|
The gun control argument stops now. I know it's fun to argue about it in the heat of the tragedy when you can get all worked up about it but it's pretty disrespectful and if you don't care enough about the issue to make a separate topic for gun control then you don't care enough to shit on the tragedy by exploiting it. A gun control topic can be found here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313472Also stop posting links to his facebook. TL will be no part of an unconfirmed witch hunt. |
On December 15 2012 08:39 sidesprang wrote:
Freedom is not free, yes we can implement a billion ways to make the world safer, but if you go to the extremes, like how i feel statixEx is doing here, the world will not be better for it.
I would much rather try to figure out why this happend and how to stop it, one solution being not go batshit crazy on the media coverage. Or we can somehow implement better support systems so fewer people fall outside of society.
Anyhow, whats the best newschannels/sites in the US? Is there still some objective non tabloid places to go?
It happened because someone went fucking ballistic. How do we prevent this? Stop marginalizing people. How do we stop marginalizing people? Nobody knows, because apparently, some people are more easily marginalized than others and willing to shoot toddlers and their own family members. One might argue taking away their guns would prevent them from killing as easily, but it doesn't address causes, so much as serve as a lynchpin sympathy argument that nobody can argue against without coming off as an asshole. What kind of safety nets or support systems can even be implemented to prevent this? Realistically, I mean. How do you isolate individuals and "treat" them without marginalizing them? Would this not serve to drive at-risk individuals further into the depths?
|
On December 15 2012 08:14 bo1b wrote:
What you talked about had nothing to do with what was quoted. I'm glad you feel awesome.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote:
1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
On December 15 2012 08:11 Mu` wrote:
Well, actually this is true but presenting things this way is quite stupid. Sure, people die each second in the world... well, you could even say people are murdered each day to make it looks like the event we are talking about. The little difference (compared to "people die") is the number, the fact they were murdered and the fact they were children...
If you can't understand why this leads to some "sensationalism", i have to ask you about Hiroshima : why do we even talk about it ? 250 000 dead, less than 2 day of mortality on Earth, why the the hell do we care ? They were bombed like...millions of people before and after them, really, what the f*ck ?
You don't see how this part is related to his quote ? Really ?
You have to be pretty blind if you think it doesn't affect at least your country. You should study a bit what a sovereign state is supposed to be, providing HOMELAND security and such (i thought you even had a department for this !), thus you would understand that people killing children at school (you don't see some kind of symbolism ?) isnt something you can throw away like it doesnt matter. At least, if you start arguing that it will always happen (probably true) anyway, you should realize that it will at least, restart the debate on gun politics (and sorry, i'm just an european pussy, but i would be quite concerned to know if people can freely carry weapons or not...(meaning it should affects you too).
Still not ? I'm refering to his quote 1/3 of the f*ucking lines.
(Needless to say i'm done with this pointless discussion, especially considering it's late...)
|
I seriously cried on my way home from work when they were talking about this on the radio. My thoughts are with the families of all the victims.
|
On December 15 2012 08:52 Mu` wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:14 bo1b wrote:
What you talked about had nothing to do with what was quoted. I'm glad you feel awesome. Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote:
1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all. Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:11 Mu` wrote:
Well, actually this is true but presenting things this way is quite stupid. Sure, people die each second in the world... well, you could even say people are murdered each day to make it looks like the event we are talking about. The little difference (compared to "people die") is the number, the fact they were murdered and the fact they were children...
If you can't understand why this leads to some "sensationalism", i have to ask you about Hiroshima : why do we even talk about it ? 250 000 dead, less than 2 day of mortality on Earth, why the the hell do we care ? They were bombed like...millions of people before and after them, really, what the f*ck ?
You don't see how this part is related to his quote ? Really ? Show nested quote +
You have to be pretty blind if you think it doesn't affect at least your country. You should study a bit what a sovereign state is supposed to be, providing HOMELAND security and such (i thought you even had a department for this !), thus you would understand that people killing children at school (you don't see some kind of symbolism ?) isnt something you can throw away like it doesnt matter. At least, if you start arguing that it will always happen (probably true) anyway, you should realize that it will at least, restart the debate on gun politics (and sorry, i'm just an european pussy, but i would be quite concerned to know if people can freely carry weapons or not...(meaning it should affects you too).
Still not ? I'm refering to his quote 1/3 of the f*ucking lines.(Needless to say i'm done with this pointless discussion, especially considering it's late...)
A quote on media sensationalism is irrelevant to homeland security and the tragedy of Hiroshima yes.
|
This is just so tragic and depressing, especially since this happened right before the holidays. I still can't wrap my head around this, I can't even imagine what must be going through the heads of the parents who lost a child. This is just so sad.
|
On December 15 2012 08:50 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:44 johanes wrote:On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote:
I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner. And how would this help prevent situations like this? I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help?
Or the policeman is the first person shot, and now the shooter has whatever gadgets our policeman is carrying, in addition to a police radio and uniform (all very harmful when trying to identify the intruder). "Common sense" you say? I would say commonly heard nonsense.
|
I don't know anyone related to this incident, but as someone who lives in CT it certainly hits close to home. Really fucked up
|
My condolences to the families and everyone involved in this tragedy. Why anyone would shoot innocent schoolchildren escapes me.
|
On December 15 2012 09:02 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:50 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 08:44 johanes wrote:On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote:
I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner. And how would this help prevent situations like this? I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help? Or the policeman is the first person shot, and now the shooter has whatever gadgets our policeman is carrying, in addition to a police radio and uniform (all very harmful when trying to identify the intruder). "Common sense" you say? I would say commonly heard nonsense.
yeah, you need a well trained group of people to take down armed criminal without significant harm usually. A single cop wouldn't achieve much.
|
I am disgusted that the media tried to interview the children after this horrible event.
|
On December 15 2012 09:02 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:50 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 08:44 johanes wrote:On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote:
I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner. And how would this help prevent situations like this? I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help? Or the policeman is the first person shot, and now the shooter has whatever gadgets our policeman is carrying, in addition to a police radio and uniform (all very harmful when trying to identify the intruder). "Common sense" you say? I would say commonly heard nonsense.
I'm sorry but that is very bad logic, you are saying a trained policeman would lose a fire fight to some random maniac, ok fair enough that COULD happen even if only a small small chance, and as for taking the policemans weapon, most of these shooters are already armed to the teeth already, i doubt it would make much diffrence to their arsenal.
You're basicly saying a policeman would do more harm then good, never though i would hear that, even on the internet.
|
On December 15 2012 09:02 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:50 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 08:44 johanes wrote:On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote:
I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner. And how would this help prevent situations like this? I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help? Or the policeman is the first person shot, and now the shooter has whatever gadgets our policeman is carrying, in addition to a police radio and uniform (all very harmful when trying to identify the intruder). "Common sense" you say? I would say commonly heard nonsense.
I would say it's worth the risk because it has the potential to save 20 young children's lives..
However I don't think that placing a police officer in an elementary school is exactly common sense. In a high school yes, but not an elementary school. No one could have seen this coming.
|
On December 15 2012 08:50 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:44 johanes wrote:On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote:
I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner. And how would this help prevent situations like this? I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help?
That doesn't work. A school is big and one man can't do anything until it's way too late.
|
On December 15 2012 09:11 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:50 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 08:44 johanes wrote:On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote:
I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner. And how would this help prevent situations like this? I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help? That doesn't work. A school is big and one man can't do anything until it's way too late.
Yeah thats true but the point is he could get there before more people are killed. even saving 1 life would be worth it, no?
|
On December 15 2012 09:07 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 09:02 dUTtrOACh wrote:On December 15 2012 08:50 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 08:44 johanes wrote:On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote:
I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner. And how would this help prevent situations like this? I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help? Or the policeman is the first person shot, and now the shooter has whatever gadgets our policeman is carrying, in addition to a police radio and uniform (all very harmful when trying to identify the intruder). "Common sense" you say? I would say commonly heard nonsense. I'm sorry but that is very bad logic, you are saying a trained policeman would lose a fire fight to some random maniac, ok fair enough that COULD happen even if only a small small chance, and as for taking the policemans weapon, most of these shooters are already armed to the teeth already, i doubt it would make much diffrence to their arsenal. You're basicly saying a policeman would do more harm then good, never though i would hear that, even on the internet.
Welcome to the internet?
|
On December 15 2012 09:15 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 09:07 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 09:02 dUTtrOACh wrote:On December 15 2012 08:50 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 08:44 johanes wrote:On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote:
I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner. And how would this help prevent situations like this? I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help? Or the policeman is the first person shot, and now the shooter has whatever gadgets our policeman is carrying, in addition to a police radio and uniform (all very harmful when trying to identify the intruder). "Common sense" you say? I would say commonly heard nonsense. I'm sorry but that is very bad logic, you are saying a trained policeman would lose a fire fight to some random maniac, ok fair enough that COULD happen even if only a small small chance, and as for taking the policemans weapon, most of these shooters are already armed to the teeth already, i doubt it would make much diffrence to their arsenal. You're basicly saying a policeman would do more harm then good, never though i would hear that, even on the internet. Welcome to the internet?
Ah you're one of "those" guys :D makes sense now 
|
On December 15 2012 09:07 lex.licks.life wrote:
I am disgusted that the media tried to interview the children after this horrible event.
Yeah but his boss told him to do it.
|
On December 15 2012 09:13 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 09:11 Xiron wrote:On December 15 2012 08:50 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 08:44 johanes wrote:On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote:
I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner. And how would this help prevent situations like this? I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help? That doesn't work. A school is big and one man can't do anything until it's way too late. Yeah thats true but the point is he could get there before more people are killed. even saving 1 life would be worth it, no?
Risking a life for another life is senseless unless you would say that the policeman's worth less than the kid/whatever.
|
On December 15 2012 09:16 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 09:13 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 09:11 Xiron wrote:On December 15 2012 08:50 Reaps wrote:On December 15 2012 08:44 johanes wrote:On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote:
I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner. And how would this help prevent situations like this? I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help? That doesn't work. A school is big and one man can't do anything until it's way too late. Yeah thats true but the point is he could get there before more people are killed. even saving 1 life would be worth it, no? Risking a life for another life is senseless unless you would say that the policeman's worth less than the kid/whatever.
Didnt say that at all.
But is it not the policemans job to protect other people. They are trained in these situations for a reason..
|
our country needs to stop marginalizing people. a lot more care needs to be taken towards the mentally ill. such a shame that this is the result of an unfortunate biological circumstance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
