EPTBinghamton shootings - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Person514cs
1004 Posts
| ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
Two things which worry me additonally: a) all this media hype around the shootings will cause even more because they are like advertisements for people who hate their lives - they'll see that they'll be special when doing this b) all this shit will lead to *much* more surveillance... and fully tolerated by everybody. In the near future we'll probably see guards, metal detectors like at airports, cameras and shit at schools and other public places on the bright side, maybe we'll finally see bans or heavy restrictions on weapon property, even in USA. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 04 2009 13:59 BalliSLife wrote: General law abiding citizens pull out their guns in those situations? so someone going on a picnic with their family should carry an assault rifle with them at all times for their own protection? maybe each person should be allowed to carry a grenade just in case. Remember Cho the VT shooter? the guy was mentally ill and even HE was able to get a gun, enough said. Look regulations WERE in place to prevent a mentally ill person from getting a gun. Yet incompetence of the regulators allowed Cho to get one anyways. So you want to entrust your incompetent regulators even more power? And what is the point of disarming the general law-abiding population? Does the government just do it for the hell of it without showing why it is of benefit. If that's the case, the fuck the government. One more reason to have a gun, so the government can't extend its arbitrary stupid and tyrannical rule. btw, many robberies, killing sprees, and other crimes are stopped by people with concealed weapons. They just don't make the news because innocent people didn't get killed. AND most police departments are pretty incompetent, too. They barely provide any protection against most forms of crime. Get robbed? No help. Get mugged? No help. Etc. | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
| ||
|
x89titan
Philippines1130 Posts
| ||
|
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
On April 04 2009 14:15 TanGeng wrote: Look regulations WERE in place to prevent a mentally ill person from getting a gun. Yet incompetence of the regulators allowed Cho to get one anyways. So you want to entrust your incompetent regulators even more power? And what is the point of disarming the general law-abiding population? Does the government just do it for the hell of it without showing why it is of benefit. If that's the case, the fuck the government. One more reason to have a gun, so the government can't extend its arbitrary stupid and tyrannical rule. btw, many robberies, killing sprees, and other crimes are stopped by people with concealed weapons. They just don't make the news because innocent people didn't get killed. AND most police departments are pretty incompetent, too. They barely provide any protection against most forms of crime. Get robbed? No help. Get mugged? No help. Etc. If some guy just wants to randomly shoot you there's nothing you can do to prevent that, you've been watching too much fucking james bond to think some receptionist is gonna start moving backwards on her chair and start a shootout with the gunman the second he starts barging in. | ||
|
tegg
United States33 Posts
On April 04 2009 14:12 0xDEADBEEF wrote: all this shit will lead to *much* more surveillance... and fully tolerated by everybody. In the near future we'll probably see guards, metal detectors like at airports, cameras and shit at schools and other public places. I live in Binghamton actually, and was working while all of this was going only a few miles away. This is what I fear too, mostly because on Fox News (what the restaurant I work at puts on TV, not me) there was much talk about how it took forever to get a live video feed from Binghamton, how slow response time was by officials, etc. and generally made a few remarks about how things would be different if there was some kind of security alert procedures in place (in the way of counterterrorism moreso than accident prevention, based on the sounds of it). One of those Fox News reporters even went so far as to label the shooting an act of terrorism, whilst referring to it as an "arbitrary act of violence in the same sentence". Make sense of that. | ||
|
Ingenol
United States1328 Posts
| ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
| ||
|
Flyingdutchman
Netherlands858 Posts
| ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On April 04 2009 08:00 p4NDemik wrote: Shitty economy = lots of layoffs = lots of jobless, depressed/pissed off people = increase in violent episodes like this + guns everywhere  | ||
|
Brett
Australia3822 Posts
On April 04 2009 13:42 BlackJack wrote: Get your quips in before your government blacklists this website As an American, you would be worried about that wouldn't you? Quick send me a gun and I'll form a militia! | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
| ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 04 2009 14:23 BalliSLife wrote: If some guy just wants to randomly shoot you there's nothing you can do to prevent that, you've been watching too much fucking james bond to think some receptionist is gonna start moving backwards on her chair and start a shootout with the gunman the second he starts barging in. Only true for the first person to be shot, but this is an argument for making everyone helpless? You're not addressing how gun control prevents guns from getting into the hands of people who won't abide by the law. Nor does it prevent violent folks from acting out. Gun control addresses neither of those issues until the point when guns are not to be found in society at all. Then what. What about police going on killing sprees? What about terrorists? What about pervasive robberies? Murders with swords and knives? The population will be powerless to counteract that. Gun control proponents are emotionally stupid, and just react viscerally. It's such a shallow analysis that it's laughable. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
HA! Whereas in the UK, you just have riots and lots of people robbing each other. People knifing each other or burning out cars isn't "violence" because only guns are "violent." | ||
|
TimeShifter
Singapore235 Posts
On April 04 2009 06:25 R3condite wrote: err... wtf? honestly that's all i can comment on that heh heh thread won.. its kinda sad seeing 2 shootings on the General forum tab at the same time though | ||
|
R3condite
Korea (South)1541 Posts
On April 04 2009 17:10 LOcDowN wrote: sigh, what the fuck is wrong with this guy. it's ok to get laid off, everyone is getting laid off. going to a citizenship area to kill other immigrants? sigh, selfish motherfucker. ... maybe he was already unstable when they fired him (most likely) On April 04 2009 21:50 TanGeng wrote: Only true for the first person to be shot, but this is an argument for making everyone helpless? You're not addressing how gun control prevents guns from getting into the hands of people who won't abide by the law. Nor does it prevent violent folks from acting out. Gun control addresses neither of those issues until the point when guns are not to be found in society at all. Then what. What about police going on killing sprees? What about terrorists? What about pervasive robberies? Murders with swords and knives? The population will be powerless to counteract that. Gun control proponents are emotionally stupid, and just react viscerally. It's such a shallow analysis that it's laughable. he had an automatic rifle... do u even noe how fast those things dish out bullets? he could have killed a LOT more if he wanted IMO also as for gun control... if america has wanted they could have become like Korea gun wise... at the LEAST if ppl only use knives and such there isn't chance of u dying by "accidental stray" bullets and also u have some sort of a fighting chance vs a guy w/ a knife whereas a guy w/ a gun could probably kill u if he had good enough aim... and even if u had a gun when he had one... i would rather like ot run away from a guy w/ a knife then try to outgun some1 who's already pulled his out while mine is still in its holster u noe im just surprised at how hard it is for police to take action during these situations...it really suks... i wonder if there were any security guards on duty though... btw this all went down in 3min... http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7249853&page=1 ""We have no idea what the motive is," Zikuski said." reallly? really?! "New York civic association building that caters to immigrants"? layoff? hmm... | ||
|
KwarK
United States43777 Posts
On April 04 2009 21:53 TanGeng wrote: HA! Whereas in the UK, you just have riots and lots of people robbing each other. People knifing each other or burning out cars isn't "violence" because only guns are "violent." What riots or burning cars? You seem to have made up a violent country without guns to prove your point. Please avoid doing that. Real world examples are preferred. | ||
|
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
On April 04 2009 21:50 TanGeng wrote: Only true for the first person to be shot, but this is an argument for making everyone helpless? You're not addressing how gun control prevents guns from getting into the hands of people who won't abide by the law. Nor does it prevent violent folks from acting out. Gun control addresses neither of those issues until the point when guns are not to be found in society at all. Then what. What about police going on killing sprees? What about terrorists? What about pervasive robberies? Murders with swords and knives? The population will be powerless to counteract that. Gun control proponents are emotionally stupid, and just react viscerally. It's such a shallow analysis that it's laughable. So you're telling me you feel a lot fucking safer if you knew that everyone walking in Time Square had a gun on them? | ||
|
KwarK
United States43777 Posts
Police going on killing sprees? Seriously? You think the only thing stopping the police going on killing sprees is that the citizens are armed? Plus in gun control countries the police are unarmed. If you actually looked at them rather than just making up stories about how they're anarchistic wastelands you'd know that. | ||
| ||
