Hauting video of "Elliot Rogers Retribution" student shoots and kills Sorority girls

[shira]

I don't think you know the meaning of the word "defend".

Unless you are trying to argue that wanting to kill your 6 year old brother*, whom you had really bonded with over the past year, is somehow less disturbing than wanting to kill women. In which case

*note, the same would be true if his brother had been a sister.

This isn't about "him;" It's about you and your strong (barely controllable?) need to make sure the rest of us "understand" how "fair" he was with his hatred. I'm sure he would have been very, very grateful for your empathy and would have been touched by your admiration.

Honestly at this point it seems more like you are attracted to me. Would you be satisfied with just a photo to masturbate to?

"At this point"? Whoa, there, Slick. There you go again, trying to rush into relationships where there isn't even a hint of interest from the other side. Pro tip: If you really want to find a gay lover, you need to get those gay "signals" straightened out. Something about pierced ears and lip rouge. I wouldn't know, not being of your sexual persuasion. And as to those masturbatory fantasies of yours: Isn't it time for you to get out of the bathroom and find some REAL sex?

 

[nehalem256]

This isn't about "him;" It's about you and your strong (barely controllable?) need to make sure the rest of us "understand" how "fair" he was with his hatred. I'm sure he would have been very, very grateful for your empathy and would have been touched by your admiration.

It has nothing to do with being fair to the dude.

The issue is that liberals want to make the issue about some "war on women" when in reality it was a "war on people".

The fact that a lot of liberals cannot differentiate between the 2 says a lot about what they think about men. If a guy goes on a rampage and kills men and women its only a "war on women" because men's deaths are so inconsequential they don't even need to be considered.

 

[Zaap]

You can throw a knife as far as a bullet flies with the same speed and accuracy? Wow!

I don't know, can you? So explain how your comment I quoted makes any sense, or are you just completely unaware of the facts in this case?



And shira...

Holy shit dude, yours is literally the *WORST* "debate" style I think I've ever seen.

There's barely a post of yours in this thread that isn't just you projecting some sort of gay fantasy of yours (even going into great detail about it) then crudely attempting to attribute it to someone else... even as you then resort to trying to chide others for having gay fantasies! That's just... WEIRD.

Not the being gay part, just your attempts to use your own projected fantasies as slams against others. Like I said, seek some help dude, you're confused about something. Work out your issues.

I know you *think* you're making nehalem look like the nutball by you dreaming up gay scenarios and then going "See! This is what YOU were thinking of!" (real mature tactic by the way) but... it's not working. It's infact, kinda disturbing. Just a heads up.

 

[bradly1101]

Clearly you haven't researched this.

1. California has Universal Background Checks and waiting periods.

It obviously was not enough was it?

 

[bradly1101]

bradly1101 is one of the most painfully incompetent simpletons on this forum. Case in point: The quote in his signature attributed to Wayne LaPierre is actually from Canada News Network, a satirical site like The Onion. Haha.

I hate those satirical sites; they look real, they have quotes that seem reasonable and I made a mistake. Thank god you never do (where would we be without you?!)

Your insults reveal too much about you. Not just the type of person you are, but also that you must think you have a weak argument; strong arguments stand on their own. Also I stepped out of the sandbox when I was eight, so it's hard to hear you all the way over here.

 

[Vic]

The onion is spot on as usual:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this,36131/

There are ways to prevent these kinds of incidents.. just not gun control.
This is a mental health issue. The one thing all these crazy mass murderers have in common is that they're crazy. That is what needs to be addressed. Trying to take away all the guns from all the law abiding people won't fix that, and it will just create new problems.

 

[realibrad]

There are ways to prevent these kinds of incidents.. just not gun control.
This is a mental health issue. The one thing all these crazy mass murderers have in common is that they're crazy. That is what needs to be addressed. Trying to take away all the guns from all the law abiding people won't fix that, and it will just create new problems.

I am for the rights of personal gun use, but I don't agree 100% with your comment. Less guns will mean fewer gun deaths and likely fewer murders overall. This has been seen in many countries that ban guns. I believe there are bigger gains to be had dealing with mental issues, but banning guns would reduce the number of gun deaths.

 

[fskimospy]

There are ways to prevent these kinds of incidents.. just not gun control.
This is a mental health issue. The one thing all these crazy mass murderers have in common is that they're crazy. That is what needs to be addressed. Trying to take away all the guns from all the law abiding people won't fix that, and it will just create new problems.

Gun control could definitely solve the problem if we wanted to take it an run with it, but I don't think we as a society want to go that way.

I see no reason to believe the US has a greater proportion of crazy people than any other country. While we may have worse mental health treatment than some I would say it would be quite difficult to draw a causal relationship between relative mental health capabilities and prevalence of massacres.

 

[Vic]

Gun control could definitely solve the problem if we wanted to take it an run with it, but I don't think we as a society want to go that way.

I see no reason to believe the US has a greater proportion of crazy people than any other country. While we may have worse mental health treatment than some I would say it would be quite difficult to draw a causal relationship between relative mental health capabilities and prevalence of massacres.

Ok, then how do we account for the overwhelming majority (like 99.9%) of gun owners who will never use their weapon in any form of criminal act? How then do you draw the relationship between the prevalence of gun ownership and the occurrence of these mass shootings?
OTOH, just a cursory look at all these mass murderers unveils serious mental health problems in every single one of them. Nobody is saying that Rodger was a nice guy and they never saw this coming. Quite the opposite, in fact. And it's the same story with Lanza, Holmes and all the rest. Warning bells were sounded and no one listened.
So yeah, I think the mental health system in the US really is that bad. Taking away everyone's guns won't fix that. And these crazies, without guns, will just turn to other means, like arson (Australia) and knives (China and UK).

 

[waggy]

Gun control could definitely solve the problem if we wanted to take it an run with it, but I don't think we as a society want to go that way.

I disagree. Gun control wouldn't solve anything.


this kid had issues. the warning signs were ignored. his parents were reaching out for help because they were worried he would hurt someone.

there needs to be something in place for situations like that. only issue i see is how it can work without abuse.

 

[fskimospy]

Ok, then how do we account for the overwhelming majority (like 99.9%) of gun owners who will never use their weapon in any form of criminal act? How then do you draw the relationship between the prevalence of gun ownership and the occurrence of these mass shootings?
OTOH, just a cursory look at all these mass murderers unveils serious mental health problems in every single one of them. Nobody is saying that Rodger was a nice guy and they never saw this coming. Quite the opposite, in fact. And it's the same story with Lanza, Holmes and all the rest. Warning bells were sounded and no one listened.

Well really to draw a correlation and from there extrapolate to a causal relationship you're looking for variation. The number of law abiding people with guns isn't particularly relevant. (note: the number of people with guns is not particularly relevant from a research perspective on the relationship between gun ownership and mass killing; it is of course very relevant from a policy perspective)

The first thought that comes to mind is that access to guns is a necessary but not sufficient variable for mass gun murder. ie: In order to be a crazy person who shoots up the place you need to be 1.) crazy and 2.) have the means to shoot up the place. In a place without easy access to guns you're less likely to be able to fulfill both requirements.

So yeah, I think the mental health system in the US really is that bad. Taking away everyone's guns won't fix that. And these crazies, without guns, will just turn to other means, like arson (Australia) and knives (China and UK).

While I admittedly haven't checked to be sure, I'm fairly confident that mass murders occur much less frequently in all the places you mentioned. As to the US mental health system, what aspects of it do you think are so uniquely bad that countries like China or other third world countries are able to best it?

 

[fskimospy]

I disagree. Gun control wouldn't solve anything.

Of course it would. If people don't have guns, they don't commit mass gun crimes. Guns are by far the most easily accessible and effective means of mass murder available. There's a reason why they are used so often in that regard.

To be clear, I don't think we would be capable as a society of disarming America because we wouldn't accept it from a cultural perspective. I'm not actually arguing for that measure, but I think it is naive to assume that gun control wouldn't be effective at deterring mass gun crimes were it actually to be implemented in a broad sense.

 

[Vic]

Of course it would. If people don't have guns, they don't commit mass gun crimes. Guns are by far the most easily accessible and effective means of mass murder available. There's a reason why they are used so often in that regard.

To be clear, I don't think we would be capable as a society of disarming America because we wouldn't accept it from a cultural perspective. I'm not actually arguing for that measure, but I think it is naive to assume that gun control wouldn't be effective at deterring mass gun crimes were it actually to be implemented in a broad sense.

And therein lies the rub. America is not going to disarm. So any attempt to force it to won't work if your goal is to prevent crazies access to guns. So IMO, it would be more effective to focus on the crazy.

 

[Matt1970]

The onion is spot on as usual:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this,36131/

Absolute and utter nonsense.

From your article. "...a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

But then again, it is the onion.

 

[Vic]

Well really to draw a correlation and from there extrapolate to a causal relationship you're looking for variation. The number of law abiding people with guns isn't particularly relevant. (note: the number of people with guns is not particularly relevant from a research perspective on the relationship between gun ownership and mass killing; it is of course very relevant from a policy perspective)

The first thought that comes to mind is that access to guns is a necessary but not sufficient variable for mass gun murder. ie: In order to be a crazy person who shoots up the place you need to be 1.) crazy and 2.) have the means to shoot up the place. In a place without easy access to guns you're less likely to be able to fulfill both requirements.



While I admittedly haven't checked to be sure, I'm fairly confident that mass murders occur much less frequently in all the places you mentioned. As to the US mental health system, what aspects of it do you think are so uniquely bad that countries like China or other third world countries are able to best it?

Australia continues to have issues with mass murders even after strict gun control was implemented following the Port Arthur massacre. They've had at least one mass shooting since then and several mass murders using arson. Keep in mind that Australia has 7.5% the population of the US, so occurrence should be expected to be comparably less frequent.
While not murders, the UK has a much higher rate of serious assault and similar violent crime than does the US.
China is essentially a totalitarian state that executes more people in a month than Texas does in a year, so I think it's safe to assume how they deal with their crazies. There was that recent mass school knifing though.

 

[fskimospy]

Absolute and utter nonsense.

From your article. "...a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

But then again, it is the onion.

While The Onion's stats could be totally wrong on that, it's hard to see how you determined that from your link as it doesn't list killings in that way.

Regardless, the Onion is spot on where the richest country in the world declares itself unable to solve a problem that the rest of the developed world has much less of a problem with.

 

[nehalem256]

Australia continues to have issues with mass murders even after strict gun control was implemented following the Port Arthur massacre. They've had at least one mass shooting since then and several mass murders using arson. Keep in mind that Australia has 7.5% the population of the

The biggest mass shooting was probably in Norway. Where approximately 70 people were mass murdered.

Norway has a population of around 1/60th of the US.

So in the last 50 years you probably of a greater chance of dying in a mass shooting in Norway than the US.

EDIT:

From 2009 to 2012, 404 people were shot and 207 killed, according to the US Department of Justice. From 2000 to 2008, 324 people were shot and 145 were killed.

http://rt.com/usa/holder-mass-shootings-triple-519/

So 352 deaths in 13 years = 27 deaths per year.

Whereas adjusting for the vast population difference Norway would average ~323 deaths in the same time frame if it had the same population as the US.

 

[fskimospy]

Australia continues to have issues with mass murders even after strict gun control was implemented following the Port Arthur massacre. They've had at least one mass shooting since then and several mass murders using arson. Keep in mind that Australia has 7.5% the population of the US, so occurrence should be expected to be comparably less frequent.

Well that would be one mass shooting in about 20 years. We have multiple mass shootings each year. Even accounting for population we are way above them.

While not murders, the UK has a much higher rate of serious assault and similar violent crime than does the US.

The US and the UK do not use similar definitions of these crimes, which makes comparisons between them misleading at best.

China is essentially a totalitarian state that executes more people in a month than Texas does in a year, so I think it's safe to assume how they deal with their crazies. There was that recent mass school knifing though.

Well considering China has 38 times the population of Texas, saying that they execute 12 times as many people isn't really that strong an argument. I imagine you were more just saying that China executes a ton of people, which is true. I don't see any evidence that they are using that to weed out crazy people though, and most of the rampage killers I've seen have mild criminal records prior to the fact at best. I don't see how a high execution rate would apply here.

 

[fskimospy]

The biggest mass shooting was probably in Norway. Where approximately 70 people were mass murdered.

Norway has a population of around 1/60th of the US.

So in the last 50 years you probably of a greater chance of dying in a mass shooting in Norway than the US.

EDIT:
http://rt.com/usa/holder-mass-shootings-triple-519/

So 352 deaths in 13 years = 27 deaths per year.

Whereas adjusting for the vast population difference Norway would average ~323 deaths in the same time frame if it had the same population as the US.

If you submitted this analysis to a stats 101 class you would fail.

 

[Victorian Gray]

This isn't about "him;" It's about you and your strong (barely controllable?) need to make sure the rest of us "understand" how "fair" he was with his hatred. I'm sure he would have been very, very grateful for your empathy and would have been touched by your admiration.


"At this point"? Whoa, there, Slick. There you go again, trying to rush into relationships where there isn't even a hint of interest from the other side. Pro tip: If you really want to find a gay lover, you need to get those gay "signals" straightened out. Something about pierced ears and lip rouge. I wouldn't know, not being of your sexual persuasion. And as to those masturbatory fantasies of yours: Isn't it time for you to get out of the bathroom and find some REAL sex?

He's fine. He has his toaster.

 

[jpeyton]

The predictable, diseased response the gun control lobby has whenever a tent-pole mass media shooting occurs: "Give us more gun control!"

Those of us with more than two brain cells realize that, if anything, this incident illustrates exactly how foolish that mantra is. Consider this:

1) In a state-by-state analysis by the Brady Campaign, California was rated an A- for having the strongest gun control laws in the United States. For years (and in some cases decades), California has had universal background checks, mandatory waiting periods, purchase limits, magazine capacity limits, an assault weapons ban, and more.

2) California, a state whose government is controlled almost entirely by Democrats, passed 10 new gun control laws in 2013, including SB127 and AB1131 which addressed mental health concerns.

3) Rodgers purchased his guns legally in California following the letter of the law, passing every hurdle proposed by the gun control lobby.

4) In the week before the Rodger's incident, there were dozens of shootings in Chicago that produced less than a whisper from "Moms", "Mayors" or Rich Martinez. But a couple of dead California girls killed by a privileged Hollywood youth produces a Twitter campaign and 24-hour media spectacle.

If you want more gun control in response to what Rodger's did, you'll have to reconcile why Rodgers could do what he did in the gun control lobby's "model state".

 

[Victorian Gray]

If you submitted this analysis to a stats 101 class you would fail.

Based on his performance in this forum he'd never even be allowed though the school's front door.

 

[spidey07]

I disagree. Gun control wouldn't solve anything.


this kid had issues. the warning signs were ignored. his parents were reaching out for help because they were worried he would hurt someone.

there needs to be something in place for situations like that. only issue i see is how it can work without abuse.

Yes. It was the abuse that swung the pendulum this far. And that rests solely on the liberal.

 

[shira]

Yes. It was the abuse that swung the pendulum this far. And that rests solely on the liberal.

So in other words you agree that the reason that the "pendulum of gun rights" has "swung this far" (meaning "too far") can be "blamed" on liberals.

Good to see that even a gun-nut understands that in America the extent of gun "rights" and gun ownership have gotten seriously out of whack.

 

[CitizenKain]

Yes. It was the abuse that swung the pendulum this far. And that rests solely on the liberal.

So you are saying there wasn't enough gun control, and you are right.