lot of kids at school are (or go through periods of being) a little unstable. Since they internalize these instabilities, it's about impossible to know which way it's gonna go. So snap and sing hymns for 19 hours without stopping, some lock themselves in the shower and quote Shakespeare, some develop chronic psycho-somatic illnesses like seizures, some develop fixations on cleaning their homes with bleach while hording water bottles in their bedrooms, some try to kill themselves, and every once in a while one will go and try to hurt someone else. I've seen all of the above firsthand except for the last. The only truly reliable indicator that a person will try to hurt someone is a history of doing so.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam |
|
04-18-2007, 05:54 AM | #203 (permalink) | |||
Psycho
|
According to this report which states
Quote:
Quote:
For those that have never bought a gun before here's a little play by play that you have to do before you ever walk out of the store with your new firearm whether you buy it at a gunshop or one of the infamous gun shows that is always brought up by gun control advocates. {1} you decide what firearm you are purchasing and haggle the price until you are satisified {2} the dealer then hands you a state form and a federal form which you have to fill out {3} the dealer then looks over the federal form to make sure all your answers are what they should be, if not you are automatically denied on the spot {4} if you have answered the questions properly and everything is legit the dealer then makes a call to the BATF for final approval. The BATF then searches their database for any red flags and either denies, puts you on hold for further investigation and they have 10 days to complete this phase or you are approved and you can then leave the gun store or gun show with your new purchase. The forms are then sent to the state and federal authorities. The dealer keeps his copy of the forms forever, he can never destroy them because it is the record of the firearm he once had in his possession. He also has to keep a log of every single firearm that has ever come into his possession. His log, the serial numbers of the guns on his shelf, the paperwork of all the guns he has ever sold, the paperwork with your information and all the other pertinent details have to match or he loses his license. You don't just walk in and give the man a handful of money, show your drivers license and walk out with a newly purchased firearm, not legally anyway. Quote:
Last edited by scout; 04-18-2007 at 05:59 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|||
04-18-2007, 06:39 AM | #204 (permalink) |
Shade
Location: Belgium
|
I don't get how it's important that he got the gun in a legal fashion.
The true problem should be that due to the legal structures, it's very easy to get a gun (if lying on a dead-giveaway question like that isn't even checked). Shakran: After reading up on the second amendment and its history, I can't say I agree with you on your interpretation of that sentence. Due to the brevity and unclear (to me) phrasing, it had me going around a bit, but "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia "Militia is the activity of one or more citizens organized to provide defense or paramilitary service, or those engaged in such activity. ........ a militia is distinct from a regular army" So interpretation of the word Militia alone, can even make a huge difference as to the exact meaning of the amendment. Given that alot of people seem to interpret it very broadly anybody, even on their own, can qualify as a militia at some point. It sounds like the constitution defines a militia as being necessary for a free state to function, and because of this, the right of people to bear and keep arms will not be restricted within limits: Infringe In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon. http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#INFRINGE I can't say I agree with the 2nd Amendment, *at all*. But that to me is what is written in your (America's) constitution. edit: cuz I forgot to add the bit about interpretation of Militia halfway in my post.
__________________
Moderation should be moderately moderated. Last edited by Nisses; 04-18-2007 at 06:53 AM.. |
04-18-2007, 06:44 AM | #205 (permalink) | |
Tone.
|
Quote:
|
|
04-18-2007, 07:03 AM | #206 (permalink) | |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
so cruising around the net this morning looking for more infotainment on this, i stumbled across this fine example of powerful deduction as the headline on cnn.com:
Quote:
gee...you think so? what idiots..... anyway, more generally: cant control arbitrariness folks. no way no how. you just have to accept that. no amount of fantasy concerning universal armament will change the simple fact that arbitrary shit happens. of course this is amurica, so it is easier for this arbitrariness to happen with guns than it is elsewhere. the fantasy of universal armanent is a fantasy of universal control looped through political conceptions of where ultimate control should lie--but the simple fact is that in this kind of situation, there really was nothing to be done. another way: folk indulge the parlor game of ex post facto thinking because arbitrariness freaks them out. i think most are smart enough to see the problem with the logic, but they play the game anyway. it is therapeutic: rather than having to think about chance, you think about breakdowns in some order that could have remained perfect in its perfect control had errors not happened, and that can be imagined as still-perfect in potentia if such "errors" can be controlled for in the future. from this viewpoint, total state surveillance and universal armament turn out to be variants of the same logic, versions of the same thing.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
|
04-18-2007, 08:41 AM | #208 (permalink) | |
Addict
|
Quote:
I'm sorry, I just don't see it, and your attitude comes off as xenophobic. |
|
04-18-2007, 09:03 AM | #209 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
i *knew* the resident alien status of mr. cho would come up refigured in terms of some rightwing xenophobia. it follows in a straight line from the ongoing construction of him as someone Other who was lurking about within the Us. it almost seemed unnecessary that the stories be written which appeared yesterday describing him as an "eccentric loner"---that's right folks, not to worry, the guy was a cliche.
as more information emerges, he gets positioned more and more clearly in this dubious space of the Outsider Amongst Us. next step would be a raising of the collective hysterometer to orange of some such because he would have been entirely blurred into the fiction of the "terrorist" as a kind of one-man sleeper cell. it is ridiculous. get a fucking grip, folks.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
04-18-2007, 09:11 AM | #210 (permalink) |
spudly
Location: Ellay
|
This may be a topic for another thread, but it relates because I don't see what his green card status has to do with anything.
Rights granted on the basis of the constitution are granted because we're human, not because we're Americans. I'm deeply disturbed by the trend to deny rights and protections to people based on their national status - whether it be fair trial or something like gun ownership. If it's a right, it's a right.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam |
04-18-2007, 09:24 AM | #211 (permalink) | |
Lover - Protector - Teacher
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel |
|
04-18-2007, 09:26 AM | #213 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
With that been said I do see 1 reason to deny foreigners weapons that I would deem appropriate. If there was a system in place which required extensive background checks in order to purchase a weapon (ie interviewing previous employers, family, ect) a new resident alien would not have much background to probe. In this case I would support not allowing resident aliens to buy a weapon for the first couple years they are in the US. |
|
04-18-2007, 09:40 AM | #214 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Edit: for example: Statistically speaking, Mexican immigrant workers are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens, therefore those that say Mexican immigrants are coming into the US and committing crimes (other than the act of illegally immigrating) could be xenophobic. Last edited by Willravel; 04-18-2007 at 10:20 AM.. |
||
04-18-2007, 10:08 AM | #215 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
style note: probably the most irritating legacy of the o.j. simpson trial is the popularization of that meaningless construction:
"to play the x card..." end style note. the post: in samcol's post above, this tedious, empty phrase functions as if it use alone constitutes an understanding and containment of a particular critique. so it is that the idea behind the post is essentially to disable recourse to a category--xenophobia--which in the case of posters like samcol is a prefectly legitimate way of characterizing such logic as there is behind trying to get explanatory mileage out of cho's resident alien status as if that would in some bizarre-o world make him more inclined to snap and go around shooting people. the claim is idiotic. again, all this is about trying to find some peculiar "not one of us" status for this guy--an operation that has nothing at all to do with understanding anything, nothing to do with questions of what, if anything, would constitute a rational response to the vt murder/suicide, nothing to do with anything except insofar as if feeds into some pathetic ideological illusion that there is an amurica of "normal righteous folk" who would never snap, would never indulge acts of arbitrary violence, and then there are those Others, those Fucked Up People who explain any and all disturbances to the otherwise perfect harmonious world of "real amuricans". this is a really problematic way of seeing this fiction of the "us" or "amurica" or the nation--what it functions to do is establish the conditions of possibility for efforts to cleanse the body amurican of disordered folk---because there is no "us" there is no coherent boundary to be defended--but the illusion that there is one is enough to set up consent for attempts to maintain it in its "order" in its "virtue" in its "purity"--and so you get to see the same retro-nationalism that we all know and love so bloody much turning up again here, in debates around a situation that has fuck all to do with it. the only reason that there is any objection to the category of xenophobia here is as an attempt to block the laying out of the logic behind such moves in this (or any) context because once you lay out the logic, its idiocy is transparent.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-18-2007 at 10:32 AM.. |
04-18-2007, 10:28 AM | #216 (permalink) | |
Psycho
|
Quote:
I don't get it and I probably never will. This is much like the liberal left movement to cry foul at the denial of certain God given rights to the terrorists housed at Gitmo while bringing up legislation to deny the God given rights of the law abiding citizens of the United States. They haven't had time to bring up all the legislation they promised including legislation for the impeachment of the President, although they promised they would. According to them he has broken many, many laws and is perhaps the biggest criminal in American history. But by golly they have had time to craft anti-gun legislation. what the fuck? |
|
04-18-2007, 11:22 AM | #217 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
Thou shall not kill......
I don't think God intended everyone to be armed as one of the rights he gave us. On the contrary the New Testament over and over and over talks about forgiveness and love and not revenge and hatred. Somehow I find it hard to believe that a gun leads to forgiveness and love but I can definitely see it leading to revenge and hatred. |
04-18-2007, 11:31 AM | #218 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
What guns laws have been introduced that want to "completely disarm the populace" by this new (or any recent) Dem congress? When did the majority of the Dem who were recently elected to the majority "proimise legislation for the impeachment of Bush"? I find it a bit contrarian that some of the gun rights folks here fight so hard for unrestricted rights under 2nd amendment but are ready to trash the 14th amendment. What the fuck?
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-18-2007 at 11:34 AM.. |
|
04-18-2007, 11:35 AM | #219 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
At the start of the downward spiral, I was clear I valued his opinion but not his analysis. Later, I requested that a mod lend a neutral voice to the assessment of the data (a suggestion I've made directly to Halx in terms of what role moderators might consider in a form of "pre-emptive" in-thread moderation). Even after that I reiterated that I valued his opinion, that I took issue with the analysis, and then labeled the inability or unwillingness to reassess the data in light of what I was explaining as "dumb." I also added misquoting people was "dumb", but I never labeled either of the persons behind those posts unintelligent. Both responses were limited to the behavior exhibited. I don't know what calling a position or saying a person is being "obtuse" would resolve since my understanding is it means unintelligent, dull, lacking insight, etc. But I already apologized, because I recognize that my standards of certain things aren't the same as the communities. So it goes that I happened to have realized last night what pigglet alluded to regarding the past discussions on these types of things...basically that the "political" interactions are back at square one and I'm not particularly interested in that kind of discourse...although I may choose to read what some friends have to say from time to time (which is why I'm even here currently) but I doubt I will contribute much thought of my own for some time again.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
04-18-2007, 11:42 AM | #220 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
god given?
what are you talking about? when that phrase appears, it is an 18th century reference to theories of natural law. since the claims of the american revolution were based on an idea of restoring rights violated by england, the language of natural law served a tactical function. but the notion of natural law itself is at the very best problematic, based as it is, as it always was, on fundamentally religious committments simply transposed from the register of religion to that of transcendent categories (limits, prohibitions and their opposite)...but without the category of religion behind it, this transposition holds no water. you have a long history of ethics as a branch of philo that tracks the problems encountered when western folk noticed that there was a world beyond them that could not simply be understood as less than them, or as repetitions of their history and so trapped in some eternal childhood waiting around for the heroic western white folk to rescue them and show then the way to adulthood--which was of course embodied in the euro-americans themselves. the notion of natural law became untenable. this still freaks out some ethicists so deontology persists, but is mostly a space ccupied by religious thinkers who for whatever reason continue to blur their religious committments and philosophical work into each other. meanwhile, in most other areas of ethics, folk have worked out the obvious: that constructions on the order of natural law were, are and always will be political matters. there is no natural law: the language of it provided a veneer of legitimation to the constitution itself--but within the constitutional regime, any rights are stipulated by the document itself, they function as rights within that regime because of the status accorded the document itself. this god character has nothing to do with it. =================================================== aside, added: smooth---i wish you'd reconsider what you say about your participation here in your last post. for what it's worth, i think this is a better more interesting place because you play about in it as well--your views are consistently interesting and thoughtful---if folk are bothered by the style in which they are sometimes presented--well---in my view anyway---fuck em.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-18-2007 at 11:49 AM.. |
04-18-2007, 11:56 AM | #221 (permalink) |
Addict
Location: Spring, Texas
|
Well WOW! What an amazing thread. took me a long time, and I STILL have yet to finish every post. MOST people on this thread know that I am pro-gun ownership. Now that it is clear to everyone my basic stance, here is my take on some of what has been said here:
As far as students being allowed to carry on campus: 1: I disagree that they should be allowed. It is difficult enough to go around campus worrying about studying for exams and socializing, than to add "who is carrying a piece". 2: From the news articles I have read, MOST of those students that were killed were under the age of 21. Now correct me if I am wrong, but my research showed that HANDGUNS are not allowed for purchase in Virginia until the age of 21. So it is a moot point to consider what MIGHT have happened, or NOT happened, if students were allowed to carry on campus. As far as faculty carrying on campus: Personally, I don't see it as a bad idea, considering what HAS happened in the past. However I DO agree that if you ARE going to allow faculty to carry, then they should ALL be given extensive background checks, and go through a POLICE sanctioned gun training class on how to use it, and WHEN to use it. History has shown that in the states where concealed wepons permits have been enacted, that crimes against INDIVIDUALS has decreased over time. Now OBVIOUSLY this doesn't include such a HORRIFIC situation as that at Virginia Tech. There will ALWAYS be anomolies in life. We can't begin to predict human bahavior or emotions when under stress; and lets face it, there are not many things more stressful than highschool and college. It is terrible what has happened, and there is nothing that we can do now to go back and change things, but lets cool down before we start taking action too soon. Face it, after September 11th, we jumped the gun pretty quick, and see where THAT led us? (Don't go jumping me about the war or anything...if ANYONE can attest to how I feel about the war, support of/or the actual fact that we are there in the first place it is Willravel, whom I have ENJOYED many discussions of our difference of opinions in threads of that subject!) Now as to the 2nd amendment: I love how some people are trying to give their opinion on what it menas, so here is mine... "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Maybe the grammar is a little off, but I read it thusly: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state" (because we may NEED at some point in the future, a militia), "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"(the right of individual gun ownership, will not be taken away) I do not read it as a FULL sentence, meaning that only those needed for a militia will be allowed to own/carry guns, but as a WHOLE statement. As a thread jack here: Am I the only one who thinks that maybe the reason the United States has never actually been invaded by a foreign nation, is because they are worried about the fact that every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the USA has a half dozen or more guns in their own home? I mean face it, when Germany invaded France, do you think it MIGHT have been tougher if everyone in France had a couple of guns in their home? I mean face it, if we were invaded say at Miami, how long do you think it would take to get an actual FULL military presense to defend it?...but If say 50% of the people there had firearms of their own...then BANG! there is our Militia, per the constitution!...
__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison |
04-18-2007, 12:39 PM | #222 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." |
|
04-18-2007, 12:46 PM | #223 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
I'll again call on the UK to cite as an example of a nation that has a successful gun ban. The short history of that ban has shown that a gun ban can lower gun crime when carried out correctly. While it's easy to call the VT massacre an anomaly, the fact of the matter is it's much easier to commit a massacre with a gun than it is with a knife or bat. I'd rather face a man in a dark alley if he were armed with a knife or bat than a gun. I'm sure you agree. Quote:
What was the intended function Second Amendment? The populace was able to wage war against the superior forces of the British Army partially because of their militia's armaments. Had the populace not been able to organize militias, it's entirely possible we'd all have all bad teeth and snobby accents. Bearing that in mind, when one starts a new government who's genesis features such realizations, the idea of regulating power between the government and the populace should be balanced by having an able militia that is not federally controlled. In the unlikely case that the federal government, using the military, were to infringe on our rights and such we should have the organizational capacity to hold our ground by having a capable militia. Do we have anything like that now? Not really, and it's a shame because I believe that things like Waco could have been prevented if representatives from a militia were to speak with the ATF they could have brought with them the promise of armed resistance that could have acted as a deterrent (one would hope). Moving back to what this means so far as the Amendment, I believe that the Amendment is in place to protect the ability of the populace so far as maintaining military power in the form of a militia or militias. The clear reasoning would be to make sure that a potential police state would meet with heavy resistance. How would this apply today? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Federal government continues on it's current authoritarian road. Let's say that, in the name of fighting crime or terrorism, that we have tanks rolling down our streets, curfews, kidnappings, the loss of due process for those citizens captured, and detention camps for those suspected but not tried. If this were to ever happen, I would have the Constitutionally protected right to organize a militia to the ends of returning order. It's the right to resist governmental tyranny in organized groups. I'd probably use bombs instead of guns, personally, because it's clear that IEDs are the most successful way to combat a military like ours. They're cheap and easy to construct from common parts and compounds. When you ask a gun owner why they own a gun, I'd be willing to bet that they'd say they have the gun to protect themselves or their families from criminals or aggressors. While I concede that this is reasonable, I do think it's clear that that intent is not in the Second Amendment, and thus things like the right for an individual to bear arms is not Constitutionally protected unless they are a member of a militia which has the function of supporting the power of the populace in case the government oversteps it's bounds. My fingers hurt, and I have to get back to work. |
||
04-18-2007, 12:53 PM | #224 (permalink) |
pigglet pigglet
Location: Locash
|
quick post: i concur, perhaps obviously, with the above posts of roach and smooth. the perspectives and approaches are appreciated by some, but apparently not by others. c'est la vie. i'd suggest further discussion take place in a separate thread if necessary.
/end threadjack
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style |
04-18-2007, 01:09 PM | #226 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
thing is that i dont see a police state being met with any particular resistance simply because people have guns---they are not magic objects, they do not bring with them political consciousness--what would matter is the organization of consent. if consent is organized on grounds that folk find to be compelling, they will not resist--it wont occur to them. so they would be docile people who happen to have guns. they would not percieve a police state as a police state: they would probably think in terms of necessary security measures carried out for some political objective that they would agree with. if the consent ran deep enough, people with guns would be no more or less inclined than people without guns to turn over suspected dissidents to the state.
same logic obtains for a revolutionary movement--what matters really is the political program--that is what would give a sense of direction and coherence to any such movement. either way, people with guns are just people with guns. there IS NO POLITICAL MEANING TO OWNING A GUN. none--no more than political orientation can be derived from the car you drive or the pants you wear--insofar as all are commodities, all are functionally equivalent. having a gun does not make you free--it doesnt make you anything---a gun is a tool that no more tells you what to do with it than having a saw tells you how to cut pieces of wood to size for a building. to think otherwise would require that you also think that you can build a complex model spontaneously because you bought a tube of glue. in the present political and legal environment, owning a gun is a type of accessorizing. some people like chanel, other people like a glock. it is a consumer choice. nothing political about it, the imaginings of gun fetishists notwithstanding. in a non-revolutionary situation, political conflict is primarily ideological and can be seen as a war of position. gramsci was right.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-18-2007 at 01:13 PM.. |
04-18-2007, 01:27 PM | #229 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
A Virginia district court found that Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-Hui was "mentally ill" and was an "imminent danger to others," according to a 2005 temporary detention order. click to show This did not appear on the "instant" background check. Virgina needs to reevaluate its instant background check as it is apparently way to lax. All the warning signs where there. The University was warned by a professors, students had complained about him for stalking, he started a fire in his dorm room, and yet none of this showed up on a background check. I think the University was highly negligent in not reporting this information to police. Well these types of things are not always preventable this one most definitely was. Virgina really needs to improve there background checks. |
04-18-2007, 01:34 PM | #230 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Rekna, yes this seems to have little or nothing to do with the Second Amendment and more to do with bad decision making by whomever is in charge of security and background checks. Anyone who would stalk or start a fire should require a psych profile (which could have prevented this massacre).
|
04-18-2007, 03:05 PM | #233 (permalink) | ||||
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If that same person accosts me, i'm going to tell him no, as I draw my own gun against him. I am now FREE of being forced to submit to said attackers demands. Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." Last edited by dksuddeth; 04-18-2007 at 03:10 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
||||
04-18-2007, 03:12 PM | #234 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
I've already posted a straightforward way to avoid this: public monitoring by both government and corporation of each gun by putting a bar code on every gun. Every gun produced is a matter of public record. The records start when the guns are produced. The record has a list of the factory, shipping company, vendor, and owner. If a gun goes missing, they can track down exactly when in the process it went missing and can take steps to prevent it in the future. If there's a dirty vendor or shipper, they get shut down. If the gun is stolen from a legal owner, then policy on how to keep guns must change. |
|
04-18-2007, 04:04 PM | #236 (permalink) | |
Addict
|
Quote:
My simple point is: there's something bizarre and utterly arbitrary about choosing national origin as a way to explain this incident. There is absolutely zero evidence that his being Korean (or more broadly a non-citizen) had an atom's worth of bearing on what happened. You cannot even construct a hypothetical explanation of how such linkage might operate, because it's completely absurd. |
|
04-18-2007, 04:11 PM | #238 (permalink) |
Please touch this.
Owner/Admin
Location: Manhattan
|
Hopefully they find enough shit mentally wrong with this guy that they can't blame benign devices like video games and rock music for long. That is unless they say it caused the insanity. Then we know who the real psycho is.
__________________
You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals] |
04-18-2007, 04:34 PM | #239 (permalink) | ||
That's what she said
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, every article I've read featuring statements from people who interacted with him gave very grim and creepy views of this guy... so you would think somewhere along the line a warning flag would have gone off in someone's mind and prompted further investigation.
__________________
"Tie yourself to your limitless potential, rather than your limiting past." "Every man I meet is my superior in some way. In that, I learn of him." |
||
04-18-2007, 04:45 PM | #240 (permalink) | |
Crazy
Location: Florida
|
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
control, gun, politics, shooting, talk, tech, thread |
|
|