Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum

Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: raw-al on December 18, 2012, 06:31:20 am

Title: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 18, 2012, 06:31:20 am
The TRUE SOURCE of RANDOM & MASS SHOOTINGS and VIOLENCE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhO0Pul_FcE#ws)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: LePatron7 on December 18, 2012, 07:39:56 am
I agree 100%. Its a crisis in America. We need more treatments routed in healing like what I'm doing.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 18, 2012, 07:42:22 am
It isn't just the US BTW, we have them in Canada even though it's harder to get your hands on a gun by a long stretch and fairly close to impossible to get a handgun without a letter from Jesus signed by his 12 buddies.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: LePatron7 on December 18, 2012, 08:07:19 am
lol. Well it's flat out ridiculous. Unfair even.

Why do countless people suffering from mental illness have to be sedated and medicated? When those of use here are doing so well with our mental illnesses (those of us that have them).

It's flat out unfair that people have to suffer from their disease because there's no financial motive to promote natural treatments. Quality of life is diminished, and then we also have these senseless killings caused by the meds' side effects.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Brad462 on December 18, 2012, 12:15:25 pm
For the conspiracy nuts:
http://petersantilli.com/2012/12/17/satanic-sacrifice-sandy-hook-mapped-in-dark-knight-movie-on-satanic-ley-line/ (http://petersantilli.com/2012/12/17/satanic-sacrifice-sandy-hook-mapped-in-dark-knight-movie-on-satanic-ley-line/)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: LePatron7 on December 18, 2012, 02:26:10 pm
http://m.gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother (http://m.gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on December 18, 2012, 04:35:04 pm
What annoys me is that the gun-control people have been using these school massacres for their own agenda. I mean, it's sick. The fact is that the only reason why schools are targetted by gun-wielding maniacs is because schools ban guns on their premises, making them an easy target. If teachers had guns, you can be sure that such massacres would be fewer and involve far fewer casualties.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Inger on December 18, 2012, 08:10:53 pm
http://m.gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother (http://m.gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother)

GAMES...? He played video games? His mother let him do that? She knew he had massive issues and still let him destroy himself. In her house.

Where are the brains today. The word is soaked in a massive ignorance and right out stupidity.
Crap food. Electronic equipments like games and videos (and mostly highly violent, too). Welcome to hell. And people still wonder WHY...?!
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: cherimoya_kid on December 18, 2012, 11:06:25 pm
What annoys me is that the gun-control people have been using these school massacres for their own agenda. I mean, it's sick. The fact is that the only reason why schools are targetted by gun-wielding maniacs is because schools ban guns on their premises, making them an easy target. If teachers had guns, you can be sure that such massacres would be fewer and involve far fewer casualties.

If teachers had guns, then students would occasionally steal them from teachers and accidentally (or purposefully) shoot people.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 19, 2012, 12:25:01 am
If teachers had guns, then students would occasionally steal them from teachers and accidentally (or purposefully) shoot people.
CK, you got it right. You only have to look at the number of murders in the US compared with countries that don't allow guns, to figure it out. The US is 'murder central' thanks to the gun laws, or lack thereof. I know that I am glad I don't have to be terrified of that crazy neighbour or the nut downtown on the street corner. I am not a big fan of laws in general but gun restriction laws I agree with.

Imagine a school yard with a bunch of testosterone charged boys playing real cowboys and Indians.  Or even worse a schoolyard full of angry young hormone soaked girls going past just being mean to other young girls and pulling a trigger.

I remember years ago when I used to watch TV once in awhile, there was a show "Touched by an Angel". At first it was inspiring, but then it seemed to turn into a uber Christianity show, but the last straw was an episode where a woman had a husband who was under a lot of pressure at work, so when he came home he would be very angry. So one day when he was very angry, his wife's sister happened to be in the house. The sister grabbed a gun and shot him.

Then the angel showed up and told the distressed wife that this was all OK. Shooting someone is OK and was God's will. That was the most disgusting display of inhumanity I have ever had the misfortune to see. It was at the apogee of the fem-Nazi grip on TV.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 19, 2012, 12:28:53 am
GAMES...? He played video games? His mother let him do that? She knew he had massive issues and still let him destroy himself. In her house.

Where are the brains today. The word is soaked in a massive ignorance and right out stupidity.
Crap food. Electronic equipments like games and videos (and mostly highly violent, too). Welcome to hell. And people still wonder WHY...?!
This world is purposely made to show the two sides of life. Duality. The idea is to do as Sankara said and do what you can to spiritually evolve outta here.
http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother (http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on December 19, 2012, 07:11:10 am
CK's notion is b*ll*cks. Obviously, teachers would bring their guns to work and wear them, not leave them around in school premises for kids to steal. More to the point, anyone shooting on school premises, with teachers all being armed,  would end up dead long before they could work up a whole massacre of dozens of people.

"The Right To Own Weapons is The Right To Be Free". A quotation by A  E Van Vogt, a brilliant SF writer,  who was more realistic in that he realised that a weaponless culture is far more prone to having its rights eroded. The Ruby Ridge scandal etc.  has forced the FBI etc. to be far more careful when trying to deprive honest(armed) citizens of their rights. Those without guns can be ignored of course, as they have no power.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 19, 2012, 07:29:51 am
If teachers had guns, you can be sure that such massacres would be fewer and involve far fewer casualties.
Teachers are mostly what you would term "libtards." Rather nice of you to want to arm the very libtards you despise. Kudos!
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 19, 2012, 07:34:47 am
CK's notion is b*ll*cks. Obviously, teachers would bring their guns to work and wear them, not leave them around in school premises for kids to steal. More to the point, anyone shooting on school premises, with teachers all being armed,  would end up dead long before they could work up a whole massacre of dozens of people.
I can just imagine some of the teachers I knew, coming to work with their pathetic lives on their minds, taking their marriage problems out on students.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on December 19, 2012, 07:54:17 am
Teachers are mostly what you would term "libtards." Rather nice of you to want to arm the very libtards you despise. Kudos!
Well, the academic world is riddled with 10th rate marxists. "Liberal" is just a ridiculously nice term  used to describe people who formerly were called  very "nasty" names like "marxist", "communist" etc. I am sure that any "Liberal" teachers would have the cowardice necessary to protest against bearing any arms to defend their school-children, so that they could ensure that lots more schoolchildren could be killed. Heck, if they had a tiny amount of self-respect, such Libtard teachers might even throw themselves forward so that the relevant gunmen could execute them/put them down out of kindness.

Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Projectile Vomit on December 19, 2012, 08:05:42 am
...the only reason why schools are targetted by gun-wielding maniacs is because schools ban guns on their premises, making them an easy target. If teachers had guns, you can be sure that such massacres would be fewer and involve far fewer casualties.

Geoff, you're famous for your unique logic and I think you've set the bar higher with this statement than with any other I can recall. What you're effectively saying is the best way to deal with violence in schools is to formally sanction an arms race between students and teachers. I can't imagine that arms race would end well.

The school killings, first and foremost, represent failures of vigilance on the part of the shooters' family and people close to them and their unwillingness to deal with emerging problems before they become massacres. The firearm industry, as far as it attempts to sell firearms to non-hunters for 'personal protection', is largely preying on people's fears and a radically distorted sense of risk portrayed by the American media. It sickens me to see people tie the 'right' to own firearms into rhetoric about freedom and liberty.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on December 19, 2012, 08:18:06 am
This is a ridiculous argument, Eric. For one thing, teachers would have the edge re arms-race as they are a lot older than their dodgy pupils and would therefore have more experience with weapons. So, any gun-shootout would end up with the (armed) teachers winning outright, and few or no school-massacres occurring, therefore.

Given the rising crime-rate in the US etc., it is a bit absurd to talk about a distorted sense of risk.

That said, I do think that more gun-owners should be taught not only about shooting at firing-ranges, but also about safe rules re hunting wild game etc. That teaches not only respect but also self-respect.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Brad462 on December 19, 2012, 08:21:31 am
An armed populace is the last defense against government tyranny...  Take away all our guns and you can kiss our freedom goodbye.  The government is passing legislation to poison our food and you people think a lone nut is our greatest threat?  While this event is tragic it is nothing compared to how many people government has killed.  25+ million people killed by the military since WW2, but that's ok somehow.  And how many children has Obama killed with drone strikes?
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Brad462 on December 19, 2012, 08:27:37 am
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/15/Man-With-Concealed-Carry-Gun-May-Have-Prevented-Oregon-Shooter-From-Inflicting-More-Carnage (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/15/Man-With-Concealed-Carry-Gun-May-Have-Prevented-Oregon-Shooter-From-Inflicting-More-Carnage)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 19, 2012, 08:39:50 am
This is a ridiculous argument, Eric. For one thing, teachers would have the edge re arms-race as they are a lot older than their dodgy pupils and would therefore have more experience with weapons. So, any gun-shootout would end up with the (armed) teachers winning outright, and few or no school-massacres occurring, therefore.
TD,
Handing a youngster a challenge as  you stated, that a teacher could outwit a teenager, particularly a sociopath like the one at Columbine........ I think not.

Handing a teacher the right to shoot to kill........... hmmm maybe not.

Bear in mind that these kids came into the school with perfect timing to wipe as many as possible out at once. If they hadn't screwed up they would have wiped out most of the school as they planted bombs in the lunchroom which failed to detonate and were discovered afterwards.

This stuff is on the internet on how to create mayhem. All the soldiers in the army in some way became sources for how to make this stuff. Essentially the US government has taught citizens how to kill each other.

The guns and raw materials to create mayhem are everywhere if you know where to look.

Children are becoming like the ones in George Orwell's dystopian "Animal Farm". It is the shadowy deep dark side of humanity. Personally I believe it is because children are left to fend for themselves by parents who dump them off on the way to work. Not all parents do this for a variety of reasons, but enough do that the virus of undisciplined children has spread amoungst them all and the worst slip between the waves to settle to the bottom in the muck of hatred for others.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 19, 2012, 09:01:57 am
Christina Hoff Sommers discusses the war against boys in her book of the same name.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/)

Her predictions of violence amoungst young men were very prophetic. The mad dash to medicate them is even more crazy and that's what a lot of female teachers believe is the only way to turn boys into girls.

Unfortunately when you emasculate young men, their energy has to go somewhere and when it looks like there is no where to go but down, that energy will explode. The ones on the edge tumble into the abyss of violence.

War Against Boys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqOTj9NDv80#)

Feminists Dont Care (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jBt9snxvoQ#)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Projectile Vomit on December 19, 2012, 09:14:26 am
...teachers would have the edge re arms-race as they are a lot older than their dodgy pupils and would therefore have more experience with weapons. So, any gun-shootout would end up with the (armed) teachers winning outright, and few or no school-massacres occurring, therefore.

Given the rising crime-rate in the US etc., it is a bit absurd to talk about a distorted sense of risk.

Not sure what rock you're living under GP, but the crime rate in the United States has been falling for decades, not rising. Total violent crime rate (violent crimes per 100,000 people) peaked in 1990 at 730 crimes, and fell to barely over 400 by 2010. Murder rates peaked in 1980 at 10.2 per 100,000 and have since fallen to 5 per 100,000 by 2010. Aggravated assault peaked in 1990 at 420 per 100,000 and has fallen to just over 250 per 100,000. Looking through crime rates more broadly I can't find a single type of crime, violent, property or otherwise, that has not been steadily declining. The idea that America is getting more dangerous is a myth that the personal protection industry (including the gun industry) profits from and the American media propagates by sensationalizing the few crimes that do happen.

An armed teacher would not have the advantage you assume. In these cases the perpetrator has the element of surprise, and that's a huge advantage that's hard to counter. Beyond this, expecting teachers to learn to use a firearm well enough to effectively counter someone who isn't afraid to die is a tall order. Police officers and soldiers spend years learning to do this, and despite their intensive training regimes they still regularly fail. Arming teachers will just mean there are more bullets flying around, not necessarily reduced risk.

Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Brad462 on December 19, 2012, 09:32:03 am
Umm, Eric last time I checked America has a shit load of guns...  The declining violence doesn't seem to help your argument.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 19, 2012, 11:21:25 am
Umm, Eric last time I checked America has a shit load of guns...  The declining violence doesn't seem to help your argument.
So Brad are you suggesting that there were not a shit load of guns before 1990?
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Brad462 on December 19, 2012, 11:39:13 am
No, I am suggesting that if you bring statistics  into the argument that they should support your conclusion.  It would be more logical to compare the crime rates of the U.S. to countries with very strict gun control.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Brad462 on December 19, 2012, 12:10:01 pm
A short history lesson for the deaf, blind, and dumb: DEMOCIDE (DEATH BY GOVERNMENT) HAS KILLED OVER 260,000,000 PEOPLE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgraVpwiM6Y#ws)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 19, 2012, 12:21:53 pm
No, I am suggesting that if you bring statistics  into the argument that they should support your conclusion.  It would be more logical to compare the crime rates of the U.S. to countries with very strict gun control.
Hmmmmmmm interesting but rather silly. Canada is right next door and so is Mexico but they are like chalk and cheese compared to the US.

Canada has strict gun laws, read - virtually no handguns, no automatic weapons, no concealed weapons, you have to pass a Hunter Capability course to get a Firearms Acquisition Certificate which brings in your Police etc records etc, then you can get a rifle. This does not happen in a day because you have to wait for the class to start for the course and then wait for the Police to do their checking.

You can get a handgun, but in order to carry it you have to have a Police issued permit to have it in your car (unloaded, in a case and I believe the firing mechanism disassembled) and you have to describe the route and when you plan to carry it, say if you are going to a shooting range. Each time you carry it you have to have a certificate which has to be applied for.

In your house, your firearms must be unloaded and kept locked up and I believe the firing mechanism disassembled, when not being used.

There was even more restrictive laws that the current gov't has defanged where all firearms had to be registered.

Murder happens but on a much less dramatic scale than the US. People are not driving around with gun lobby stickers like you see in the US, and Canada is nowhere as much a Police state as the US. People do not have flags hanging from the front door.

Most Canadians (except for the rednecks on the prairies who want pistols to shoot gophers LOL) are quite content to have the laws as is. I am not saying this as a liberal woos, it's just a fact.

The US was forged from a war and has been fighting them since day 1, even internally.

I remember I was in Wichita KS training and we were walking to a bar one night when we saw this couple across the street arguing. He seemed to be getting physical, so I said to the other two guys "lets do something". They both looked at me like I had two heads and said "Are you F*#ckin nuts? He might have a gun!"
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 19, 2012, 12:23:11 pm
A short history lesson for the deaf, blind, and dumb: DEMOCIDE (DEATH BY GOVERNMENT) HAS KILLED OVER 260,000,000 PEOPLE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgraVpwiM6Y#ws)
The US has it's own version of population control. It's called guns.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Brad462 on December 19, 2012, 12:41:45 pm
Yeah, well, unless you live in a bad neighborhood your chances of getting shot are infinitely low.  Death by drugs and cars are more realistic fears, but live your life in fear of getting shot if you want.  You have every right to be a coward.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: wodgina on December 19, 2012, 01:22:10 pm
He was never ever going to get laid...the main reason he went nuts.

Forget this video game crap. All kids play wars/fights.

Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on December 19, 2012, 06:07:57 pm
Hmm, I have American acquaintances who state that, often, it's not even worth reporting crimes to the police in their areas  because they are usually too corrupt or incompetent or worse. Also, statistics, especially crime-statistics, are so easily fraudulently  massaged by the relevant government bureaus.

The given Columbine example was a bad one. The bombs failed to explode - unsurprising, as it would be expected of  inexperienced high-schoolers to either blow themselves up in preparation or make bombs that couldn't blow up.

Simply put,  inexperienced teenagers on a hormonal rampage against society etc., are not going to think carefully about anything, so a well-prepared adult would be able to quickly neutralise any potential threat, rather than hiding behind classroom doors waiting for the end.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 19, 2012, 08:34:04 pm
Hmm, I have American acquaintances who state that, often, it's not even worth reporting crimes to the police in their areas  because they are usually too corrupt or incompetent or worse. Also, statistics, especially crime-statistics, are so easily fruadulently  massaged by the relevant government bureaus.

The given Columbine example was a bad one. The bombs failed to explode - unsuprising, as it would be expected of  inexperienced high-schoolers to either blow themselves up in preparation or make bombs that couldn't blow up.

Simply put,  inexperienced teenagers on a hormonal rampage against society etc., are not going to think carefully about anything, so a well-prepared adult would be able to quickly neutralise any potential threat, rather than hiding behind classroom doors waiting for the end.
Unprepared teenagers is hardly how I would classify the Columbine characters. For someone unprepared, they managed to leave quite a wake of destruction behind them. My point was that despite their well thought out, well laid plans of destruction, only a small portion of it went off poorly. It so happened that that part of the plan would have made it a truly historical event, approaching Timothy McVey's magnum opus.

There was no well-prepared adults in the school who quickly neutralized anything.

As Eric said quite accurately

Quote from Eric:
An armed teacher would not have the advantage you assume. In these cases the perpetrator has the element of surprise, and that's a huge advantage that's hard to counter. Beyond this, expecting teachers to learn to use a firearm well enough to effectively counter someone who isn't afraid to die is a tall order. Police officers and soldiers spend years learning to do this, and despite their intensive training regimes they still regularly fail. Arming teachers will just mean there are more bullets flying around, not necessarily reduced risk.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on December 19, 2012, 09:20:38 pm
The whole point is that the Columbine killers were indeed poorly prepared, or they would have made functional bombs. And they were only able to wreak destruction because the teachers were unarmed, and so had to hide from the killers, a hardly viable option compared to blowing away the culprits.

Re the quote:-  You're missing the point once again. The element of surprise only works once. If you bother to actually read the accounts, you'll find again and again, that, after the first shot, the remaining teachers all had plenty of warning due to having perfectly good hearing,  and hid the kids if they were able to. So, if the kids were brilliant sharpshooters(a highly unlikely scenario) they might shoot one teacher, but would likely end up dead shortly afterwards. Besides, like I said, an adult well-trained in guns is going to have a much higher chance of survival against hyper-hormonal teenagers who are unlikely to have any decent comparable training in firearms.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 19, 2012, 09:22:48 pm
A short history lesson for the deaf, blind, and dumb: DEMOCIDE (DEATH BY GOVERNMENT) HAS KILLED OVER 260,000,000 PEOPLE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgraVpwiM6Y#ws)
The US has a reputation for talking much bigger than the walk. For all the bluster and blunder of this spokesman (Alex Jones) who is duplicated all over your country, talks a big story, but examine the facts.

The US has more guns per capita arguable than citizens anywhere else in the world and yet they have the highest rate of government detainees (0.743%) of any country in the world, including The Soviet Union at it's worst of excesses. So much for "fighting for the land of the brave, home of the free". It's all just talk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate)
USA 743 per 100,000 citizens
Russia (second place) 517
Canada 117 (123rd place)
China 120

Quote Wackipedia:
While Americans only represent about 5 percent of the world's population, nearly one-quarter of the entire world's inmates have been incarcerated in the United States in recent years.[3] Imprisonment of America's 2.3 million prisoners, costing $24,000 per inmate per year, and $5.1 billion in new prison construction, consumes $60 billion in budget expenditures.

They only got rid of government Press Gangs
http://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/the-impress-service-press-gangs-and-the-royal-navy/ (http://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/the-impress-service-press-gangs-and-the-royal-navy/)  http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft2.htm (http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/draft2.htm)
in the form of the "Compulsory Draft" less than 40 years ago, but left the registration process in effect, 'just in case the Government wanted to force young males to go fight in another immoral war somewhere, to line the pockets of the likes of Bush/Romney/Obama's (etc) cronies, and the Israel Lobby'
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501 (http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501)
while ensuring that big-heroes like Bush can evade the draft in a haven for the rich and famous in the Texas Air Guard. Not to mention get away with cocaine use, but participate in (Pass laws) sending young people to jail and preventing them from going to university for doing the same thing.

The US spends more than the rest of the world combined on sending it's youngest and healthiest males to foreign countries for the pleasure of coming home in a box. So can you explain how that makes people free? With all those guns in the hands of the populace, this is not supposed to happen.

So why isn't the populace coming out the woodwork to defend freedom with all the guns?

My theory is that the guns are a big huge demonstration of the terror in the minds of the wimps that own them.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Brad462 on December 19, 2012, 09:29:37 pm
Maybe we need to import more Canadians...   ;)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 19, 2012, 09:33:07 pm
Tyler,
the columbine massacre happened when least expected. The leader was a sociopath with a history of and recent usage of psychotropic drugs. If someone is bound and determined to do damage, they will succeed, whether it is in a classroom, hallway, schoolyard, wherever. Aside from creating laws to govern every student's movements which is against everything that you and I believe in, there is very little if nothing to be done. It is a sporadic guerrilla war coming from within and it is not likely to be quelled by laws or guns. There were all kinds of BS theories as to what happened blaming it on the parents, the Police and even bullying but these were effectively nonsense. Most of the kids in the country would be locked up or shot if every possibility of protecting the populace was examined.

Giving teachers the right to shoot preemptively to kill is hardly a good idea.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Paleo Donk on December 19, 2012, 09:43:18 pm
If Americans have by far the most guns then why hasn't one mass killer been killed by a civilian? Has any mass shooter even been shot at? Gun nuts keep insisting that more guns would have stopped these massacres or at least reduced the number of killings. What the gun nuts never point out are all the times that concealed carriers have been at the scene and simply fled or hid like everyone else and waited for the cops and never reported to anyone that they had a gun. This silent evidence will never be recorded.



Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 19, 2012, 09:44:50 pm
Maybe we need to import more Canadians...   ;)
It has nothing to do with country of origin. Canada has 1/10 the population spread over a slightly larger country. http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/simdiff.htm (http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/simdiff.htm)
(I love it - "24.6 times more horses, mules and asses, and 4.2 times more pigs."

When you squeeze that many people into a country, tempers flare. Simple as that. Add some lethal weapons and you have mayhem.

Britain has the population density but keeps things civil like Japan with strict gun laws.
If you have loads of time this article which (I breezed over it) examines how things got the way they are regarding guns in the US/Canada.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkcgc.html (http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkcgc.html)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Brad462 on December 19, 2012, 09:51:51 pm
Correct me if I am wrong Paleo donk, but don't mass shooters usually off themselves while the pigs are waiting outside?
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 19, 2012, 10:07:40 pm
BTW I enjoy visiting the US and have lots of friends in various places there. As a teen I hitchhiked across Canada but had seen so much violence in the US on TV that I stayed away. My initial visit to NY was to pick up fuel in Teterboro. With all the media out of NY showing crime/murder and mayhem I expected it to be like the moon and was blown away (figuratively LOL) when on approach, as I was flying over so many trees and beautiful landscapes, I thought maybe we had the wrong approach plates out.

About 5 years ago I was in NY and we decided to try the subway. We were once again treated to an excellent time and had a large # of friendly people just lining up to help make sure we got where we were going. The employees there were equally as friendly and helpful.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 19, 2012, 10:09:16 pm
Correct me if I am wrong Paleo donk, but don't mass shooters usually off themselves while the pigs are waiting outside?
Yeah Brad but by this time they have laid waste to a large # of people. It's kind of like closing the gate when the animals have all left.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Brad462 on December 19, 2012, 10:12:31 pm
Yeah, that is my point.  If you're counting on the police to save you then might as well kiss your ass goodbye.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 19, 2012, 10:18:07 pm
Yeah, that is my point.  If you're counting on the police to save you then might as well kiss your ass goodbye.
OK gotcha. I misinterpreted.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 20, 2012, 01:00:04 am
Yeah, well, unless you live in a bad neighborhood your chances of getting shot are infinitely low.  Death by drugs and cars are more realistic fears, but live your life in fear of getting shot if you want.  You have every right to be a coward.
Actually I do not spend my time being fearful, however many years ago my wife and I were in Hawaii on vacation, sitting in our convertible by our B&B, opening a bottle of wine and thinking we had it made, when we heard a commotion down the street and a few popping sounds. My wife started freaking out and said someone had been shot. I said "relax, you've been watching too many movies".

Anyways in this quiet suburban neighbourhood about a block from the beach in Kailua, two people were having a dispute, one ran in the house got a gun and shot the other guy. When we heard an ambulance with the sirens wailing, arrive at our street, it dawned on me that my wife was right. (not unusual BTW LOL)

I guess we beat the odds.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: ys on December 20, 2012, 01:06:32 am
Quote
If Americans have by far the most guns then why hasn't one mass killer been killed by a civilian?

This statement is totally silly.  On average American do own the most firearms.  But only a very small fraction of them choose to carry concealed weapon.  Especially teachers who are usually pacifists specifically CHOOSE NOT to carry them or have anything to do with firearms.  The results are obvious.

Quote
Gun nuts keep insisting that more guns would have stopped these massacres or at least reduced the number of killings.

Yes, Yes, and more Yes.

If school principal was trained in carrying a concealed weapon the result would have been very different.  Even if there was an armed guard the result would be very different.

If I carry a weapon and encounter an attack at least I have a chance to defend myself.

The only solution to this issue to have more people get trained to carry and use firearms.

Remember, bad guys will always have weapons no matter how strict the bans are.

This incident is no different than armed criminal breaking into someone home and gets killed by the homeowner who's been trained to use firearms to defend his home.  There are thousands of cases where homeowners successfully defended their homes.

Gun bans do not reduce gun crimes.  Chicago has one of the most strictest gun laws.  Yet there are more people die from gun violence than American troops in Afghanistan.

Again, if more lawful citizens would be proficient in carrying handguns these morons would not stand a chance.  Carrying a concealed gun is not like carrying a cell phone.  It requires some serious training.

Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 20, 2012, 01:09:00 am
A post from another place





NaturalNews) All nine of the bystanders who were injured in yesterday's Empire State Building shooting incident were shot by police, the media is now reporting. NYPD officers "fired randomly" into the street, striking nine bystanders in the legs, buttocks and elbow. The gunman, Jeffrey Johnson, had only one intended target: his former boss. Johnson never fired at police, it turns out, despite Mayor Bloomberg's initial description claiming he did.

The Guardian is now reporting: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/24/empire-state-building-sho... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/24/empire-state-building-sho...))

Questions have been raised over the New York police department's handling of a shooting near the Empire State Building after armed officers injured nine passers-by as they pursued a gunman who had just shot dead his former boss.

One of those injured by police told the Guardian that officers appeared to fire "randomly" as they confronted Jeffrey Johnson, 58, minutes after a workplace dispute escalated into a chaotic shootout in one of the busiest parts of Manhattan.

Reports suggest that while Johnson drew his gun when he was confronted by officers, he did not fire; all those injured appear to have been shot by police.

In other words, this was no random attack. This wasn't a wild, rampaging shooter. The real damage to the public was done by the NYPD, whose officers apparently can't hit the broad side of a barn at fifty yards.

The Guardian continues:

Robert Asika was among those wounded, shot in the elbow from a distance of around eight feet by one of the two police officers who confronted Johnson. He accused police of "shooting randomly", and said he saw at least two others hit by police bullets.

"If you're gonna aim try and aim perfectly. If you wanna aim at the target, you got to know what you're doing because it's the street," Asika said. "I could have been dead right now. I could have been dead."

The NYPD has offered Asika no apology.

Gun violence caused by the NYPD

Bloomberg, always an opponent of the firearms ownership rights of private citizens, loves to lament the danger of "all those guns out there." What he doesn't seem to realize, however, is that it's the guns in the hands of NYPD cops that caused most of the damage in this case: 90% of the shooting victims were shot by the NYPD.

But wait a second here. I know for a fact that NYPD police officers receive hundreds of hours of training and range time in learning how to accurately shoot firearms. Every officer on the force is capable of hitting a fist-sized target from a distance of eight feet. Officers must routinely re-qualify on their pistol skills to remain on the force.

So how could NYPD officers possibly fire 16 rounds and hit nine bystanders unless they were actually trying to?

Hitting nine bystanders with 16 rounds of ammo is difficult to accomplish even if you're trying to do it. But these NYPD cops somehow managed to pull it off. It begs the question: Were these cops intentionally trying to let loose a few extra rounds into the crowd so that they could stage a mass shooting with a high body count and then blame it on the gunman they shot dead? It's not difficult to imagine officers being ordered to do this. "We need more victims of gun violence," Bloomberg could be imagined saying to the Chief of Police. "Make sure your boys turn every shooting into a mass murder with lots of casualties."

Or maybe that sounds totally loony, you say. Bloomberg would never say that. Street beat officers would never intentionally try to harm innocent bystanders. I tend to agree with you. The police officers I know would never engage in such actions. So then what's the only remaining explanation for what happened? NYPD officers are wildly incompetent and a danger to the public.

NYPD officers either shot bystanders on purpose, or they are extremely incompetent

Every person who has ever taken firearms training knows there are four fundamental rules of gun safety:

1) Assume all guns are loaded at all times.
2) Never point the barrel at anything you don't wish to destroy.
3) Keep your trigger finger off the trigger until you are on the target and have decided to shoot.
4) Always know what is BEYOND YOUR TARGET. Bullets, you see, have a nasty habit of going through things and then hitting other things you never intended to hit.

But the NYPD is even worse. Their officers didn't merely violate rule No. 4. They couldn't even aim accurately at their target in the first place!

One of the victims in this shooting, Askia, was only eight feet away from the cop that shot him. Eight feet away! Can a NYPD cop not hit the right target from just eight feet away these days?

And remember, NYPD cops didn't hit just one innocent bystander... they shot NINE innocent bystanders! Four women and five men were all hit by police bullets, and the police only fired 16 rounds total. At least nine of those 16 rounds hit innocent bystanders rather than the intended target.

Hey Bloomberg, "Gun control" means using both hands

Maybe Mayor Bloomberge needs to rethink what "gun control" really means. For NYPD cops, gun control should mean controlling your own gun!

When you pull that trigger, make sure the barrel of your firearm is not pointed at innocent bystanders. Use a two-handed grip and get off the mind-altering meds that mess with head and screw up your aim.

Or maybe NYPD cops should be issued .22LR pistols so they do a lot less damage when blindly firing into crowds of innocent bystanders.

Or cap guns.

Or maybe Bloomberg should require NYPD officers take concealed carry classes because there, every student is taught to know what's beyond your target before you pull the trigger. As a bonus, most concealed carry shooters can actually hit a man-sized target at 14 feet without injuring nine bystanders in the process.

Go figure.

The good news in all this? The truth already came out

I'm shocked that the truth about the NYPD cops shooting all nine of the injured bystanders has already come out. I expected a full cover-up, complete with denials, faked ballistics reports, and a lying mass media trying to blame all the injuries on the lone gunman. After all, another "mass shooting" would fit right into Bloomberg's citizen disarmament agenda.

Instead, the truth has already come out: The bystanders were shot by the police! The cover-up is already blown. I wonder if we'll all be branded "conspiracy theorists" for knowing that the police shot the bystanders, not the gunman?

In a shooting, much like in an act of war, the truth is the first casualty. But not this time. It looks like the truth already came out thanks to the testimony of witnesses who were shot by police. Now, if they had been killed by the police and unable to speak, this might have been a totally different story...

Lessons learned from the Empire State Building shooting

Lesson #1) If you're someone's boss, try not to piss them off to such a degree that they literally want to put a bullet in your head.

Lesson #2) Keep your distance from NYPD cops. They are extremely dangerous, totally incompetent and apparently have no "gun control" skills.

Lesson #3) The next time there's a mass shooting, don't automatically think the lone gunman did all the damage. Because in this shooting, 90% of the casualties were caused by the NYPD.

Lesson #4) If you live in New York City, what's wrong with you? Don't you know NYC is going to be the ultimate death trap in a collapse scenario? Get out of the city, if not for the cops themselves then at least to get away from the wave of zombies that we know is coming because it was depicted in a movie starring Will Smith.

Hey, here's an idea (this part is SATIRE, folks). Why not give all NYPD cops mortars and let them just start randomly firing mortars into the city in order to "get the terrorists?" Don't laugh. That might be next on their police militarization agenda. We'll call them "Bloomberg mortars" and they'll be manufactured with special fragmentation shrapnel that's designed to go through people, but not buildings. That way all the bank buildings on Wall Street can emerge from the shelling unscathed. After all, protecting the banks is what New York politicians do best.

This Christmas, I'm going to send the NYPD some range targets for their practice. But I'm gonna send them really big archery targets so they can actually hit them (http://www.bigshottargets.com/products.php#bigshot450x (http://www.bigshottargets.com/products.php#bigshot450x)).

Sources for this story include:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/24/empire-state-building-sho... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/24/empire-state-building-sho...)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/aug/24/empire-state... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/aug/24/empire-state...)
GUNMAN KILLS former BOSS in Empire State Building SHOOTING: POLICE CHASE [CCTV] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmrlzsj94Js#)
   
Stay informed! FREE subscription to the Health Ranger's email newsletter
Get breaking news alerts on GMOs, fluoride, superfoods, natural cures and more...
 Join over four million monthly readers. Email privacy 100% protected. Unsubscribe at any time.   
Articles Related to This Article:

• JPMorgan Chase donates millions to NYPD prior to mass arrests at Occupy Wall Street

• Total surveillance police state - NYPD reveals new massive $40 million super computer spy system

• Dirty cops treat Good Samaritan like a thief, man sues them for $1 million

• Fascist police state: Cops now arresting journalists at OWS protests

• Newtown school shooting story already being changed by the media to eliminate eyewitness reports of a second shooter

• Colorado Batman shooting shows obvious signs of being staged
Related video from NaturalNews.TV


Your NaturalNews.TV video could be here.
Upload your own videos at NaturalNews.TV (FREE)


About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health researcher, author and award-winning journalist with a passion for teaching people how to improve their health He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guides, and books on topics like health and the environment, and he has published numerous courses on preparedness and survival, including financial preparedness, emergency food supplies, urban survival and tactical self-defense. Adams is a trusted, independent journalist who receives no money or promotional fees whatsoever to write about other companies' products. In mid 2010, Adams produced TV.NaturalNews.com, a natural health video sharing website offering user-generated videos on nutrition, green living, fitness and more. He's also a successful software entrepreneur, having founded a well known email marketing software company whose technology currently powers the NaturalNews email newsletters. Adams is currently the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit, and pursues hobbies such as martial arts, Capoeira, nature macrophotography and organic gardening. Known as the 'Health Ranger,' Adams' personal health statistics and mission statements are located at www.HealthRanger.org (http://www.HealthRanger.org)

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036937_Empire_State_Building_shooting_NYPD.html#ixzz2FW9q5jYz (http://www.naturalnews.com/036937_Empire_State_Building_shooting_NYPD.html#ixzz2FW9q5jYz)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 20, 2012, 01:23:35 am

If school principal was trained in carrying a concealed weapon the result would have been very different.  Even if there was an armed guard the result would be very different.
LOL, see the article on the NYPD.
If I carry a weapon and encounter an attack at least I have a chance to defend myself.

The only solution to this issue to have more people get trained to carry and use firearms.

Remember, bad guys will always have weapons no matter how strict the bans are.

Not true in countries that have strict gun control laws.

In the case of the shopping mall shooting there was a guy with a gun who hid behind a post and couldn't get a clear shot at the gunman because he might have hit others close by.

Handguns are notorious for being difficult to aim correctly due to the sort barrel length, and weight and awkwardness. Collateral damage is not something you would want to live with.

At the moment, in the excitement, you would instantaneously justify it, but if it was a pregnant neighbour or a child or your mother that succumbed to your 'big hero move', time would weigh heavily on your mind.


This incident is no different than armed criminal breaking into someone home and gets killed by the homeowner who's been trained to use firearms to defend his home.  There are thousands of cases where homeowners successfully defended their homes.

And there's also plenty of cases where howe owners have accidentally shot their children or spouses when they were surprised by them
Gun bans do not reduce gun crimes.  Chicago has one of the most strictest gun laws.  Yet there are more people die from gun violence than American troops in Afghanistan.

Again, if more lawful citizens would be proficient in carrying handguns these morons would not stand a chance.  Carrying a concealed gun is not like carrying a cell phone.  It requires some serious training.
I cannot imagine myself living in such a constant state of fear that I would justify spending a large load of money on a weapon that I might never use, required training, had to be lugged everywhere with me, kept away from some other idiot who might want to steal it from me and turn it on me....

Reminds me of the guys who spend countless hours getting the sh#t beat out of them learning martial arts just so someone won't ever kick sand in their face again.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on December 20, 2012, 02:05:44 am
You've really damaged your POV by citing the police as being incompetent with the above article. The whole libertarian stance is that authorities are by their very nature bunglers, incompetents etc. and that therefore gun-ownership and other powers should be handed over to (responsible) individual citizens.

The claim that criminals don't have guns in societies which officially ban guns is a joke. I remember reading one article about a journalist who, just by casually asking around in the more seedy London pubs, got hold of a working pistol within a lot less than 24 hours. It's so easy nowadays as guns are allowed to be sold if they have a metal stopper blocking the barrel, but anyone with mechanical engineering knowledge of the basest sort can remove them.

Also, re the previous point:- no matter how well-planned a teenager shooting-spree may be(most are ill-planned due to hormonal issues), the element of surprise goes after the first shot. After that, a mass shooting spree is unlikely with teachers all over armed to the teeth.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 20, 2012, 02:10:06 am
You've really damaged your POV by citing the police as being incompetent with the above article. The whole libertarian stance is that authorities are by their very nature bunglers, incompetents etc. and that therefore gun-ownership and other powers should be handed over to (responsible) individual citizens.

The claim that criminals don't have guns in societies which officially ban guns is a joke. I remember reading one article about a journalist who, just by casually asking around in the more seedy London pubs, got hold of a working pistol within a lot less than 24 hours. It's so easy nowadays as guns are allowed to be sold if they have a metal stopper blocking the barrel, but anyone with mechanical engineering knowledge of the basest sort can remove them.

Also, re the previous point:- no matter how well-planned a teenager shooting-spree may be(most are ill-planned due to hormonal issues), the element of surprise goes after the first shot. After that, a mass shooting spree is unlikely with teachers all over armed to the teeth.
I remember the storm of protest when Police were granted guns. They have to carry them in the trunk of their cars.

No offence intended to the rest, but I wouldn't want to depend on some of the cops I know to be in charge of saving my life.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Inger on December 20, 2012, 02:25:32 am
My husband got shot right through his heart at 7 PM in a street in Hamburg (Germany).. one year after we married. He survived but the absolute wonderful surgeon who operated on him for 7 hours said it was a complete wonder he did not die. My husband was unarmed, and the man that shoot him was a drug abuser.. My (ex)husband is an animal for sure. ;) He was close to death so many times. He is a Jew, maybe that explains some..

Video games do destroy young people (and old too). It is just, it affects the broken ones the most for sure.
And because of modern  lifestyle, there are more and more broken people. Heavily broken.  :(
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Projectile Vomit on December 20, 2012, 02:55:01 am
...I know for a fact that NYPD police officers receive hundreds of hours of training and range time in learning how to accurately shoot firearms. Every officer on the force is capable of hitting a fist-sized target from a distance of eight feet. Officers must routinely re-qualify on their pistol skills to remain on the force.

True enough, but handgun exams are generally done in controlled situations where you're standing in a shooting range aiming at a target that isn't moving with no distractions. You might score perfectly, and then on the street with people running and yelling and your target trying to evade you, rush you, throw things at you or shoot back it's entirely possibly you might not be able to hit anything with your sidearm reliably, even at 8 or 10 feet.

I'm accurate with a handgun in controlled situations without distractions out to maybe 30 yards, beyond that I can't reliably hit a paper target (without a laser sight). Add people moving around behind me, someone yelling or a group of people conversing, someone talking to me or trying to get my attention, and suddenly I can't reliably hit the paper beyond 10 yards. Add people moving around behind my target, people moving suddenly or erratically, yelling, pushing each other (or me) and it's easy for me to see how the NYPD incident happened without any ill intent on the part of the responding officers (or the mayor, LOL).

If police officers 'lose it' amidst threatening situations surely the same would happen to anyone, including a teacher or a bystander who happened to be carrying a handgun and decided to play Hero. The difference is that the teacher or the random bystander who decided to shoot the 'bad guy' would be sued or jailed if they accidentally hit an innocent person, or even if they damaged property. Sometimes what looks like a gun from a distance isn't, or turns out to be a fake. In those situations, a vigilante who shoots to kill has just committed murder, and will be (and should be) treated appropriately by the criminal justice system.

As I said before, if we armed teachers or principles and expected them to use their firearms in cases of school shootings, even if we forced them to endure training at the level of police officers, in the heat of emergencies they'd often enough make poor decisions and the end result would be more bullets ricocheting through school hallways and most likely more injured people (including children), even if the shooters were killed by a teacher's lucky shot rather than by their own suicide shot. The best way to deal with the problem of school shooting is to intervene in the would-be shooters life well before they start planning their massacre. If we fail at that, the best we can do is prey and clean up the mess as best we can.

I used to work occasionally in the personal protection sector, and the discussion of whether to carry a firearm or not came up a lot at training seminars I attended. The liabilities involved in using or even just drawing a firearm during a conflict can be huge, and I never once carried when protecting someone in a professional capacity. It never seemed worth it, and neither I nor my clients ever regretted my decisions on that front.

Quote
...the element of surprise goes after the first shot. After that, a mass shooting spree is unlikely with teachers all over armed to the teeth.

Even though guns are loud, there are a lot of things that can make similar sounds in buildings, and the gunshot sounds can be muffled or distorted so that those far away can't recognize them for what they are. Even if one does recognize a gunshot (or series of them) for what they are, no one in their right mind would storm the room where the shooting is happening. Those sorts of entrances only work in the movies. In the real world they result in the defender getting shot and perhaps killed outright, giving the shooter access to their gun and ammunition despite their best intentions otherwise.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on December 20, 2012, 03:54:10 am
I seriously doubt that hormonally influenced  teenagers would have the foresight to use silencers. Besides, they want to make the biggest splash possible, so they are hardly going to be silent while shooting.

Ultimately, it's a question of  amount of firepower. If lots of teachers are armed, there's no way that the one or two teenagers wouldn't very quickly be pinned down in a small area, unable to carry on their killing spree until the police arrived.

Basically, if school teachers were armed, killer-happy teenagers would simply search for other areas which had anti-gun laws. The prime attraction of shooting in schools is that they are vulnerable due to not being allowed to have guns.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 20, 2012, 06:02:14 am
Absolutely different take on the recent massacre. 

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/18/278706/israeli-squads-tied-to-newtown-carnage/ (http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/18/278706/israeli-squads-tied-to-newtown-carnage/)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on December 20, 2012, 06:21:19 am
Hmm, maybe...
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Projectile Vomit on December 20, 2012, 06:43:46 am
Quote
I seriously doubt that hormonally influenced  teenagers would have the foresight to use silencers...

I never assumed they would. Silenced or even repressed firearms are nearly impossible to distinguish from background noise in public places. I was referring to non-silenced firearms or non-repressed rifles. Even the 'normal' bang of a firearm can be mistaken for other things inside buildings due to muffling and distortion. Same is even true outdoors, particularly in areas where there are rocks, thick forest or lots of topography (hills, valleys, cliffs, etc.)

Quote

Ultimately, it's a question of  amount of firepower. If lots of teachers are armed, there's no way that the one or two teenagers wouldn't very quickly be pinned down in a small area, unable to carry on their killing spree until the police arrived.

Spoken like someone whose 'expertise' in firearm combatives stems entirely from watching movies, TV and the occasional dramatic re-enactment. The point I'm trying to make is that no amount of training will give teachers the skills and confidence in firearm combat to 'pin down' an armed opponent while still remaining competent enough as educators to do their teaching job (setting aside, for the moment, the completely legitimate question of whether they are competent enough to do their teaching job). That level of skill is seen in SWAT units, military special forces and some paramilitary organizations; even most police officers fall short on this. Part of the skill here involves proficiency in working with the firearm(s) they're carrying, the other part involves dedicated training on how to work with a team of similarly trained people to carry out a goal (i.e. clear a room or a hallway or distract and attack a perpetrator). It takes years of dedicated, fierce training to develop these skills. Teachers and principles, no matter how heavily armed, will not attain that level of skill and confidence and can't remotely be expected to competently wield firearms as a defensive measure against school shootings.

Quote
Basically, if school teachers were armed, killer-happy teenagers would simply search for other areas which had anti-gun laws. The prime attraction of shooting in schools is that they are vulnerable due to not being allowed to have guns.

LOL. All school shootings I'm aware of, and mass killings more generally, take place because the shooter was familiar with the terrain and had particular targets picked out. Maybe a particular teacher or student, a particular staff member, a particular supervisor (as in some workplace shootings) or coworker. I challenge you to cite evidence that firearm laws drive the targeting decisions of mass shooters.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on December 20, 2012, 06:58:22 am
This is so childish. Obviously, since hormonally-challenged teenagers willing to kill do have some sense of survival, they will inevitably target those areas where other people carrying guns are much less likely to be present. This is simple logic.

As regards my own experience, I actually spent many, many years shooting on shooting-ranges at school or thereafter, plus sometimes firing  12-bore shotguns when on farms. The only reason I haven't shot outside those occasions is because of the UK's absurd draconian anti-gun laws. My brother in Kenya, fortunately, had more opportunity to shoot over there, as they are so sick of criminals in that country, that they want the latter dead as soon as possible.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 20, 2012, 06:59:17 am
Hiring 3-4 heavily armed veterans for each school should be a good deterrent.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 20, 2012, 07:29:34 am
Hiring 3-4 heavily armed veterans for each school should be a good deterrent.

LOL
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 20, 2012, 07:29:59 am
Absolutely different take on the recent massacre. 

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/18/278706/israeli-squads-tied-to-newtown-carnage/ (http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/18/278706/israeli-squads-tied-to-newtown-carnage/)
Is this reporter for real?
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Paleo Donk on December 20, 2012, 08:05:31 am
I teach high school and if I heard gun shots and knew they were gun shots I would run for the closest of the many exits in the school and tell my students to do the same.

If I was armed with a handgun...I would run to the closest exit and wait for police.

If I was armed with a handgun and bullet-proof vest...I would run...

If 10 other teachers were armed with vests....I would run...

If every other teacher was armed with a machine gun with vests I would run...

If I had a minianture one-man tank in my  classroom then I would probably try and take out the shooter.

Without very extensive combat training and back-up I am running. If I was armed and did have elementary aged kids I suppose I would lock myself down with the kids and attempt to barricade the door but if there is an exit nearby I might tell the kids to use the run strategy as well.

Again, how many  civilians have even taken a shot at a shooter during a mass killing spree?
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: goodsamaritan on December 20, 2012, 08:19:06 am
Is this reporter for real?

More believable than the lone gunman hypothesis being trotted out by the mass media.

Again, how many  civilians have even taken a shot at a shooter during a mass killing spree?

Here is grandpa foiling a hold up.

How to stop a massacre (PG-13 edition with improved sound effects) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epZod2qyyN4#ws)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Projectile Vomit on December 20, 2012, 08:26:51 am
Quote
I teach high school and if I heard gun shots and knew they were gun shots I would run for the closest of the many exits in the school and tell my students to do the same...

I would too.

Unfortunately views like Geoff's (handle: TylerDurden) are far too common, fueled by goofball 'one-man-army' movies like Batman, Die Hard, etc. Real life isn't like that. Combat scenarios don't unfold like that. School shootings don't unfold like that.

But far too many people believe they do, or can, because they see that theme repeated over and over in the media, on television, in movies, like a militaristic mantra. These media representations give combat-illiterate people gravely unrealistic ideas of what untrained civilians are capable of when concealing a glock under their jacket. These media representations also work wonders for firearm sales, despite the fact that most people who own firearms aren't competent enough to safely defend themselves with them.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Paleo Donk on December 20, 2012, 08:52:50 am
I found this article that goes into some detail of what I was looking for. Apparently there was one incident in 1982 that a civilian killed an assailant but this was after the assailant had already fled on his bicycle(lol). Another incident in 2002 with fuzzy details - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting)

Here is the article

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation)

Also in this article, a couple of really bad incidents for civilians who tried to play hero.

Also, with that rambo gramps in the internet cafe. It looked like he missed the assailant from around 10 feet(just read he did hit them. Apparently one bullet wasn't enough). Also the assailant, with his gun, did not even return fire. I think I read somewhere that the assailant might not have had a real gun or bullets. Makes sense since his buddy had a bat, and he didn't even think to return fire. This could have easily ended very badly for gramps and the other patrons.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: LePatron7 on December 20, 2012, 08:59:33 am
I definitely don't think arming teachers is the best idea, even if they're given training.

I think the solution rests with some new gun laws. For example no clips holding more than 10 bullets. Who needs 30 bullets in their clip any way? No automatic weapons, assault weapons, etc.

I think also that part of the solution if reforming mental health. Sane people don't typically go commit mass shootings. If mental health treatment is changed to stuff that really treats the illness, like niacin, SCD, RPD, etc. We'd likely see a changing of how other illnesses are treated as well.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: PaleoPhil on December 20, 2012, 09:24:51 am
Well, the academic world is riddled with 10th rate marxists. "Liberal" is just a ridiculously nice term  used to describe people who formerly were called  very "nasty" names like "marxist", "communist" etc.
Yeah, I actually like your "libtard" term (and neoconman). It has a humorous element and is not just nasty, like Commie and whatnot.
 
Quote
I am sure that any "Liberal" teachers would have the cowardice necessary to protest against bearing any arms to defend their school-children, so that they could ensure that lots more schoolchildren could be killed. Heck, if they had a tiny amount of self-respect, such Libtard teachers might even throw themselves forward so that the relevant gunmen could execute them/put them down out of kindness.
It seems the teachers in this case, whether they were libtards or not, gave their lives to try to defend the children. That seems much more courageous than cowardly. I don't know whether they would have shot the shooter, but they didn't seem to be lacking in the courage department.

I did hear that in Israel (on National Public Radio, of all places), arming and training a couple teachers in each school did help deter terror attacks. I don't know whether it's true or not.

That said, I do think that more gun-owners should be taught not only about shooting at firing-ranges, but also about safe rules re hunting wild game etc. That teaches not only respect but also self-respect.
I agree with you there. Around here, one thing that some dingbat gun owners do is shoot up road signs, which sometimes makes them hard to read. Not too helpful. And my aunt was shot by a neighbor kid's BB gun through the kitchen window. Not too swift. Luckily she only suffered a minor injury, but if people are going to use firearms, they should be thoroughly trained and taught responsibility. When I was taught to use a BB gun in Boy Scouts I took it very seriously and was turned off by how most of the other Scouts were goofing around with them and had to be brought into line by the scout leaders. Come to think of it, I scored better on the target than most of those jackass kids.

The US has a reputation for talking much bigger than the walk. For all the bluster and blunder of this spokesman (Alex Jones) who is duplicated all over your country, talks a big story, but examine the facts.

The US has more guns per capita arguable than citizens anywhere else in the world and yet they have the highest rate of government detainees (0.743%) of any country in the world, including The Soviet Union at it's worst of excesses.
Hmmm, that seems like a good point. If firearms are so good at deterring crime, why does the most heavily armed nation in the world have one of the highest crime rates?

If Americans have by far the most guns then why hasn't one mass killer been killed by a civilian? Has any mass shooter even been shot at? Gun nuts keep insisting that more guns would have stopped these massacres or at least reduced the number of killings. What the gun nuts never point out are all the times that concealed carriers have been at the scene and simply fled or hid like everyone else and waited for the cops and never reported to anyone that they had a gun. This silent evidence will never be recorded.
Food for thought. I did hear about one guy who had a pistol at a mass shooting, and the teen shooter shot him 6 times with an AK47.

I haven't investigated the topic that much, so I'm keeping an open mind re: solutions. One thing that gets pointed out a lot is that the USA actually has a declining murder rate, so some folks write off these slaughters as aberrations that can be ignored--but I realized that the problem with these mass killings is not the total number of annual murders in the US, it's the terror and trauma that they cause. These are forms of domestic terrorism.

I definitely don't think arming teachers is the best idea, even if they're given training.

I think the solution rests with some new gun laws. For example no clips holding more than 10 bullets. Who needs 30 bullets in their clip any way? No automatic weapons, assault weapons, etc.
Even some Republicans have been supporting that. I suspect that some sort of legislation along those lines may get enacted. I guess we'll see whether it helps at all.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: wodgina on December 20, 2012, 12:10:21 pm
I found this article that goes into some detail of what I was looking for. Apparently there was one incident in 1982 that a civilian killed an assailant but this was after the assailant had already fled on his bicycle(lol). Another incident in 2002 with fuzzy details - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting)

Here is the article

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation)

Also in this article, a couple of really bad incidents for civilians who tried to play hero.

Also, with that rambo gramps in the internet cafe. It looked like he missed the assailant from around 10 feet(just read he did hit them. Apparently one bullet wasn't enough). Also the assailant, with his gun, did not even return fire. I think I read somewhere that the assailant might not have had a real gun or bullets. Makes sense since his buddy had a bat, and he didn't even think to return fire. This could have easily ended very badly for gramps and the other patrons.

That Gramps was more dangerous than the robbers (someone could of got killed ha ha)

It now has come out the Mum was a bit of a bitch and also home schooled him. Dad had divorced mum.

Omega male with no chance of procreation with a controlling female at home. Not natural.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on December 20, 2012, 05:18:17 pm
I would too.

Unfortunately views like Geoff's (handle: TylerDurden) are far too common, fueled by goofball 'one-man-army' movies like Batman, Die Hard, etc. Real life isn't like that. Combat scenarios don't unfold like that. School shootings don't unfold like that.
  I only chose my handle at the time  because TD had made one quotation about reverting to palaeo-like times and was an anarchist like me. And I personally loathe mainstream Hollywood movies like Die Hard, and have had plenty of training with guns in real life. All this talk about shooting is anyway absurd as in most RL situations involving guns, mere brandishing of a  (non-loaded) weapon would be enough to deter most people most of the time, and shooting only used as a last resort.

My own concerns re this are that police in the UK are pretty inept due partially, no doubt, to most of them not carrying weapons. The few who do carry are unsurprisingly not trained enough in guns so that they commit far more mistakes in genuinely dangerous situations(often the fools get told by their superiors to shoot to kill without thinking, like in the Menezes disaster).

The Austrian police are amazing, by contrast. They all have to carry pistols  by law, but hardly ever need to take them out. Simply wearing them openly in a holster is enough to give them an air of authority so that they very rarely have to use them.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: cherimoya_kid on December 20, 2012, 10:46:41 pm


The Austrian police are amazing, by contrast. They all have to carry pistols  by law, but hardly ever need to take them out. Simply wearing them openly in a holster is enough to give them an air of authority so that they very rarely have to use them.

Even the police in the US very rarely use their guns.

Also, it's Austria.  There's a much better welfare system there than in the US, so people aren't desperate for money all the time.  Desperate people do desperate things.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on December 21, 2012, 02:37:27 am
Err, robbery is a very popular crime in Austria.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 21, 2012, 04:11:22 am
More believable than the lone gunman hypothesis being trotted out by the mass media.

Here is grandpa foiling a hold up.

How to stop a massacre (PG-13 edition with improved sound effects) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epZod2qyyN4#ws)
I think gramps was a danger to everyone. I wonder where all the stray bullets went.

Notice that he didn't connect with any of those shots, despite being very close shots. The burglars got away with no apparent wounds. That means all those bullets ricocheted around posing a threat of unintended consequences.

A friend of mine's father had a gas station. I remember asking his when I was a teenager, if he had a gun to protect himself from thieves. He said that money is not that important that he would murder or risk hitting a bystander. Even the Police advise against heroism.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 21, 2012, 05:58:13 am
I seriously doubt that hormonally influenced  teenagers would have the foresight to use silencers. Besides, they want to make the biggest splash possible, so they are hardly going to be silent while shooting.

Ultimately, it's a question of  amount of firepower. If lots of teachers are armed, there's no way that the one or two teenagers wouldn't very quickly be pinned down in a small area, unable to carry on their killing spree until the police arrived.

Basically, if school teachers were armed, killer-happy teenagers would simply search for other areas which had anti-gun laws. The prime attraction of shooting in schools is that they are vulnerable due to not being allowed to have guns.
They do not go looking for other areas where there are anti-gun laws. They go to their own school or close by places. Do you have some examples of kids who have done this in a premeditated way?

The prime attraction of schools is the distorted view these kids have for other kids. In fact they could probably pick off more people in a crowded mall.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 21, 2012, 06:10:55 am
I teach high school and if I heard gun shots and knew they were gun shots I would run for the closest of the many exits in the school and tell my students to do the same.

If I was armed with a handgun...I would run to the closest exit and wait for police.

If I was armed with a handgun and bullet-proof vest...I would run...

If 10 other teachers were armed with vests....I would run...

If every other teacher was armed with a machine gun with vests I would run...

If I had a minianture one-man tank in my  classroom then I would probably try and take out the shooter.

Without very extensive combat training and back-up I am running. If I was armed and did have elementary aged kids I suppose I would lock myself down with the kids and attempt to barricade the door but if there is an exit nearby I might tell the kids to use the run strategy as well.

Again, how many  civilians have even taken a shot at a shooter during a mass killing spree?
Spot on. Pick your battles.

Maybe you're on to something though, just forget the guns/training, issue a miniature one-man tank for every classroom. : )
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on December 21, 2012, 06:12:41 am
Obvious answer:- schools are the most obvious  areas one thinks of when one tries to think of areas which have anti-gun-laws. Picking off more people in a crowded mall would not be so  much fun - more fun would be to shoot utterly defenceless pre-school children in schools.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Paleo Donk on December 21, 2012, 12:25:24 pm
The argument for killing in gun-free zones is interesting at first but what I think is important to consider is the actual fact whether or not normal law-abiding citizens pay attention to these laws. It might actually be in fact the opposite of what we would first think- that gun-free zones actually have more concealed carriers since the concealed carriers supposedly know that they are more at 'risk'.

I would be really interested in a poll of concealed carriers and how often they actually follow the laws of gun-free zones. I'd be surprised if there was any hard data collected on this but I don't think we can just assume that gun-free zones = no guns.

Just a few weeks ago in the oregon mall shooting a concealed carrier was amidst the gunfire in a gun-free zone, so we know this sort of thing does indeed happen. But how often?
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Brad462 on December 21, 2012, 04:50:36 pm
I read that the shooter was a vegan.  Maybe instead of blaming guns we should blame fruit for this tragedy.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Brad462 on December 21, 2012, 06:31:28 pm
Why is columbine survivor mark taylor being held against his will and forcibly drugged?

http://columbinefamilyrequest.org/mark-taylor-defense-fund/mark-taylor/ (http://columbinefamilyrequest.org/mark-taylor-defense-fund/mark-taylor/)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Paleo Donk on December 21, 2012, 11:38:20 pm
Theres also this other troubling idea I have with concealed carrying in that there could be a so called 'vaigra' effect where those carrying or more likely to find something to f*** up than those not carrying. I think there's a good chance that having a gun makes one more likely to find a reason to use it and then go back and justify those means. The killing of Trayvon Martin is perhaps a perfect example. I'm unclear of the details but the killer could have likely taken a different path to confront the teenager if he wasn't carrying. I cannot see how having a gun does not consciously or subconsciously change a person's actions when it comes to confrontations.

This story illustrates my point well - http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/12/after_shooting_a_whiney_costum.php (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/12/after_shooting_a_whiney_costum.php)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on December 22, 2012, 02:33:22 am
There was a huge outcry re the Trayvon Martin case solely because he was black. It turned out later that the perp was a criminal and had certainly been up to no good at the time. Even worse, the US media tried to lie and portray it as an illegal attempt by a white person  to commit a vigilante act on  a supposedly innocent black person. Yet it quickly turned out that the "white" vigilante was actually mixed-race, once his photo was made available to the public,  and yet they still insisted on him being called "white hispanic" when "Hispanic" was the correct term.
I love that "stand your ground" law. I wish I could have used it in the UK against a couple of teenaged boys who fled after burgling my home.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on December 22, 2012, 02:39:38 am
I read that the shooter was a vegan.  Maybe instead of blaming guns we should blame fruit for this tragedy.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Iguana on December 22, 2012, 03:17:42 am
I read that the shooter was a vegan.  Maybe instead of blaming guns we should blame fruit for this tragedy.
Wheat, coffee and dairy, not fruits !

Quote
Trigger Foods and Opioids  (http://www.nutramed.com/eatingdisorders/addictivefoods.htm)

Pieces of milk and wheat proteins (peptides) can act like the body's own narcotics, the endorphins, and were described by Zioudro, Streaty and Klee as "exorphins" in 1979. Other food proteins, such as gluten, results in the production of substances having opiate- (narcotic) like activity. These substances have been termed "exorphins." Hydrolyzed wheat gluten, for example, was found to prolong intestinal transit time and this effect was reversed by concomitant administration of naloxone, a narcotic-blocking drug. Digests of milk proteins also are opioid peptides. The brain effects of exorphins may contribute to the mental disturbances and appetite disorders which routinely accompany food-related illness. The possibility that exorphins are addictive in some people is a fascinating lead which needs further exploration.

Another mechanism, similar to dependency on food-derived neuroactive peptides such as exorphins, would be a dependency on gastrointestinal peptides, released from the bowel during digestion. Deficiencies in the bowel production of regulatory addictive peptides, such as endorphins, would likely be associated with cravings and compulsions to increase food ingestion. Eugenio Paroli reviewed the peptide research, especially the link between food and schizophrenia. He suggested: "The discovery that opioid peptides are released by the digestion of certain food has followed a line of research that assumes pathogenic connections between schizophrenic psychosis and diet."

Coffee and Tea

Coffee makes us speedy, irritable, sleepless, and often causes heartburn or ulcers. The removal of caffeine is supposed to reduce some of these undesirable effects. Coffee is an addicting beverage. If you consume more than 3 cups per day, you are likely to experience unpleasant withdrawal if you stop. The minimal suffering includes a headache, irritability, and fatigue. The popular idea that the bad effects of coffee are caused by one chemical, caffeine, is misleading. The 500 or so other chemicals in coffee include aromatic or phenolic chemicals and many are probably neurotoxic; other chemicals are allergenic. Coffee is also a crop with high pesticide residues. Coffee is definitely allergenic and makes some people obviously sick.
 

Quote
The origins of agriculture: a biological perspective and a new hypothesis (http://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/gwadley/msc/WadleyMartinAgriculture.html)
by Greg Wadley and Angus Martin
published in Australian Biologist volume 6: pp 96-105, June 1993

Pharmacological properties of cereals and milk

Recent research into the pharmacology of food presents a new perspective on these problems.
Exorphins: opioid substances in food

Prompted by a possible link between diet and mental illness, several researchers in the late 1970s began investigating the occurrence of drug-like substances in some common foodstuffs.

Dohan (1966, 1984) and Dohan et al. (1973, 1983) found that symptoms of schizophrenia were relieved somewhat when patients were fed a diet free of cereals and milk. He also found that people with coeliac disease -- those who are unable to eat wheat gluten because of higher than normal permeability of the gut -- were statistically likely to suffer also from schizophrenia. Research in some Pacific communities showed that schizophrenia became prevalent in these populations only after they became 'partially westernised and consumed wheat, barley beer, and rice' (Dohan 1984).

Groups led by Zioudrou (1979) and Brantl (1979) found opioid activity in wheat, maize and barley (exorphins), and bovine and human milk (casomorphin), as well as stimulatory activity in these proteins, and in oats, rye and soy. Cereal exorphin is much stronger than bovine casomorphin, which in turn is stronger than human casomorphin. Mycroft et al. (1982, 1987) found an analogue of MIF-1, a naturally occurring dopaminergic peptide, in wheat and milk. It occurs in no other exogenous protein. (In subsequent sections we use the term exorphin to cover exorphins, casomorphin, and the MIF-1 analogue. Though opioid and dopaminergic substances work in different ways, they are both 'rewarding', and thus more or less equivalent for our purposes.)

Since then, researchers have measured the potency of exorphins, showing them to be comparable to morphine and enkephalin (Heubner et al. 1984), determined their amino acid sequences (Fukudome &Yoshikawa 1992), and shown that they are absorbed from the intestine (Svedburg et al.1985) and can produce effects such as analgesia and reduction of anxiety which are usually associated with poppy-derived opioids (Greksch et al.1981, Panksepp et al.1984). Mycroft et al. estimated that 150 mg of the MIF-1 analogue could be produced by normal daily intake of cereals and milk, noting that such quantities are orally active, and half this amount 'has induced mood alterations in clinically depressed subjects' (Mycroft et al. 1982:895). (For detailed reviews see Gardner 1985 and Paroli 1988.)

Most common drugs of addiction are either opioid (e.g heroin and morphine) or dopaminergic (e.g. cocaine and amphetamine), and work by activating reward centres in the brain. Hence we may ask, do these findings mean that cereals and milk are chemically rewarding? Are humans somehow 'addicted' to these foods?

Everyone interested in paleo diet should have read the entire remarkable paper by  Greg Wadley and Angus Martin. The above quotes are only excerpts.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Brad462 on December 25, 2012, 01:59:21 am
 ;D  It would be hilarious to see him get deported.  Fucking wanker.
US petition to deport Piers Morgan hits 31,400
http://news.yahoo.com/us-petition-deport-piers-morgan-hits-31-400-112219264.html (http://news.yahoo.com/us-petition-deport-piers-morgan-hits-31-400-112219264.html)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: ys on December 25, 2012, 02:56:48 am
Quote
I think the solution rests with some new gun laws. For example no clips holding more than 10 bullets. Who needs 30 bullets in their clip any way? No automatic weapons, assault weapons, etc.

You are totally missing the point.  This is only treating symptoms, not the cause. This guy could have walked in with 6-round shotgun and kill as many defenseless people if not more.  A 12g buckshot shell is much deadlier in point blank range than 22 cal rifle bullet.  He'd have all the time in the world to keep reloading and no one would stop him.  It takes about 20 sec to reload 6 shells in the shotgun.  Maybe even less since he was carefully planning the whole thing.

Also, remember that guy in the 60's that killed 13 people and wounded more than 30 in Austin.  He used a low capacity bolt-action hunting rifle.

All those gun restricting laws are purely political BS.  They have no real effect on violent crime while depriving law-abiding citizens of their rights.

Quote
I think there's a good chance that having a gun makes one more likely to find a reason to use it and then go back and justify those means.

It's called being mentally unstable.  These kind of people should never be allowed to handle weapons unsupervised.  No sane person would ever use his weapon for any reason besides self defense.

Piers Morgan has unbelievably stupid face.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Michelle on December 26, 2012, 02:36:38 am
Anyone else find it odd that one of the side effects of almost all anti-depressants is suicidal thoughts? That's something that has always set of a red flag to me. Maybe these medications dilute the fear the death, thus making these people more susceptible to either killing themselves or killing others. Who knows.

Most of my friends are taking zoloft and ativan, and they're all  in their early 20's, a naturally stressful time in most people's lives, including mine. I wish more people knew the importance of dealing with the source of their issues. Even doctors say that these drugs are not meant for life-long treatment, but how do they expect people to get off these things if all their issues come rushing to the surface the second they stop taking them? They also come with terrible physical and mental withdrawal symptoms. It's a total trap.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on January 07, 2013, 10:59:50 pm
Christmas Shopping In Detroit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6b7TD-r-FI#)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: cherimoya_kid on January 08, 2013, 12:04:14 am
Raw-al, that was hilarious.

It's becoming more and more true, though.  I've heard that the Oregon mall shooter wasn't able to kill very many people partly because the mall employees and customers knew how to respond.  People are starting to adapt to the reality of having a shooter show up. 
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on January 08, 2013, 12:34:28 am
CK, that was a good chuckle...

Here is an email I got from a 'southern boy' friend of mine that I worked with at one time. He and I exchange jokes. I have no idea if it's true and I don't have the time to check because I am using someone else's computer. I do not share his enthusiasm or his notions at all.

"  CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT TO OWN A GUN

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont 's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clear mandate to do so'.

He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont ’s constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent."

Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .... it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

" America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns.

Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!"
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: cherimoya_kid on January 08, 2013, 12:47:26 am
There's no way that's accurate.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: ys on January 08, 2013, 03:21:46 am
Awesome idea.  Swiss already have something similar.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Projectile Vomit on January 08, 2013, 03:47:33 am
There's no way that's accurate.

The information is accurate, although quite dated. That bill was introduced over 10 years ago, and didn't go anywhere. In fact, it killed Maslack's political career. After introducing the bill around 2000-2001 he promptly lost his 2002 re-election bid despite being a long-time incumbent with the full support of the Republican Party. After the loss the Republicans wouldn't touch him and he tried to reclaim his seat in 2004 as an Independent, but failed. In 2006 he tried to run as a Republican again but couldn't even win the party's primary.

Here's another article that offers more information (from  The American Prospect (http://prospect.org/article/vermonts-right-not-bear-arms))

Quote
Vermonters have long stood behind their right to bear arms, boasting some of the highest rates of gun ownership and the least restrictive gun laws in the country. Currently the only state that allows its citizens to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, it may soon be the first to require a permit for the unarmed in its ranks. In what could be the most extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment's tricky syntax yet, a Vermont state legislator recently introduced a bill requiring all unarmed Vermont citizens to pay $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a weapon would be required to register their name, address, Social Security number, and driver's license number with the state. Those of military age, with the exception of police and members of the armed forces, would be required to pay the $500 fine. Representative Fred Maslack proposed the bill not to encourage Vermonters to protect themselves against crime (Vermont's crime rate is very low), but to demand that citizens do their part in defense of liberty. According to Maslack, "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so."

But defend the state against what? Vermonters, Maslack told me, have a constitutional obligation to respond to "any situation that might arise." Federal tyranny? Yup. Abuse of power by other states? Sure. "There could be a natural disaster that would send thousands of people into the state." Maslack's implication seems to be that in the event of such an influx, Vermonters ought to be able to shoot anyone coming over the border on sight. Good thing New Hampshire's tsunami season is short.

It's true that the Vermont constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and that those persons "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent." And Vermont does have a proud history of citizen militias, going back to the days of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys. But citizens' armies have not been needed in Vermont since the early days of this country's founding, when they were occasionally called upon to send New York State tax collectors back over the state line. To refresh Vermonters' dormant militia expertise, Maslack has also introduced a bill requiring compulsory military training as a prerequisite for a high school diploma in the state.

More important to Maslack than safeguarding against excesses of government, though, is upholding the letter of the law. With Vermont in the spotlight over gay marriage, Maslack says members of his state should look more carefully at the rights and obligations spelled out in the Constitution. If homosexual couples can sue the state because they are denied the benefits that accompany legal marriage, he says, then surely someone can sue over the unheeded militia mandate. "You can't ignore the duties and invoke the privileges."

Given that Second Amendment enthusiasts speak as much about individual freedom as they do about the joys of hunting, it's unlikely that a bill requiring mandatory gun ownership will find a groundswell of support. (Determining whether everyone possessed a gun would require some form of gun registration, something NRA types staunchly oppose.) Still, all this begs the question: If Vermont recognizes gay marriage, and gays are barred from serving in the military, would Vermonters in same-sex marriages be exempt from militia duty?
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on January 08, 2013, 05:20:47 am
Awesome idea.  Swiss already have something similar.
Not.
They do not have an army but they have a citizen's militia. They are allowed to take their guns home but males are expected to join the militia between the ages of 20 - 30 where they undergo military training. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland)

That's a big leap from every Tom, Dick and Jane in the US etc having a "ghee whiz, how do you use that thing anyhoo", "Which is the bang bang end?" arsenal.

You can probably tell my opinion on this topic LOL
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: cherimoya_kid on January 09, 2013, 12:01:50 am
The information is accurate, although quite dated. That bill was introduced over 10 years ago, and didn't go anywhere. In fact, it killed Maslack's political career. After introducing the bill around 2000-2001 he promptly lost his 2002 re-election bid despite being a long-time incumbent with the full support of the Republican Party. After the loss the Republicans wouldn't touch him and he tried to reclaim his seat in 2004 as an Independent, but failed. In 2006 he tried to run as a Republican again but couldn't even win the party's primary.


The truth is truly stranger than fiction.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: ys on January 09, 2013, 05:09:27 am
Quote
They do not have an army

Looks like they do have professional army.  From your link:
Active personnel    134,886
Reserve personnel 77,000
Fit for military service    1,510,259 males, age 16–49 (2009 est.),
                                1,475,993 females, age 16–49 (2009 est.)

Full article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_army)

Quote
"ghee whiz, how do you use that thing anyhoo", "Which is the bang bang end?"
The same applies to any tool, be it a simple screwdriver or chainsaw.

Here is something refreshing
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/06/mom-shoots-intruder-saves-kids/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/06/mom-shoots-intruder-saves-kids/)

Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on January 09, 2013, 09:25:58 am
Looks like they do have professional army.  From your link:
Active personnel    134,886
Reserve personnel 77,000
Fit for military service    1,510,259 males, age 16–49 (2009 est.),
                                1,475,993 females, age 16–49 (2009 est.)

Full article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_army)
The same applies to any tool, be it a simple screwdriver or chainsaw.

Here is something refreshing
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/06/mom-shoots-intruder-saves-kids/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/06/mom-shoots-intruder-saves-kids/)



Under structure it says

"The armed forces consist of 134,886 people on active duty (in Switzerland called Angehöriger der Armee, shortly AdA, engl.: Member of the Army), of which 4,230 are professionals, with the rest being conscripts or volunteers"

I think I would rather have someone come after me with a screwdriver or a chainsaw. At least the death toll would be significantly lower. A gun is such a cowardly device.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on January 10, 2013, 12:27:37 am
This was part of a mailing from an organization called Fathers and Families. The organization is fighting for the rights of fathers in the family court system in the US against the overwhelming female presence in the court system and in the formation of laws at various levels of government and the education system.

Guns don't kill people — our
sons do
By Warren Farrell, PhD, member, Fathers and Families

We need to find ways to stop the childhood injuries that lead boys to murder.

Our daughters do not kill. Why the difference? For boys, the road to successful manhood has crumbled. It's time we go beyond fighting over guns to raising our sons.

After Newtown, Connecticut, parents cried out, "What's making our children kill?" But it is not our children who are killing. It is our sons. All but one of the 62 mass killings in the past 30 years was committed by boys or men.

We respond by blaming guns, our inattentiveness to mental health, violence in the media or video games, or family values. Yes, all are players, but our daughters are able to find the same guns in the same homes, are about as likely to be mentally ill, have the same family values and are exposed to the same violence in the media. Our daughters, however, do not kill. Why the difference?

Start with suicide. Each mass murder is also a suicide. Boys and girls at age 9 are almost equally likely to commit suicide; by age 14, boys are twice as likely; by 19, four times; by 24, more than five times. The more a boy absorbs the male role and male hormones, the more he commits suicide.

No manly model.

For boys, the road to successful manhood has crumbled. In many boys' journey from a fatherless family to an almost all-female staff elementary school such as Sandy Hook, there is no constructive male role model..

Adam Lanza is reported to have gone downhill when divorce separated him from his dad. Children of divorce without enough father contact are prone to have poor social skills; to struggle with the five D's (depression, drugs, drinking, discipline and delinquency); be suicidal; be less able to concentrate; and to be aggressive but not assertive. Perhaps most important, these boys are less empathetic.

And just while their bodies are telling them that girls are the most important things in the world, these boys are locked into failure. Boys with a "failure to launch" are invisible to most girls. With poor social skills, the boys feel anger at their fear of being rejected and self-loathing at their inability to compete. They "end" this fear of rejection by typing "free adult material" into Google and working through the quarter-billion options. Online "success" increases the pain of real world failure.

Fragile fantasy success.

So, too, with these boys' relationships with video games. While girls average a healthy five hours a week on video games, boys average 13. The problem? The brain chemistry of video games stimulates feel-good dopamine that builds motivation to win in a fantasy while starving the parts of the brain focused on real-world motivation. He'll win at Madden football, but participate in no sport.

It's time we go beyond fighting over guns to raising our sons. With one executive order, President Obama can create a White House Council on Men and Boys to work with the Council on Women and Girls he formed in 2009. Why? No one part of government or the private sector has a handle on the solution.

A coordinated strategy is best developed at the White House level. The mere formation of such a council by the president alerts foundations, companies, families, teachers and therapists that our sons' "failure to launch" needs to be on their agenda. And politically, an effort to go beyond the rote ideological disagreements of the two parties could help build the unity to actually do something instead of fight to a standstill in a closely divided country.

There are few things a culture does as important as raising children. We can't continue to fail half of them.

Warren Farrell is author of Why Men Are the Way they Are. He is co-authoring a book with John Gray, titled Boys to Men.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Projectile Vomit on January 10, 2013, 02:06:58 am
Here's something similar, a blog post entitled  There's Something Seriously Wrong with Men in America (http://www.collapsingintoconsciousness.com/theres-something-seriously-wrong-with-men-in-america/). Both make good points, but also make many generalizations.

Title: Re: School killings
Post by: ys on January 10, 2013, 02:20:55 am
Quote
I think I would rather have someone come after me with a screwdriver or a chainsaw.

Screwdriver, you say?  That would be a very long and painful death.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on January 12, 2013, 04:00:21 am
Here's something similar, a blog post entitled  There's Something Seriously Wrong with Men in America (http://www.collapsingintoconsciousness.com/theres-something-seriously-wrong-with-men-in-america/). Both make good points, but also make many generalizations.
He starts off with some good stuff and then descends into the patriarchy nonsense and the male Gods trash.
Thanks Eric
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on January 12, 2013, 04:11:04 am
Here is some stuff I read from another place. Yet more conspiracy theories. This does not represent my views or any of my friends or relatives or my descendants  ;D

"NaturalNews) What was the most deadly element involved in the mass murder of 12 people and the wounding of 58 others at the packed Aurora, Colo., theater premier of the newest "Batman" movie last summer?

Was it the AR-15-type weapon used by James Holmes? The shotgun he had with him? The handgun he used?

No.

As it turns out it was probably a psychotropic medication he was most likely taking, a point raised by Natural News' Jon Rappoport in August, just weeks after the massacre. [http://www.naturalnews.com/036648_Dr_Lynne_Fenton_psychiatric_drugs_James_Holmes.html].

Holmes had been treated by a psychiatrist

The Denver Post reported Jan. 7 that, according to newly released court papers, police removed a number of prescription medication bottles - four, to be exact - from Holmes' apartment shortly after clearing it of explosives in the days following the July 20 shootings. They also seized immunization records.

"The disclosures come in a back-and-forth between prosecutors and defense attorneys over whether those items should be subject to doctor-patient confidentiality. The judge ultimately ruled in October that prosecutors could keep the items," the paper said, adding that the names of the medications had been redacted from court documents.

This shouldn't come as a huge surprise to anyone who's been following the correlation between these dangerous psychotropic drugs and mass murder. After all, earlier reports confirmed that Holmes was indeed being seen by a psychiatrist [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/us/colorado-suspect-was-getting-psychiatric-care.html?_r=1&], so there's a better-than-average chance he, too, was on one of these dangerous medications.

The same is true in the most recent shooting tragedy. We know that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, had psychological problems. We know, from what Louise Tambascio, a family friend of the shooter and his mother, told the CBS News program, "60 Minutes," that Lanza "was on medication and everything....I knew he was on medication, but that's all I know."

But what was he taking? What was Holmes taking? That we don't know - yet.

Like us David Kupelian, the managing editor for WorldNetDaily, is asking the right questions.

"It has been more than three weeks since the shooting. We know all about the guns he used, but what 'medication' may he have used?" he wrote shortly after the Lanza murders. "So, what is the truth? Where is the journalistic curiosity? Where is the follow-up? Where is the police report, the medical examiner's report, the interviews with his doctor and others?" writes David Kupelian at WorldNetDaily [http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/]

And yet the national debate, if you can call it that, is focused strictly on the gun control and the Second Amendment, as evidenced by Vice President Joe Biden's declaration that President Obama plans to use executive power to implement new gun control regulations via the federal agencies that fall under the Executive Branch, and New York Gov. Mario Cuomo's promise to enact in his state the country's toughest gun control laws.

As usual, though, the corporate media has failed in its role as watchdog and truth-seeker. It has been left to alternative news outlets like ours and a few others to ask those probing, important questions: What kind of drugs were Holmes and Lanza taking? Who prescribed them? And these questions: What are some of the side effects of those medications? Can such medications cause patients to become violent?

The medications-equals-violence link is well-established

Here's why it is vitally important for Americans to know what kind of medications Lanza and Holmes were taking - because of earlier, high-profile cases involving guns and psychotropic medications:

-- Columbine killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox which, like similar drugs Prozac and Zoloft are widely prescribed antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals admitted that every 1 in 25 patients taking the drug developed mania, a dangerous condition leaving the patient violence-prone.

-- Patrick Purdy went on a shooting rampage in a schoolyard in Stockton, Calif., in 1989, an incident that triggered the initial push to ban "assault weapons." Purdy, who killed five and wounded 30, had been taking the antidepressant Amitriptyline and the anti-psychotic drug Thorzine.

-- Fifteen-year-old Kip Kinkel killed his parents in 1998 then went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Ore., the next day and fired on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 more. He was on Prozac and Ritalin.

There are many, many more examples, but you get the point: There exists a distinct link between psychotropic drugs and violence, yet virtually no one in the public policy realm or the media (both of which depend on Big Pharma for donations or advertising dollars) wants to talk about it.

Sources:

http://www.denverpost.com (http://www.denverpost.com)

http://www.infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com)

http://www.naturalnews.com (http://www.naturalnews.com)

http://www.wnd.com (http://www.wnd.com)

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038629_James_Holmes_prescription_meds_vaccines.html#ixzz2HaC1DYee (http://www.naturalnews.com/038629_James_Holmes_prescription_meds_vaccines.html#ixzz2HaC1DYee) "
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on January 14, 2013, 05:12:53 am
While just a joke doing the rounds, it does rather summarise the typical anti-gun/Pro-Liberal approach very well:-

"The Big Difference
So what’s the difference between a Liberal, a Conservative and a Southern Conservative?

You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises his knife, and charges you and your family.
FYI: You’re carrying a concealed 9mm and your wife’s carrying her 38 Special. You’re both expert shots. You have only seconds before he reaches you and your family. So, what would you do?

... A Liberal’s answer: “I don’t have enough information to answer that question!” For example:
Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack us? Could we run away? What is my wife thinking? What psychic impact will this have on my kids? Could I possibly swing my gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Do our pistols have appropriate safety features? Why am I carrying a loaded concealed weapon anyway? What kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be satisfied just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he stabs me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? Is this our fault? We shouldn’t have come this way! We need to raise taxes and clean up this neighborhood! We need to make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage terrorist behavior! I need time to discuss this with some friends and try to come to a consensus of opinions! I’m confused!

A Conservative’s answer: BANG!

A Southern Conservative's answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click..... (Sounds of reloading) BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! "
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Brad462 on January 14, 2013, 07:54:32 am
Here is some stuff I read from another place. Yet more conspiracy theories. This does not represent my views or any of my friends or relatives or my descendants  ;D


There isn't one witness that reported seeing the supposed Sandy Hook shooter kill anybody...  How can you be so sure what happened?  I guess I am one of those weirdos who doesn't believe everything the T.V. tells me...   l)

"Once again a government funded mock emergency drill was being conducted at a nearby local school at the very same time the supposed realtime shooting was taking place at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut – leaving all the fingerprints of a government staged false flag event to strip guns from the American people.
 http://theintelhub.com/2013/01/12/sandy-hook-shooting-active... (http://theintelhub.com/2013/01/12/sandy-hook-shooting-active...)"

http://www.dailypaul.com/269994/sandy-hook-shooting-active-shooter-drill-confirmed-by-law-enforcement-raises-suspicion-of-false-flag-operation (http://www.dailypaul.com/269994/sandy-hook-shooting-active-shooter-drill-confirmed-by-law-enforcement-raises-suspicion-of-false-flag-operation)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Paleo Donk on January 14, 2013, 09:30:28 am
raw-al, you are forgetting the massive other side of the coin. That being that we don't have an account for all the mass shootings that might have been prevented because of the efficacy of the psychotropic drugs. I'm actually surprised by the incredibly low prevalence of mass shootings (defined  as 4+ or more at one time) in the US being somewhere around 2-3 per year for the last 30 years.

This huge blind spot that is unmeasurable makes it very difficult to determine whether these drugs are causing any harm or actually helping to an enormous degree. I can go further and  say that perhaps the shooters you mention above that were these pyschotropic dugs killed less people than they would have where it not for the drugs. Maybe they would have gone into a football stadium or what not? This is obviously just pure speculation but the argument could be made.

As an extreme example, say in the future we invent a drug that will 100% stop mass shootings from occurring, only that it would take 5 days for the drug to kick in and that we could somehow identify every single person that would fit the profile of a person who would be a mass shooter before they became one. The only piece of information we would not have would be the time until the person committed the mass shooting. So, all the people we would identify as mass shooters would, with this drug, be prevented from becoming a mass shooter except for the people that were identified too late (< 5 days). So, inevitably some mass shootings would occur and all of these shooters would be on the drug. There would be a 100% correlation here and because of the absence of evidence of the mass shootings not happening, from an initial look at the data it would appear that the drug caused the mass shootings, but the exact opposite is happening.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on January 14, 2013, 11:46:07 am
PD,
As I indicated in the beginning I did not write the piece, just passed it on. I also indicated that I did not necessarily agree with what it said.

However if my memory serves, the medications in question have clearly indicated in their 'rap sheet' that they may cause depression suicide etc. If you follow the topic in general, you'll see that suicide and various other things are the direct result of taking these medications.

From what I have seen watching both movies and interviews, teachers in particular are quite heavily involved in using these medications to make their lives easier. Young men are pretty much the vast majority of the unwilling consumers of this unproven and 'not tested on children' technology. Such a vast amount of money is made off of this shameful trade. The kids are dragged in kicking and screaming.

When you factor in the fact that education is becoming something unavailable to them due to the feminization of the school system by the overwhelming number of teachers who are female and who have no clue how to deal with boys. Twice as many girls go to places of higher education, that as one author of a prior link said, hope is leaving the vocabulary of the young men as they just drift out of school and into a 'job'.

When hope leaves desperation creeps in and that breeds anger. Put anger and a gun together and guess what.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: Brad462 on January 16, 2013, 07:18:46 am
So, are you anti-gun people proposing that the U.S. should ban all guns?  Because that will never happen.  And if you are proposing that we ban assault-weapons, well, we tried that before, and it did not do anything at all to solve the problem.  Ban guns if you want to, but you are living in a dream world if you think that will get rid of violence.

"Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around them

Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.
"
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/eliminate-armed-guards-president-vice-president-and-their-families-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLK?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shortur
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on January 20, 2013, 01:23:46 am
(http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/64/51/bb02ceac59aacc3d6b01c466012eaa38.jpg)

(http://p.twimg.com/A0gbQYGCUAEFcuw.jpg:large)
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on January 20, 2013, 08:44:46 am
http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/64/51/bb02ceac59aacc3d6b01c466012eaa38.jpg (http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/64/51/bb02ceac59aacc3d6b01c466012eaa38.jpg)

http://p.twimg.com/A0gbQYGCUAEFcuw.jpg:large (http://p.twimg.com/A0gbQYGCUAEFcuw.jpg:large)
quote author=TylerDurden link=topic=7882.msg105049#msg105049 date=1358616226]
http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/64/51/bb02ceac59aacc3d6b01c466012eaa38.jpg (http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/64/51/bb02ceac59aacc3d6b01c466012eaa38.jpg)

http://p.twimg.com/A0gbQYGCUAEFcuw.jpg:large (http://p.twimg.com/A0gbQYGCUAEFcuw.jpg:large)
[/quote]
LOL
TD where do you find this stuff?
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on January 20, 2013, 05:34:00 pm

LOL
TD where do you find this stuff?
Oh, just random googling and checking various  US pro-gun etc. sites every now and then. I have a hefty interest in increased pro-gun lobbying as in Europe guns are far too strictly controlled, and those who do have weapons often have to pay for ruinously expensive  hunting licences to kill any wild game. 
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: goodsamaritan on January 20, 2013, 09:30:51 pm
(http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/64/51/bb02ceac59aacc3d6b01c466012eaa38.jpg)

Display em proudly!
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on January 21, 2013, 02:56:50 am
Thanks GS, I'd thought the img thing had failed before with me on previous occasions but obviously I must have made some errors. I'll now fix this.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on February 07, 2013, 01:02:00 am
Hey guys, don't get too excited.

That sign is obviously Photoshopped on there. Check out the lack of defined shadows.

Nobody would devalue their own property and their intellectual appearance by putting up such silliness.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on February 07, 2013, 05:21:28 am
The whole point is that the sign is demonstrating that the neighbours are morons. Plus, I see perfectly normal shadows there.

Maybe the guy put up the sign, then put it down afterwards because his neighbours had the common-sense to be gun-owners. It is, after all, a rather common American characteristic to live in neighbourhoods with others who possess similiar  behaviours, affiliations, or characteristics. I recall, for example, one US father disowning his son for living in Haight Street in San Francisco, simply because it was known to be a gay neighbourhood.
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: raw-al on February 07, 2013, 07:11:58 am
Tyler, now c'mon, The shadows are from a tree. : )

I doubt if anyone would be so crass. Where is the sign on your lawn? Send us a pic. ; )
Title: Re: School killings
Post by: TylerDurden on February 07, 2013, 07:40:07 am
Tyler, now c'mon, The shadows are from a tree. : )

I doubt if anyone would be so crass. Where is the sign on your lawn? Send us a pic. ; )
  A tree could very well be on either side, for all we know....

I live in a flat, sadly, so have no greenery for any signs. If I had a car   I would probably  put on it  the slogan from the TV show "Sledgehammer" which is "I (heart) violence" to deter  overly aggressive drivers.  If I had any sizeable greenery, I might even  adopt that amusing slogan from the film "Live and Let Die", which is "tresspassers will be eaten".  ;D