On 21 July, 2012, in the small city of Alice, Texas, three died thanks to gang activity. Seems one car load of gang fellas shot at others, hitting one (18 year old guy on the street corner, his being part of a gang is open to question, but he was hanging about on a street corner at 3:30 AM ...) and three others fled, shooting the initial shooters and missing, then two of three died when the driver slammed into the side of a church.
Obvious remedy is per Caco's ideas:
Ban driving Ban churches
Those two causes combined to kill more than the guns did, in that case.
The local chief of police is pretty sure it is gang-on-gang violence. Odds of any of them having both legally and illegally purchased firearms? Stolen firearms?
Per my friends in law enforcement, high on the latter two, medium on the former.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 25th Jul 2012 at 20:37.
And some of the press in the UK are telling the world how Holmes, shock horror, "made the beast with two backs" with local hookers for at least a year....
Guess we better ban hookers too, they turn people loopy.
Hellsbrink: I don't know what pushes you to promote so much guns right now just after this massacre. Maybe wait a bit for your gun propaganda?
Either you are an angry individual concerning almost all matters in life, either you misunderstand many people around you. Either way it doesn't look good.
I know we want to present ourselves like almost perfect, even on PPRuNe, but I really hope there is no mrs Hellsbrink seing you passing all your time on JB fighting ghosts with much hatress. Give yourself a break and go to the beach sometimes. Or wherever it is relaxing to go when staying in Belgium. More chocolate maybe?
Concerning this mass killing, it makes me a bit unconfortable to read you saying guns are okay in hands of everybody because knives and other axes can be heavily deadly. What kind of logic is that? If knives are so deadly, so what about the 4 weapons Holmes the psycopath bought? Why he didn't buy knives instead? Why not going to war with knives and axes? Why WW2 was so deadly, because we used knives? You are so lost in your own very special logic to defend guns at any price that it is a bit scary to read you at times.
I don't see any possible way to ban guns either in Europe or in the US, so stop your little song that doesn't sound appropriate here after this mass killing. You are not in danger, neither are your guns, stop to let us believe you could be the victim coming from a supposedly gun ban policies, it only exist in your slightly paranoid mind.
I have not seen any of your consideration concerning the Aurora victims, who should be the most important matter here, not defending your guns when nobody wants to take them from you. Seing your behaviour here though... It wouldn't be such a bad idea probabely...
Calm down, nobody wants anything from you, think about the victims, and the future ones (that is every 3 months now, gun mass killing), and support the idea psychopath should have it harder to buy weapons. That's the most positive thoughts you could have those weeks, don't miss it.
Flying Binghi has a valid point. The ubiquitous violence portrayed in movies does seem to be able to trigger psychopathic responses in a subset of the audience.
While we revere freedom of speech and expression, consequences are that unlimited free speech, manifested in the form of violent, anti-social hero/villains begets real life violence.
It's similar to the debate on guns. Is the Freedom worth the consequences?
Hellsbrink: I don't know what pushes you to promote so much guns right now just after this massacre. Maybe wait a bit for your gun propaganda?
Either you are an angry individual concerning almost all matters in life, either you misunderstand many people around you. Either way it doesn't look good.
I know we want to present ourselves like almost perfect, even on PPRuNe, but I really hope there is no mrs Hellsbrink seing you passing all your time on JB fighting ghosts with much hatress. Give yourself a break and go to the beach sometimes. Or wherever it is relaxing to go when staying in Belgium. More chocolate maybe?
Concerning this mass killing, it makes me a bit unconfortable to read you saying guns are okay in hands of everybody because knives and other axes can be heavily deadly. What kind of logic is that? If knives are so deadly, so what about the 4 weapons Holmes the psycopath bought? Why he didn't buy knives instead? Why not going to war with knives and axes? Why WW2 was so deadly, because we used knives? You are so lost in your own very special logic to defend guns at any price that it is a bit scary to read you at times.
I don't see any possible way to ban guns either in Europe or in the US, so stop your little song that doesn't sound appropriate here after this mass killing. You are not in danger, neither are your guns, stop to let us believe you could be the victim coming from a supposedly gun ban policies, it only exist in your slightly paranoid mind.
I have not seen any of your consideration concerning the Aurora victims, who should be the most important matter here, not defending your guns when nobody wants to take them from you. Seing your behaviour here though... It wouldn't be such a bad idea probabely...
Calm down, nobody wants anything from you, think about the victims, and the future ones (that is every 3 months now, gun mass killing), and support the idea psychopath should have it harder to buy weapons. That's the most positive thoughts you could have those weeks, don't miss it.
I see you have not evolved past the insult again, and you still haven't evolved past the pathetic level of your post claiming that "a little bird told you" I was allegedly searching for something. You are irrelevant to the discussion.
BTW.
You do realise the potential implications of your little
Quote:
I am hearing you trying to dig up some old thread on PPRuNe to try to prove you are right
claim? You are saying that someone in the moderating or admin team has passed on non-public information to a third party (you) without the consent or knowledge of the first party (me). You are saying that someone here has deliberately breached privacy rules regarding the forum, privacy policy of the parent company (Internet Brands) AND, potentially, US privacy legislation (since Internet Brands is a US company) to try help slander and libel someone. That is what you are saying, isn't it. Or are you saying that you have access to said information and have abused that privilege to try and score a point in a discussion where you could not truly answer a simple question? Either way, you have potentially put the entire forum in a precarious position. Some will be assuming that the moderation team cannot be trusted in any way and will leave, meaning advertising revenue drops which could affect the viability of the forum, others will look at this as something that cannot be allowed and report the breach of privacy to the parent company which could also lead to complications for the forum. And don't try to give me the "public forum, there is no privacy" garbage either, as anything like PM's or searches are NOT something in the public domain like posts in a thread and any selective distribution of things like that is a breach of policy.
So I would think VERY carefully about what you say and do next, the consequences of your pig headedness could be far reaching. Personally, I am not bothered about what goes on in your little mind, but others may not think the same. You crossed a line, however, and have not only made yourself look arrogant and stupid but have made the moderating and admin teams look worse due to your little rant. I do hope you are proud of yourself.
Flying Binghi has a valid point. The ubiquitous violence portrayed in movies does seem to be able to trigger psychopathic responses in a subset of the audience.
Therefore, by that argument, the evening news would trigger the same so surely there should be more of these psychopathic responses. There isn't. The same goes for TV shows like the A-Team, where hundreds of rounds get "fired" off every episode, and why did we never have sprees blamed on movies 30-40 years ago, since things were pretty damn violent and realistically graphic back then.
It's the same as those who blame computer games, even to the extent where a game was claimed to have influenced a teenager who killed a teenage neighbour, despite it being the victim who owned the game and not the perpetrator. And, like I said previously, if computer games have such an influence then there should be a hell of a lot more farmers out there.
So I take these claims with a large pinch of salt. As had been said previously, nobody knows what goes through the mind of a psychopath. Anything could have triggered him, you cannot blame the movie industry.
PS, can anyone else verify KAG's claims of a mass killing using guns every 3 months? I certainly ain't seen that on the news.
Extraordinary how one's opinions get twisted on threads like this!
Whereever have I advocated banning anything?
Just be a little more prudent in granting licenses to manage potentially lethal weapons. So, sure, test car drivers and ensure they are mentally and physically able to handle their cars. Same goes for gun ownership.
The fact that anybody can own an automatic or semi automatic weapon, amass a cache of ammuntion large enough to fight a small war and have done this with less oversight than is required to own and drive a car just makes me shake my head in wonder.
As for churches, well I am no fan of religion, but just as you are free to purposely twist my message, so you are free to follow any supernatural (some might say imaginary) deity that tickles your psychological needs and I will fight for your right to be that stupid too!
The fact that anybody can own an automatic or semi automatic weapon, amass a cache of ammuntion large enough to fight a small war and have done this with less oversight than is required to own and drive a car just makes me shake my head in wonder.
But is there really less "oversight" than is required to own and drive a car?
What do you need to produce as "proof" of being a "fit person" when you buy a car? Nothing, you just need the means to pay for it. There's no checks. To drive LEGALLY, then there is a little oversight as you need to be able to prove you have a licence (you are legally allowed to drive) to get insurance, but that's it. Once you get that piece of paper that says you are insured to drive that vehicle, or that the vehicle is insured, there's no more checks. Nobody checks your criminal background, nobody checks any medical records to see if you have been treated for some sort of mental illness, none of the things on that Federal list I posted are checked to see if you are competent enough to drive.
Now, sure. More things could be done. Same as driving, and that would explain why more deaths occur on the roads than there are firearm related deaths, you can bring in more stringent restrictions on firearms and/or ammo. Restrict the ammo and the local, competent, loon can reload cartridges he has used so there is then no control over his "stash". And, of course, he can always get a firearm or 6 illegally, and you can't stop that either. Same as you can't stopp someone banned from driving from buying a car and running around illegally and without insurance. But, sticking with legally held weapons and autos, even if you did a full psych evaluation on every driver, or any potential gun owner, how could you guarantee that said driver wouldn't have a brainfart one day and drive into a bridge, or drive the wrong way down a motorway, in an attempt to commit suicide? Or take a bus and drive as fast as possible through streets in India, taking out anyone in the way? Or use a gun to shoot himself and/or others? You can't guarantee that won't happen again, no matter what checks you do, and that brings me back to the point I made earlier regarding preventing mass killings. You'll never stop them unless you ban humans, and we can't do that. We have to be realistic here and accept it WILL happen again, and just hope it won't happen to us or someone we know.
What do you need to produce as "proof" of being a "fit person" when you buy a car? Nothing, you just need the means to pay for it. There's no checks. To drive LEGALLY, then there is a little oversight as you need to be able to prove you have a licence (you are legally allowed to drive) to get insurance, but that's it. Once you get that piece of paper that says you are insured to drive that vehicle, or that the vehicle is insured, there's no more checks. Nobody checks your criminal background, nobody checks any medical records to see if you have been treated for some sort of mental illness, none of the things on that Federal list I posted are checked to see if you are competent enough to drive.
Maybe so in the USA. In other places there are some rules. Such as, you can be disqualified from driving before ever having acquired a licence by committing the right sort of crimes: the licence, when you do later acquire it, does not then entitle you to drive. Also some places do actually care, and have rules, about whether or not you are medically fit to drive.
If the audience had been carrying guns there would probably have been many more casualties. The USA has more than 23000 gunshot deaths every year,about 8500 of these deaths are homicides,8 children a day are shot dead - if that number were dying of a disease it would be called an epidemic. The sad fact is that nothing can be done about this as the guns - over 200 million of them are already in society and no gun legislation will ever remove them. The idiot who quoted the Swedish massacre and the Hungerford killings obviously does not have the intelligence to see that in most countries these are rare events as opposed to the USA where these are a frequent occurrence. Have a look at murder rates throughout the world - the USA has a much higher rate than any other industrialised country. No action at all will be taken to prevent another incident like Aurora and a few weeks down the line we will see it all again.
Such as, you can be disqualified from driving before ever having acquired a licence by committing the right sort of crimes:
Same here and as with guns, that doesn't stop people from driving and killing people with their vehicles. Such as being an illegal alien/immigrant, which makes them a criminal to start with, millions of them drive vehicles with no insurance and kill people more than are killed with guns just in case you are curious. In fact, you have a better chance of being run over by a illegal immigrant, than even hearing a gunshot in the vast majority of the US. Let alone getting hit by a bullet.
Quote:
In other places there are some rules.
So, you are saying that the US has no rules?
Well, I wish you'd make up your mind, on previous post you were all huffy and declared that you would never come to the USA because of our laws, too many laws regarding the TSA and what all. So we either have too many or not enough according to you.
No, we're not a police state like the UK with CCTV cameras on every street corner, but have all kinds of laws and rules. We also have people that chose to not obey them. Just as in the UK where you are at twice the risk of being a victim of a violent crime than in the US.
To drive LEGALLY, then there is a little oversight as you need to be able to prove you have a licence (you are legally allowed to drive) to get insurance, but that's it.
If you have been an idiot and have been banned, then you are not legally allowed to drive! But that will not be something that stops you from actually BUYING a car, and I talk about the UK and not the US, Belgium and not the US, France and not the US. So, please, stop trying to put words in my mouth or tell me when you have been required by law to prove you have NO criminal record, you have a valid driving licence, etc, when you have bought a car in the UK.
bcgallagher
Quote:
If the audience had been carrying guns there would probably have been many more casualties. The USA has more than 23000 gunshot deaths every year,about 8500 of these deaths are homicides,8 children a day are shot dead - if that number were dying of a disease it would be called an epidemic. The sad fact is that nothing can be done about this as the guns - over 200 million of them are already in society and no gun legislation will ever remove them. The idiot who quoted the Swedish massacre and the Hungerford killings obviously does not have the intelligence to see that in most countries these are rare events as opposed to the USA where these are a frequent occurrence. Have a look at murder rates throughout the world - the USA has a much higher rate than any other industrialised country. No action at all will be taken to prevent another incident like Aurora and a few weeks down the line we will see it all again.
Covered plenty times in this thread, repeating it like a parrot does when it hears the same thing repeatedly does not make it true. Especially as more incidents of this type happen in China. And that also blows away your other "claim" regarding the highest rate than any other industrialised country out of the water, unless you are claiming China isn't one.
So I would think VERY carefully about what you say and do next, the consequences of your pig headedness could be far reaching.
Are you threatening me with your guns? Give it a rest, anyone can see PPRuNe has some effect on your strss level. Keep it down for a while, you'll feel better. And if you stay, don't even bother, you don't impress me the least, you have no idea.
PS: you affirmed in this thread I wrote in the past I wanted guns to be banned on PPRuNe, so I repeat, you either quote me, either admit you lied. Why should I accept you to say something about me when you make it up?
I don't expect you to admit it, you are not this kind of profile very obviously. So the above remains: give it a rest, do some gym, some boxing for example, it relaxes a lot believe me, anyway get out sometimes.
Like you make things up about people searching threads, KAG, or are you stating that the moderators/admin do routinely pass on information they should not to support some sort of failed argument. Or are you stating that you are a moderator/admin who routinely abuses his position?
Since, again, that was a straight question I do not expect an answer to it at any time.
Hellsbrink, I just want you to deal with what you write here:
Quote:
And you have stated that firearms should be banned, in other threads, so we are justified in bringing up alternatives to that concept of yours in this thread.
So you either quote me, either admit you made it up. It that too much to ask? I believe this is fair enough.
You are speaking about moderators, may I remind you one of the PPRuNe rules?
Without limiting the foregoing, the following behaviors are strictly prohibited:
Harassing, intimidating, stalking or threatening other community members
Now read again what you just told me:
Quote:
So I would think VERY carefully about what you say and do next, the consequences of your pig headedness could be far reaching.
It is called threatening, Hellsbrink, unless you'll try to avoid that one too, which wouldn't suprise me much.
You defend easy access to guns when we speak about mass killing. Alright, at least prove the ones who defend easy access to guns are smart, quiet, respectful and polite individuals who can own guns, this is your chance to get some credibility here.
KAG, that's now three times where you have jumped into this thread and launched a tirade directly at myself without even trying to debate the subject at hand.
So I suggest looking closer to home when spouting off things like your last post.
Now, to get back to things we should be talking about, I see Obama has decided that new, restrictive gun laws are unnecessary. Now, does that mean that the existing laws are good enough or is it just because it's an election year?
EDIT: looks like time stamp fairy is back. This was originally posted AFTER KAG's last tirade.
I do believe you've got that one right. If, I mean when, Obama is reelected, we're going to see stuff that will boggle the imagination, and not in a good way.
Con pilot, I was correcting my post, I am afraid you'll have to delete and post it again after me
Hellsbrink: I see some improvement in your last post, thanks for the effort, even if you avoid, once more, my question.
Quote:
Now, to get back to things we should be talking about, I see Obama has decided that new, restrictive gun laws are unnecessary. Now, does that mean that the existing laws are good enough or is it just because it's an election year?
