• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Virginia Tech Shootings

cerebrex said:
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/

this is a privately run organization, not related to any "gun research groups". they do advocate and protect the right to bear arms as their primary purpose, and there is plenty of information on the website from various publications showing research and articles.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. Seeing that they are a member of the "Keep and Bear Arms" webring does raise some suspicions, but I'll keep an open mind.
 
Max Mike said:
:rolleyes:

"innocent school neard"

:rolleyes:

I love 2007 where nobody is responsible for their actions, somebody else ALWAYS “made” them do it.

How about the truth instead… he was an evil SOB that deserves to rot in hell.
Click to expand...

the ever increasing lack of responsibility in our culture.
 
@ some post above, this was the worst campus massacre, compared directly to the one in 1966. I guess the media separates them.

I still can't help but wonder...no resistance? I still remember the day back in High School when like at least eight of us jumped this guy who decided to pull a knife because his gf had left him. It was common for some intrepid wannabee gang members to have a weapon in school just for some kind of "rite" or initiation, but this clown actually pulled it. It wasn't even thinking; just pure reflex, and he was down *quick*.

Anyways though, I fully expect C-SPAN & Co. to be saturated with gun-control debates for the foreseeable future. At least that's most important in the eyes of the public then whatever that fucktard Jack Thompson has to say.
 
Max Mike said:
BTW: Contrary to what you are hearing today this is not the worst school massacre in the US… the worst would be the Bath School massacre in Bath, Michigan: 45 people dead and 58 wounded and not one gun involved.
Click to expand...

What was used?
 
Mav451 said:
Thanks for the link. Seeing that they are a member of the "Keep and Bear Arms" webring does raise some suspicions, but I'll keep an open mind.
Click to expand...

Well, if you assume that gun control is in fact not effective, it would lead you to be pro-gun as the only other alternative, naturally. Biases are found everywhere, it's an assumed trait present in all people, it's important people are able to decipher fact from fiction. This website cites multiple non-bias sources to prove their information.

If you can't tell, i'm a political science major. I've had the opportunity to read both left-wing and right-win propaganda in relation to gun control. There are convenient findings on both sides. But, you must remember... if one side really is correct - meaning their belief and insight really do show results, and can be proven... it means the opposition must inheriently skew and alter findings to combat it... basically you must always remember.. if someone is right, then someone must be wrong... not necessarily completely wrong... but not misguide the public. That is all speculative, take it as you perceive. Some of the most glaring innacuracies I've seen are from the left wing. In one of the books I had read - the writer uses a study to determine that child gun related violence (homocide, assault) is up 70% from previous years. However, what he fails to mention is his figures are taken from 1-18yr olds.... I consider children to be between 1-14 myself - 15-18 I consider adolescents... the majority of gang members and drug dealers. If you remove the 15-18 year olds you loose 88% of all violent gun crimes. And for children 1-14yrs old -- more children drown in 55gallon buckets than from gun related accidents/murders.
 
15-18 year olds are still defined as children by law, are they not?
 
Children is a more specific, connotation-ridden synonym. The law focuses more on minor and adult.
 
Draax said:
15-18 year olds are still defined as children by law, are they not?
Click to expand...

depends on the state your in - most 15-18yr olds will be tried as adults, depending on the crime - murder most certainly would.

I personally do not consider an 18 year old a child - especially when the majority of drug dealers/gang activity in metropolitan areas fall within the 15-18yr age groups.
 
cerebrex said:
depends on the state your in - most 15-18yr olds will be tried as adults, depending on the crime - murder most certainly would.

I personally do not consider an 18 year old a child - especially when the majority of drug dealers/gang activity in metropolitan areas fall within the 15-18yr age groups.
Click to expand...

in any event, the writer is conveniently manipulating the findings to benefit his case. I find the results to be very misleading, myself.
 
Well providing that information just coming in from students that during the time of 9:25 AM.
The dorm the students were in the floor below, they heard shots fired then the shooter laughing every time he shot someone.

Sometime this morning St. Edwards Univ in Austin, TX was evacuated because of a threatening note pretaining to a bomb threat.

And yesterday University of Tennessee was evacuated of the a bomb threat also.
 
Which is why I don't like when huge tragedies like this one are publicized so much. I guarantee that the Columbine press created copycats and gave confidence to people already pondering something similar.

Then again, it'd be hard not to slam this down everyone's irises. The media just wants people to watch their broadcasts and hit their websites.
 
cerebrex said:
in any event, the writer is conveniently manipulating the findings to benefit his case. I find the results to be very misleading, myself.
Click to expand...

You don’t believe you are doing the same? by classifying 15-18 year olds as "adults", when the law states they are minors and not adults.
 
Im not trying to make excuses for this guy by saying he did it because was picked on. Just putting out the possibities that could have driven him to do something so horrifying. Obviously he was suicidal and had hate for the world. You dont have to be mentally ill or crazy to masacre 32 innocent lives. Humans can be evil and inhumane by nature, for example, remember how the US soldiers would mascare hundreds thousands of innocent Vietnamese civilians in such inhumane ways? Everyone has the capability to do unpredictable things when they snap.
 
GJSNeptune said:
Which is why I don't like when huge tragedies like this one are publicized so much. I guarantee that the Columbine press created copycats and gave confidence to people already pondering something similar.

Then again, it'd be hard not to slam this down everyone's irises. The media just wants people to watch their broadcasts and hit their websites.
Click to expand...


that is correct, they profit off the misery of others. People don't want to hear "we don't know" so the media will spread rumors and speculation - ie: he's chinese, he's on a student visa, he had accomplices, it's the police's fault - that keeps people interested. It's just business in the most realistic sense, but the average viewer doesn't see the big picture, and might get caught up in inaccuracies or buy into their bias.
 
I see this as being a copy cat thing... more as in a record setting thing.

The media does exploit this quite a bit, it's sad.
 
Draax said:
You don’t believe you are doing the same? by classifying 15-18 year olds as "adults", when the law states they are minors and not adults.
Click to expand...


15-18 year olds are NOT children... and most of the anti-gun propaganda that supposedly is about “children” includes includes data on “children” up to 21 year old, they are bougus numbers.

A actual child (1-14) is more likely to be killed riding his bike, drown in a neighbors pool, or be killed in a fall that be killed by a gun.
 
Max Mike said:
15-18 year olds are NOT children... and most of the anti-gun propaganda that supposedly is about “children” includes includes data on “children” up to 21 year old, they are bougus numbers.

A actual child (1-14) is more likely to be killed riding his bike, drown in a neighbors pool, or be killed in a fall that be killed by a gun.
Click to expand...

I'd agree.

When you enter your teen years you are no longer a "child"
 
Isn't it amazing how the assholes of the NRA react to the massacre Virginia Tech. Well, no I guess it's not amazing considering the depths of depravity they plumb, but it pisses me off to a very serious degree nevertheless.

Stephen Griffin of Tulane University wrote on his blog: "After mass slayings committed by terrorists, presidential assassinations, or killings in areas supposedly secure like courts, we commit ourselves to the actions necessary to prevent such killings in the future, whether through better security, use of intelligence, confiscation of weapons, and the like. <b> But with mass killings committed in country with a gun, we are encouraged to believe, by people who should know better, that they are akin to natural disasters or freak occurrences like an asteroid strike in your backyard.</b>"

When a tragedy like this happened in Australia in 1996, they responded by banning all handguns. All of them. People who owned handguns turned them in. The only handguns in Australia are owned by criminals, so they're easily identified by the police. And to all those assholes who will inevitably shriek that if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have the guns, I say: Carry a stun gun if you are so concerned that the cops won't protect you. A stun gun will incapacitate someone at the same range as a handgun, and just as quickly.

But we all know - that's not the real reason the gun lobby wants to carry guns. <b>They do it to feel powerful. To feel in control. Because the rest of their little lives are so fucking pathetic that they need an ego crutch in the form of a barrel.</b>

I'd like to say to the Bush/Cheney/Rove axis of mendacity: THIS is what truly threatens our security. I have a much higher percentage chance of being popped by some paranoid nutcase clutching a pistol and a copy of the 2nd amendment than I do by a terrorist in a suicide vest and a Koran.

Fuck you, Bush & co and all your redneck cronies. You just want the power and control too - not security. For the $450 billion we spend on defense and the $43 billion we spend on homeland security, we could be a whole lot more defended and secure than we really are.
 
Max Mike said:
15-18 year olds are NOT children... and most of the anti-gun propaganda that supposedly is about “children” includes includes data on “children” up to 21 year old, they are bougus numbers.

A actual child (1-14) is more likely to be killed riding his bike, drown in a neighbors pool, or be killed in a fall that be killed by a gun.
Click to expand...

What you define as a child is your opinion and not some base truth. The legal definition of a child disagrees with you. The word child and minor are interchangable as far as the law is concerned. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier"

This is why children of the age 15-18 are, and should be, included in the study you posted.
 
Draax said:
What you define as a child is your opinion and not some base truth. The legal definition of a child disagrees with you. The word child and minor are interchangable as far as the law is concerned. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier"

This is why children of the age 15-18 are, and should be, included in the study you posted.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Can't you read or did you miss the part about 21 year olds.

I really don't care what the UN says people that can drive are not children and it is past ridiculous to claim they are.
 
I find it comical that in attempt to show liberal slanting of the numbers, one would chose to slant the numbers in their favor, based on their own bias, which runs contrary to the accepted definition of what a child is
 
gnf said:
When a tragedy like this happened in Australia in 1996, they responded by banning all handguns. All of them. People who owned handguns turned them in. The only handguns in Australia are owned by criminals, so they're easily identified by the police. And to all those assholes who will inevitably shriek that if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have the guns, I say: Carry a stun gun if you are so concerned that the cops won't protect you. A stun gun will incapacitate someone at the same range as a handgun, and just as quickly.

But we all know - that's not the real reason the gun lobby wants to carry guns. <b>They do it to feel powerful. To feel in control. Because the rest of their little lives are so fucking pathetic that they need an ego crutch in the form of a barrel.</b>
Click to expand...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304
Banning guns in Australia - a complete and total failure... why? Because it doesnt work.

I'd like to say to the Bush/Cheney/Rove axis of mendacity: THIS is what truly threatens our security. I have a much higher percentage chance of being popped by some paranoid nutcase clutching a pistol and a copy of the 2nd amendment than I do by a terrorist in a suicide vest and a Koran.
Click to expand...
You actually have a much greater chance of being struck by lightning then by getting killed during a mass murder. You have almost 100x greater chance of dying in a car wreck... this argument is meaningless and holds no weight at all. You are uneducated about politics, the world, and facts.


Fuck you, Bush & co and all your redneck cronies. You just want the power and control too - not security. For the $450 billion we spend on defense and the $43 billion we spend on homeland security, we could be a whole lot more defended and secure than we really are.
Click to expand...
The best defense is a good offense - note no terrorists attacks since we took the battle to them. Our defense budget not only towers over every other nation on the planet, but it completely annihilates them. Again, this argument - you have no perception of reality.
 
gnf said:
Isn't it amazing how the assholes of the NRA react to the massacre Virginia Tech. Well, no I guess it's not amazing considering the depths of depravity they plumb, but it pisses me off to a very serious degree nevertheless.

Stephen Griffin of Tulane University wrote on his blog: "After mass slayings committed by terrorists, presidential assassinations, or killings in areas supposedly secure like courts, we commit ourselves to the actions necessary to prevent such killings in the future, whether through better security, use of intelligence, confiscation of weapons, and the like. <b> But with mass killings committed in country with a gun, we are encouraged to believe, by people who should know better, that they are akin to natural disasters or freak occurrences like an asteroid strike in your backyard.</b>"

When a tragedy like this happened in Australia in 1996, they responded by banning all handguns. All of them. People who owned handguns turned them in. The only handguns in Australia are owned by criminals, so they're easily identified by the police. And to all those assholes who will inevitably shriek that if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have the guns, I say: Carry a stun gun if you are so concerned that the cops won't protect you. A stun gun will incapacitate someone at the same range as a handgun, and just as quickly.

But we all know - that's not the real reason the gun lobby wants to carry guns. <b>They do it to feel powerful. To feel in control. Because the rest of their little lives are so fucking pathetic that they need an ego crutch in the form of a barrel.</b>

I'd like to say to the Bush/Cheney/Rove axis of mendacity: THIS is what truly threatens our security. I have a much higher percentage chance of being popped by some paranoid nutcase clutching a pistol and a copy of the 2nd amendment than I do by a terrorist in a suicide vest and a Koran.

Fuck you, Bush & co and all your redneck cronies. You just want the power and control too - not security. For the $450 billion we spend on defense and the $43 billion we spend on homeland security, we could be a whole lot more defended and secure than we really are.
Click to expand...


Wow, thank you for that politically loaded bullshit that you just spewed out :rolleyes:


And just to rebuke your point that you made:


A stun gun will incapacitate someone at the same range as a handgun, and just as quickly.
Click to expand...

That is the bigges load of horseshit that I've ever read... and I've read a lot of it.
 
Draax said:
I find it comical that in attempt to show liberal slanting of the numbers, one would chose to slant the numbers in their favor, based on their own bias, which runs contrary to the accepted definition of what a child is
Click to expand...

incorrect - it is state regulated as I said before. violent crimes commit with guns these adolescents will be tried as adults - meaning the government recognizes them as adults, not children.
 
the anti-gun crowd has only conjecture to bring to the table, the facts and statistics all back pro-gun laws substantially - I'm not running a bias here, it's just the facts - it is what it is.
 
Max Mike said:
:rolleyes:

Can't you read or did you miss the part about 21 year olds.

I really don't care what the UN says people that can drive are not children and it is past ridiculous to claim they are.
Click to expand...

Actually, in many of those Brady Campaign / VPC "studies," they even included adults up to the age of 24 (the max age someone can claim you as a dependent).
 
cerebrex said:
incorrect - it is state regulated as I said before. violent crimes commit with guns these adolescents will be tried as adults - meaning the government recognizes them as adults, not children.
Click to expand...

Just because someone is tried as an adult, doesn't mean they are not a minor.

I didn't set the age of majority, it is what it is. If you have problems with the age of majority, I suggest you argue it using the proper channels.
 
cerebrex said:
note no terrorists attacks since we took the battle to them.
Click to expand...

Schwa!? Iraq is not a terrorist, nor is that the terrorist center. Terrorists are everywhere and inside our borders. We still need a good defense. Having "no terrorist attacks" just means they've either been discovered before they could strike or they haven't done anything yet.
 
Draax said:
I find it comical that in attempt to show liberal slanting of the numbers, one would chose to slant the numbers in their favor, based on their own bias, which runs contrary to the accepted definition of what a child is
Click to expand...

I imagine you do find the truth comical that is better for you that actually confronting it.

Self deception not money is the root of all evil.
 
Max Mike said:
I imagine you do find the truth comical that is better for you that actually confronting it.

Self deception not money is the root of all evil.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I posted the truth, and what the accepted definition of a child is. Like I have already stated, if you are unhappy with the truth of what the law defines as a child then, you need to take your grievance elsewhere.

The fact that you attack me, for what the law defines as a child, speaks volumes about your character.
 
Unabomber said:
Actually, in many of those Brady Campaign / VPC "studies," they even included adults up to the age of 24 (the max age someone can claim you as a dependent).
Click to expand...

Well most government agencies sees my wife as a dependant... that doesn't make her a child.

GJSNeptune said:
Schwa!? Iraq is not a terrorist, nor is that the terrorist center. Terrorists are everywhere and inside our borders. We still need a good defense. Having "no terrorist attacks" just means they've either been discovered before they could strike or they haven't done anything yet.
Click to expand...

Umm, where did he mention Iraq?

Having no attacks sure is better than having them.
 
gnf said:
Isn't it amazing how the assholes of the NRA react to the massacre Virginia Tech. Well, no I guess it's not amazing considering the depths of depravity they plumb, but it pisses me off to a very serious degree nevertheless.
Click to expand...

Your assertion bears no merit. The NRA has only issued a single statement, expressing their condolences for the students and the families.

NRA statement:

Statement From the National Rifle Association
Monday, April 16, 2007
The National Rifle Association joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech University and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families.
Click to expand...

So, I ask you now, where are the reactions that you hate so much? Were you lying, or are you admitting that you were wrong? It has to be one or the other.

have the guns, I say: Carry a stun gun if you are so concerned that the cops won't protect you. A stun gun will incapacitate someone at the same range as a handgun, and just as quickly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right... if you honestly believe this crap, then it would be interesting to see if you could stop a crack head with a stun gun, since you aren't allowed to have a police-grade Taser. Nevermind trying to stop a mad killer from 15 yards away.


I'd like to say to the Bush/Cheney/Rove axis of mendacity: THIS is what truly threatens our security. I have a much higher percentage chance of being popped by some paranoid nutcase clutching a pistol and a copy of the 2nd amendment than I do by a terrorist in a suicide vest and a Koran.
Click to expand...

Once again, your assertion bears no merit. Check the statistics from the FBI UCR.


Fuck you, Bush & co and all your redneck cronies.
Click to expand...

The shooter was a liberal, who detested rich kids...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top