Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Another mass shooting in the U.S

1…3738404243…71

Comments

  • #1172
    yammycat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭yammycat


    Sparks wrote: »
    /sigh.
    Mine do.
    And since mine do, the black and white absolute statement that guns are only designed to kill is incorrect

    People concerned with 'gun violence' are in a moral apoplexy, they have trouble grasping that some people are bad and 20 kids getting shot by the bad man gives them sleepless nights, it is of no concern that 500 kids died by anaphylactic shock from eating peanuts in the same time span, it's the fact that a moral agent was involved 'EVIL', gotta stop the evil, lets ban all those bad guns and we can stop the bad man from killing another 10 kids, lets not ban peanuts and save hundreds.


  • #1173
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,461 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    bajer100 wrote: »
    Wtf are you talking about you clown? You are calling me "son" - I am 44 years old with an IQ of 147. I have solved the Rubik's cube quicker than you could ever solve even one side. If you want to challenge me on this - no problem.

    http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/137/c/0/watch_out__we_got_a_badass_over_here_by_deadwoodpete83-d504d72.jpg

    :pac:


  • #1174
    bajer100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭bajer100


    If the logic is - it is pointless to regulate against guns, because criminals will still break the law. Then why have any laws at at all?


  • #1175
    yammycat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭yammycat


    bajer100 wrote: »
    If the logic is - it is pointless to regulate against guns, because criminals will still break the law. Then why have any laws at at all?

    those caught get punished, holmes is currently on trail, perhaps you noticed


  • #1176
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    bajer100 wrote: »
    If the logic is
    It isn't.
    Please read the preceeding 1100+ posts, like the rest of us did...


  • Advertisement
  • #1177
    bajer100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭bajer100


    Blay wrote: »
    http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/137/c/0/watch_out__we_got_a_badass_over_here_by_deadwoodpete83-d504d72.jpg

    :pac:

    Not a badass as such - just achieved something that you never will. I won competitions and proved my intelligence - while you have to resort to reposting someone else's idea. I was the fastest in Ireland for the 3x3 and for a time - the fastest in the world for 4x4. What have you ever done - bad ass?


  • #1178
    bajer100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭bajer100


    yammycat wrote: »
    those caught get punished, holmes is currently on trail, perhaps you noticed

    WTF are you talking about? Trail - following someone? Idiot.


  • #1179
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    Sparks wrote: »
    /sigh.
    Mine do.
    And since mine do, the black and white absolute statement that guns are only designed to kill is incorrect, and now we're back to a complex problem that requires more than just a simple soundbite-optimised approach.

    Y'know, I seem to recall saying that already in this thread...
    I think we have all been trying to reason with you that their original purpose, their innate existence is to kill. But let me expand on that

    Going to ask 1 last serious question while my Xanax kicks in from reading this thread and doing battle ;)

    A screwdriver was a 15th century German/French invention designed to, well, turn screws to secure breastplates and so forth on body armour. I'm just going to have to accept as fact that google is not lying to me on this matter :)

    However i have used a screwdriver for a few different purposes. When my freezer was badly frozen over i used one to chisel the ice off the top (probably a bit risky/foolish mind you). I've also at times used one with a hammer for hairbrained DIY fixes to chip pieces off wood.

    Ok you get my point so far - it's original purpose was to turn screws. I use it sometimes for different purposes.

    Again, i'm armed with google for this - the earliest guns on any sort of record come from China. The earliest depiction of one is from the 12th century and the earliest gun ever found was from 1288. Now, given that the earliest gun on record also ties in with major battles in the region, and also given that the idea of a gun was/remains to fire a projectile at high velocity on a flat trajectory, would it not be a fair assumption that their ORIGINAL PURPOSE was to kill or make killing easier?

    I would find it very difficult to build a case that in the middle of war time, guns were being made in China to shoot at targets for relaxation and down time.

    So i think it's fair given the nature of a gun and the historical origins, to say it's original purpose was to facilitate killing.

    Now, the fact you are a responsible adult with a passion (and likely, a lot of skill) for target shooting and use your weapon responsibly and derive pleasure from it, does not however change the fact the original purpose of the gun is to kill. Just like me using a screwdriver to chip ice from my freezer is fine but it's original purpose is to turn screws.

    In short, what i am saying is - the guns purpose, it's original purpose is to kill. As with the screwdriver it may serve other purposes and if your passion for target shooting brings you pleasure, more power to you.

    But i think you should concede it's original purpose is to kill. Just because you use it differently, doesn't change it's original purpose. So what you do is no different to what i might do with a screwdriver - ADAPT. Change the item and use it for something it was not originally intended for. And i am willing to suggest a vast majority of gun owners and target shooters worldwide fall into your category of responsible people.

    I just feel that doesn't change its original purpose. It's original design and aim is to kill. And whilst 21st century folk, the majority of them, use guns for things other than killing - its raison d'etre is to kill. It is also better and safer to kill with a gun than a knife, hurley stick, cricket bat etc. So when us lay-people with no specialist knowledge of guns say they're original purpose is to kill - i think i've made a fair argument for that to be true and i think you have made a fair argument for that being only 1 of the purposes in the 21st century.


  • #1180
    bajer100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭bajer100


    Sparks wrote: »
    It isn't.
    Please read the preceeding 1100+ posts, like the rest of us did...

    Is that your argument? Pure. unadulterated pap.


  • #1181
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    A screwdriver was a 15th century German/French invention designed to, well, turn screws to secure breastplates and so forth on body armour. I'm just going to have to accept as fact that google is not lying to me on this matter :)

    It's an interesting argument...
    ...but there's a pretty solid counter-argument by example as well (and you'll have to forgive my sense of humour in its selection).

    The corkscrew.
    Got only one use, right? Getting wine corks out of bottles. Except that its original use a few hundred years ago (in the early 1600s) was to remove debris (specifically deformed bullets that had stuck in the barrel) from the barrels of muskets. It wasn't used for wine corks for a half-century or more (depending on whether you measure by the time of the first patent or by the earliest stories you can find).

    Does this mean that a modern-day corkscrew is designed to remove debris from rifle barrels? I think its a reasonable assertion that it is not, and therefore it's a reasonable assertion that with the passage of enough time, an object's design purpose can become irrelevant to its descendant's design purpose.

    After all, my air rifle isn't a 1 inch calibre shoulder-mounted howitzer, so why would it only have the design purpose that such a device had in the 16th century?


  • Advertisement
  • #1182
    bajer100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭bajer100


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    I think we have all been trying to reason with you that their original purpose, their innate existence is to kill. But let me expand on that

    Going to ask 1 last serious question while my Xanax kicks in from reading this thread and doing battle ;)

    A screwdriver was a 15th century German/French invention designed to, well, turn screws to secure breastplates and so forth on body armour. I'm just going to have to accept as fact that google is not lying to me on this matter :)

    However i have used a screwdriver for a few different purposes. When my freezer was badly frozen over i used one to chisel the ice off the top (probably a bit risky/foolish mind you). I've also at times used one with a hammer for hairbrained DIY fixes to chip pieces off wood.

    Ok you get my point so far - it's original purpose was to turn screws. I use it sometimes for different purposes.

    Again, i'm armed with google for this - the earliest guns on any sort of record come from China. The earliest depiction of one is from the 12th century and the earliest gun ever found was from 1288. Now, given that the earliest gun on record also ties in with major battles in the region, and also given that the idea of a gun was/remains to fire a projectile at high velocity on a flat trajectory, would it not be a fair assumption that their ORIGINAL PURPOSE was to kill or make killing easier?

    I would find it very difficult to build a case that in the middle of war time, guns were being made in China to shoot at targets for relaxation and down time.

    So i think it's fair given the nature of a gun and the historical origins, to say it's original purpose was to facilitate killing.

    Now, the fact you are a responsible adult with a passion (and likely, a lot of skill) for target shooting and use your weapon responsibly and derive pleasure from it, does not however change the fact the original purpose of the gun is to kill. Just like me using a screwdriver to chip ice from my freezer is fine but it's original purpose is to turn screws.

    In short, what i am saying is - the guns purpose, it's original purpose is to kill. As with the screwdriver it may serve other purposes and if your passion for target shooting brings you pleasure, more power to you.

    But i think you should concede it's original purpose is to kill. Just because you use it differently, doesn't change it's original purpose. So what you do is no different to what i might do with a screwdriver - ADAPT. Change the item and use it for something it was not originally intended for. And i am willing to suggest a vast majority of gun owners and target shooters worldwide fall into your category of responsible people.

    I just feel that doesn't change its original purpose. It's original design and aim is to kill. And whilst 21st century folk, the majority of them, use guns for things other than killing - its raison d'etre is to kill. It is also better and safer to kill with a gun than a knife, hurley stick, cricket bat etc. So when us lay-people with no specialist knowledge of guns say they're original purpose is to kill - i think i've made a fair argument for that to be true and i think you have made a fair argument for that being only 1 of the purposes in the 21st century.

    You're wasting your time trying to make this argument. These people want to own guns and that's the end of it. They don't care what the consequences of this are. Doesn't matter if 20, 200, 2000, 20000, 200000, 2000000, kids get killed. They don't care. They wouldn't care if every child got shot. Idiots who will never learn. Leave them to it - they are a dying breed. In a few more generations their beliefs will be dead.


  • #1183
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    bajer100 wrote: »
    Is that your argument?
    Not finished reading yet, eh?


  • #1184
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    bajer100 wrote: »
    In a few more generations their beliefs will be dead.
    That was a beautiful setup for the most inappropriate evolution-based joke I've read in years.
    I'm not going to make the joke because I lack the necessary lack of empathy, but I thought it was too perfect to go unremarked...


  • #1185
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    In short, what i am saying is - the guns purpose, it's original purpose is to kill.

    I disagree.

    First, you need to define a "gun" or a "firearm" or a "weapon" or whatever you're going to argue over.

    I am using "gun" as the first instance of a projectile, fired from a barrel using blackpowder as a propellant. The Chinese were doing exactly this in the 10th century for fireworks and signalling, not killing.

    Indeed if those signals were life saving, then guns were originally designed to save lives.


  • #1186
    bajer100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭bajer100


    Can we try something else? What's the average IQ of the people who want to own guns compared to the average IQ of the people who think it is a bad idea? I honestly don't know the answer to this question - I just came up with it a minute ago. But I think we all know the answer! It's the banjo plucking half-wits who want to own guns. The responsible, college educated people don't.


  • #1187
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    bajer100 wrote: »
    Can we try something else? What's the average IQ of the people who want to own guns compared to the average IQ of the people who think it is a bad idea?
    Do you actually think that (a) IQ is a good metric to use for this? (b) that you could verify the numbers you could get back on here (I mean, you say 147, but how do we know you didn't just run your finger up the left side of the numeric keypad on your keyboard to make up a random number)?
    I think we all know the answer! It's the banjo plucking half-wits who want to own guns. The responsible, college educated people don't.
    Hmmmmmm.
    You do know that collegiate shooting clubs are the biggest sports clubs in colleges, right?
    In fact in Ireland, the collegiate shooting clubs are the biggest shooting clubs in the entire country, by an order of magnitude in most cases.
    Or are you going to invent a criteria to exclude the responsible, college-educated firearms owners from consideration?
    Perhaps along with a criteria that requires us to only consider firearms owners who enjoy amateur string instrument music but are only funny on alternate days?


  • #1188
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    Sparks wrote: »
    It's an interesting argument...
    ...but there's a pretty solid counter-argument by example as well (and you'll have to forgive my sense of humour in its selection).

    The corkscrew.
    Got only one use, right? Getting wine corks out of bottles. Except that its original use a few hundred years ago (in the early 1600s) was to remove debris (specifically deformed bullets that had stuck in the barrel) from the barrels of muskets. It wasn't used for wine corks for a half-century or more (depending on whether you measure by the time of the first patent or by the earliest stories you can find).

    Does this mean that a modern-day corkscrew is designed to remove debris from rifle barrels? I think its a reasonable assertion that it is not, and therefore it's a reasonable assertion that with the passage of enough time, an object's design purpose can become irrelevant to its descendant's design purpose.

    After all, my air rifle isn't a 1 inch calibre shoulder-mounted howitzer, so why would it only have the design purpose that such a device had in the 16th century?

    Ok so for 50 maybe 100 years their purpose gradually evolved into something else.

    If you look at the history of target shooting/target sports, first world championships (shooting) in 1897, the Ancient Greeks had archery competitions, 14th century Germans had gentlemens clubs of shooters, so there is very much an historical use of the gun that is not for killing.

    That being said, if we focus on America:

    "German and Swiss riflemakers in Pennsylvania began producing flintlock rifles suitable for use on the American frontier around 1710. Since protection from Indians and hunting for food were vital concerns, frontiersman soon began "shooting at a mark" to sharpen their skills. The mark was usually a knot on a tree or an "x" marked on a slab of wood"

    So, even historically speaking, Americans didn't use target shooting as pure recreation, it was more a training exercise to improve efficient killing.

    Also given the fact that guns have for centuries played major roles in all major wars around the globe, it's still a fair assessment to say their original purpose is to make killing easier. That remains true to this day. It may also remain true to this day that a corkscrew is an efficient method of removing debris from antique musket barrels. Nonetheless it's major usage is for opening wine bottles.

    So, yes maybe the majority of guns worldwide are used for target shooting not for killing. But it's primary purpose , as a weapon, is to facilitate killing. It's just been used for a different purpose by the majority.

    Also this argument, America wise, falls down when most, if not the majority, have a gun for personal protection. This means that the purpose they own a weapon is still for the original reason to make killing easier should they be unfortunate enough to be placed in a situation or circumstance where firing the gun is a necessity.

    We may have to agree to disagree on this but my summation would be guns original purpose is to facilitate killing (animals or humans). It's secondary purpose of shooting targets such as clay pigeons or bullseyes is very much ancilliary to its primary purpose.

    And as i have voiced throughout, easy access to certain types of weapons just facilitate easier committal of mass-murders. We all agree nutters will find a way, any way, legal or illegal. But the volume of legal weapons in the USA means it will never be difficult for them to find the easiest way possible. And for Americans, based on recent tragedies, the assault rifle or semi-auto or just gun, is the Modus Operandi for the majority of mass murders. Some sort of limits on their availability would be my idea of a good step.


  • #1189
    ArseLtd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 214 ✭✭ArseLtd


    Guns are used for lots of things, killing bad people, hunting, target shooting, revolution etc.

    Guns were not made for mass murders within schools. America needs to look at it's society that breeds these people and their mental health system.


  • #1190
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    With respect to the school shooter. Here is what people are saying about his intelligence.

    He was smart," "He was probably one of the smartest kids I know. He was probably a genius."

    "You could definitely tell he was a genius,"


  • #1191
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    So, yes maybe the majority of guns worldwide are used for target shooting not for killing. But it's primary purpose , as a weapon, is to facilitate killing. It's just been used for a different purpose by the majority.
    I do actually understand what you're saying; it's just that it would only be true if there was just one design for firearms (or one design with minor or cosmetic changes). But in reality, there are a lot more than one (there's a lot more than a thousand), and the things you need in a battlefield weapon are just not present in a target shooting firearm (by and large) and vice versa.
    On top of which is the design process involved. I can point to my air pistol and say that russian designers sat down in the 1970s to build a pistol that would let their olympic team beat the US olympic team in competition. And that was the sole design goal and that was all that design was ever intended to do. (I can say the same thing about my rifles, if you swap german for russian, 1990s for 1970s and "everyone" for "US").
    So to say that they were intended for killing is to ignore, well, their entire origin really.
    That's not to say - and let's be clear - that there aren't firearms designed expressly to kill people; it's just that they're far fewer in number than you'd imagine, and most of them are (even in the US) very heavily regulated. The FN P90, for example (and if you've watched a science fiction TV show in the last ten years you've seen it because it looked so odd it became very popular as a prop), was designed from the ground up to shoot people through body armour. You can't buy one in the EU or US unless you're in the army or police (you can buy a replica of one that doesn't fire the armour-piercing round the original was built around and which doesn't fire in fully automatic mode, but it's not really a P90 in that regard).
    But there's such a world of difference between an IZH-46m and a P90 that you really are comparing apples and nuclear fusion.


  • Advertisement
  • #1192
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    ArseLtd wrote: »
    Guns are used for lots of things, killing bad people, hunting, target shooting, revolution etc.

    Guns were not made for mass murders within schools. America needs to look at it's society that breeds these people and their mental health system.
    Agree. Overarching societal problem.

    Hate quoting Shakespeare and sounding like a tool but

    "Something is rotten in the state of DenmarkAmerica"
    FISMA wrote: »
    With respect to the school shooter. Here is what people are saying about his intelligence.

    He was smart," "He was probably one of the smartest kids I know. He was probably a genius."

    "You could definitely tell he was a genius,"

    Breivik has struck me as a super intelligent guy. But the Breivik case raises a huge fundamental question - if he is legally sane, as he's found to be, where does the Mental Health debate come into this? Adam Lanza will never see the inside of a courtroom - but i would place a strong wager that if he survived, they would most definitely go after him as a "legally sane" individual and give him the harshest penalty possible (too tired to google if Connecticut has the death penalty).

    This is where background checks fall foul. If someone has no criminal record and no history of mental illness, what more can be done on that front? Things can be done on the gun control front but even tightening background checks and a renewed focus on mental health will still get people slipping through the net and obtaining legal weaponary.

    As a sufferer of depression i'm all too aware the umbrella of mental illness is not a straight sane v insane. And perhaps Lanza could have been helped more if he had a personality disorder or something else. But when people are out and out sane, no mental illness and just pure nutters, surely the focus then has to be other than on mental illness?


  • #1193
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,066 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    So I'm listening to the radio in the car on the way back, a couple of proposals are being mooted.

    Apparently Senator Feinstein is going to reintroduce the Assault Weapons Ban. Will be interested to see the language given that the Newton shooter's rifle was not covered under the last one.
    Senator Boxer (also a rabid anti-gun from California) is submitting legislation to refund the States with federal money for the costs of guarding schools with National Guardsmen. Seriously? Soldiers? And how much costs for all the schools?
    There is sudden interest in kids' body armour. Apparently a company makes a backpack for kids which will stop handgunshttp://www.amendment2.com/shop/ballistic-backpack/. Can't hurt, I guess.
    And a few lawmakers are supporting the concept of armed teachers.

    NTM


  • #1194
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,499 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    FISMA wrote: »
    With respect to the school shooter. Here is what people are saying about his intelligence.

    He was smart," "He was probably one of the smartest kids I know. He was probably a genius."

    "You could definitely tell he was a genius,"

    Harris and Klebold in Columbine viewed themselves as geniuses, hence it was painful for them to be disrespected by people whom they considered to be of lower intelligence to them. Harris in particular had a superiority complex which manifested itself over time into something very dark.

    Edit: I should note that this is the view of many of the experts who studied the extensive journals and video footage both boys left behind.


  • #1195
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    ummm

    1. If you are of sound mind to vote and marry at 18, you can drink at 18.
    We are going to long disagree on this one, even though I drank underage even in Ireland. There are ad nauseum studies viewable online in lengthy PDF form that one can read at ones leisure, about how road fatality statistics have dramatically altered in situations where the drinking age was pushed to 21, and similar studies in which the driving age was pushed from 16 to 18. Some of it too frankly has to do with not pairing an individual both getting behind the wheel for the first time and gaining their legal right to drink at the same time.
    5. No, it's your right to buy any of those things if you are legal age.
    You don't have a legal right to alcohol - you just lack the prohibition to buy alcohol, and alcohol is not entirely unrestricted in its sale at that. Fact is in a supermarket, the supermarket is open more often than the legal sale of alcohol is permitted. Depends I suppose on how the retailer merchandises it: Tesco for instance is kinda stupid and they just section off an aisle. In the US smaller grocery stores leave it behind the customer service counter along with the cigarettes, and in big places like Costco it's an entirely sectioned off side-building to the main store, with it's own opening hours and store front.
    6. Straw man nonsense argument, unenforcable and basically stupid.
    Then you agree a magazine limit is just as equally a strawman argument.
    8. Everybody is entitled to make a mistake. If they make repeated mistakes, i.e. repeated drink driving offences then yeah maybe.
    Yeah, except that even once can kill someone. DUI is pretty damn serious, and the penalties need to be extremely harsh. You wouldn't say that everyone could make a mistake if it involved a gun. Sure, it just accidentally went off. Right?
    6. Strict ban on any gun with large magazines.
    Obvious loophole: weapons manufacturers sell their models stock with the legal limit for clip size; third party vendors sell after-market extended magazines. There is of course the other nagging problem of people just purchasing multiple magazines. Unless you were to somehow register a magazine like you register a gun, this wouldn't be practical. And even if you did, it doesn't stop multiple individuals buddying up: 2 rednecks buy 1 gun each, and each redneck buys the limited 3 magazines for both guns. Now each redneck has a gun with 6 magazines. Oops. I see this kinda **** all the time at work when people pay bums in liquor and small bills to sign up for cell phones so they can sell the phones for cash and default on the payments. You similarly just find a bunch of bums who don't need to own a magazine for an AR 15 and have them buy magazines for an AR 15.
    we'll have to agree to disagree on some issues.
    We will, thanks. I want solutions too, but I just see a lot of problems with the ones being brainstormed here. Many of them are just unworkable and as you can see I can think of loopholes that apply to plenty of them. One that I really want to stick to is the Media thing, because that's something I think is worthy of campaigning for but enough people have to want the media to stop glorifying the crap to drive their ratings for them to stop doing it. Most of that will only frankly come from millions of people actively shutting off the televisions when news about these kinds of disasters breaks out, and I can tell you I haven't watched television since before this incident even happened: the political spin proved far too much for me leading up to the election. I'm quite done with the media at large.
    yammycat wrote:
    if they really cared they would ban or put 500 million dollar tax on any report of a massacre bar some random scrub shot x number of ppl / story no repeat
    In spite of my own reservation about the media, that solution is another unworkable one; simply put it would be unconstitutional, nevermind that a flat $500m penalty would face it's own legal and constitutional challenges but the freedom of speech is the obvious one.
    bajer100 wrote: »
    Some, some, some - but not all! FFS! So lots of lives could be saved. But you don't care. 20 children get killed - you don't care. It's all just meaningless to you.
    It's not meaningless, it's tragic. If it was meaningless Sparks and others wouldn't be in the thread at all. For my part I want to talk about it in this constructive if a little chaotic manner, rather than just stare at the television and listen to the talking heads and make facebook posts about how I prayed *this hard* to Jesus for the bereaved.
    Anyway - I don't really care. You're insane mentality will never infect my country and your belief's will be trounced by intelligent people.
    ....Sparks is Irish, so...oops?


  • #1196
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »
    Harris and Klebold in Columbine viewed themselves as geniuses, hence it was painful for them to be disrespected by people whom they considered to be of lower intelligence to them. Harris in particular had a superiority complex which manifested itself over time into something very dark.

    Edit: I should note that this is the view of many of the experts who studied the extensive journals and video footage both boys left behind.
    bajer100 wrote: »
    Can we try something else? What's the average IQ of the people who want to own guns compared to the average IQ of the people who think it is a bad idea? I honestly don't know the answer to this question - I just came up with it a minute ago. But I think we all know the answer! It's the banjo plucking half-wits who want to own guns. The responsible, college educated people don't.
    bajer100 wrote: »
    Not a badass as such - just achieved something that you never will. I won competitions and proved my intelligence - while you have to resort to reposting someone else's idea. I was the fastest in Ireland for the 3x3 and for a time - the fastest in the world for 4x4. What have you ever done - bad ass?
    bajer100 wrote: »
    Wtf are you talking about you clown? You are calling me "son" - I am 44 years old with an IQ of 147. I have solved the Rubik's cube quicker than you could ever solve even one side. If you want to challenge me on this - no problem.

    ......oh dear.


  • #1197
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,066 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I would have thought that someone of such high intelligence would be capable of an answer more convincing than "because I'm smart and say so"

    I don't think I'm a half-wit, and have been to college, yet I support the ability to own firearms. But let us accept your claim at face value. Let us assume that intelligent, educated people are able to pull themselves away from the dregs of society and go live in more expensive neighborhoods with lower crime rates and reasonable police response times. Are they not inherently the people who will also see less practical utility for a firearm than those who live in higher crime rate areas or more rural areas with longer police response times?

    Kindof like taxes. Everyone is in favor as long as they don't have to pay the consequences.


  • #1198
    smurgen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    can I also say that for some reason I actually feel sorry for the shooter himself? I dunno how this is going to be received, i'll probably get some back lash for it but it but the impression i'm getting of the guy is that he was just totally messed up from the start. He just looks like a weak and miserable looking fella.
    I don't think his parents helped his mental situaton and i'd say they were the types who just fired money at a problem and just hoped it went away instead of actually paying attention to and listened to their kid. Also he could have had severe mental issues like psychophrenia.I'd say he basically acted without emotion for the people he was killing in an almost animal like fashion.

    I therefore find it hard to have any hatred towards him and more feel anger towards the entire situation and systems that let the whole tragedy unfold. I mean if he was a normal kid do you honestly think he would have wanted to end his life in such a grim horrible situation instead of living a long life full of the enjoyment many others experience?

    Don't get me wrong by the way, i had to chance to stop a guy like this I wouldn't pause to consider the above, I'd just destroy him.


  • #1199
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,100 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    smurgen wrote: »
    So you think that a marginal reduction in the body count in massacres is not worth a ban on rapid fire weapons because it will reduce peoples freedom to hunt and target practice for said weapons? I think it is.Hell, I'd love to fire RPG's for fun but I realise they're far to dangerous a weapon to be made available to the general public.And yes you could argue that a revolver is a semi automatic but you'd be an idiot. You know exactly what type of weapon when I say a semi automatic.

    So...I'll go back to my original point...gun owners don't care about dead 6 year olds.

    They just want to play with their toys.

    If stricter gun control eliminated even one potential massacre, it would be worth a try.


  • #1200
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,100 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    smurgen wrote: »
    can I also say that for some reason I actually feel sorry for the shooter himself? I dunno how this is going to be received, i'll probably get some back lash for it but it but the impression i'm getting of the guy is that he was just totally messed up from the start. He just looks like a weak and miserable looking fella.
    I don't think his parents helped his mental situaton and i'd say they were the types who just fired money at a problem and just hoped it went away instead of actually paying attention to and listened to their kid. Also he could have had severe mental issues like psychophrenia.I'd say he basically acted without emotion for the people he was killing in an almost animal like fashion.

    I therefore find it hard to have any hatred towards him and more feel anger towards the entire situation and systems that let the whole tragedy unfold. I mean if he was a normal kid do you honestly think he would have wanted to end his life in such a grim horrible situation instead of living a long life full of the enjoyment many others experience?

    Don't get me wrong by the way, i had to chance to stop a guy like this I wouldn't pause to consider the above, I'd just destroy him.

    Heard on the news this morning that his mother had tried to get him sectioned.

    Which brings me back to a point I made earlier, that as part of the background checks, the medical records of anyone wanting to own a gun should be investigated and the medical records of the immediate family too...

    ...and NOBODY should be allowed to build up an arsenal of weaponry.


  • Advertisement
  • #1201
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Tony EH wrote: »
    So...I'll go back to my original point...gun owners don't care about dead 6 year olds.

    They just want to play with their toys.

    They don't give one damn about them. They want to worship on the alter of their Guns.


Advertisement