[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

That won't ever happen. It's a faulty analogy.
Refer to the ikara cult's posts.
Thanks for the ammo.

how is it a faulty analogy?
people seek meaning in all deatsh even though they are all meaningless.
someone kills people with homemead bombs, instead of studying why he did it and why he felt he had to, they study he got ahold of some fertilizer.
weapons are weapons.
it is an APT analogy.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the actual stats are over 44 milion gun owners


a hydrogen bomb can destroy 25 million handguns. sorry. you might as well fight with toothpicks.

oh, and then there's the neutron bomb. that one is priceless. leaves all the shit intact, only people die.

44 million gun owners, that is around 25% of the population. not so scary

a government that chooses to anhihilate it's own populace with nuclear weapons will not be stopped by an army of citizens, no shit. but that will not happen. a government a tyrannical government is much more likely to send in the national guard or the marines, essentially having citizens fight citizens. in that scenario, 44 million gun owners with 225 million guns would scare the fuck out of a tyrannical government.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by swa(y)

but even on that note, ive never really hurt anyone physically, im pretty passive in nature, not to mention small. 5'10, 130 lbs. ...im hardely a threat.

With a firearm, at a distance of 10 feet, you could be 5ft tall and 4 stone 7 pounds and you have the same capacity to kill as the Ultimate Fighting champion.
I do wonder if this is something guns do, in a society that proclaims to make all people equal but in actuality is biased to its core, having the right to have a gun gives you a feeling of sameness in the sense that it doesnt matter how poor small weak or stupid you are, you can own the same capacity to kill as someone at the top of the pile.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

44 million gun owners, that is around 25% of the population. not so scary

a government that chooses to anhihilate it's own populace with nuclear weapons will not be stopped by an army of citizens, no shit. but that will not happen. a government a tyrannical government is much more likely to send in the national guard or the marines, essentially having citizens fight citizens. in that scenario, 44 million gun owners with 225 million guns would scare the fuck out of a tyrannical government.

yeah but that's too much paranoias. you have now a federal army plus the national guards on each state.

the 2nd amendment is effectively a legal fossil...

i'm actually reading about it online right now. a lot of interesting material. so i'll post later cos right now everything in my head is half-baked

the wikipedia entry is a good starter cos it provides for many links to outside sources

check it out

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

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

44 million gun owners, that is around 25% of the population. not so scary

The idea of 25% of people in my country owning a gun scares me. To think if i pissed someone off they could have a gun.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

With a firearm, at a distance of 10 feet, you could be 5ft tall and 4 stone 7 pounds and you have the same capacity to kill as the Ultimate Fighting champion.
I do wonder if this is something guns do, in a society that proclaims to make all people equal but in actuality is biased to its core, having the right to have a gun gives you a feeling of sameness in the sense that it doesnt matter how poor small weak or stupid you are, you can own the same capacity to kill as someone at the top of the pile.

blessed are the meek with guns for they shall inherit the earth

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

The idea of 25% of people in my country owning a gun scares me. To think if i pissed someone off they could have a gun.

no different than the 100% of the country that you could piss off and they'd set fire to your house. that takes nothing but a match and some rags.


all i am saying is the guns are NOT the problem and never have been. it is th culture.

[Rob Instigator]

check out this article about crime rates in USA versus crime rates in UK.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.
Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.
Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

[Tokolosh]

Hmmmmm. No comment.

By Curt Maynard

Darn it, my wife is going to be angry with me again today. I'm suppose to
mow the lawn and do some work on the house, but some crazy bastard went and
murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech today and the media is already fixated
on utilizing this story as another reason Americans should agree to reject
the Second Amendment and voluntarily disarm ourselves. I won't get into my
feelings about these seemingly random school shootings we seen to hear about
so often anymore or who or what motivates them other than to say I'm a bit
skeptical that they are what the media presents them to be. Why am I
skeptical? Facts behind the Columbine shootings have absolutely been covered
up, there is no doubt, most of what we heard in the media about Columbine
was skewed in such a way as to suggest that Klebold and Harris were
neo-Nazis, when in fact the opposite was true, Klebold was Jewish and he and
Harris believed themselves to be the persecuted victims of Nazi like
thinking, i.e. they hated Christians and sought to [and did] single them out
for murder. Their diaries clearly reveal this fact, but thanks to a judge
named Lewis T. Babcock, you'll never hear about this, because he just ruled
a few days ago that facts behind the Columbine shootings will be sealed for
twenty years, quite convenient timing given that this newest shooting
followed his ruling by less than two weeks [and nearly on the anniversary of
the Columbine shooting within the same week in fact]. Trust me, I guarantee
you that this latest shooting too will have many inconsistencies that the
media will not tell you about. I can smell these things any longer. The
Columbine shooting was NOT what it was portrayed to be by the media, there
were more than 100 witnesses whose testimony called into question the
official story of what happened that day in Littleton Colorado,
but many of you aren't aware of this because the media suppressed this information,
something they can easily do, because there are no longer any networks,
newspapers, or news magazines that are independent of Zionist control.

So on to the point of this article. We cannot trust the media to tell us the
truth, which means that we cannot trust what the media will tell us about
the latest shootings at Virginia Tech. The sad fact of the matter is, we
cannot trust the media period. I don't know about you, but it has come to
the point for me, where if Fox News reported that the sun rises in the East,
I'd go outside to confirm this for myself before I'd pass along this
information to anyone else.

As of right now, we do not know who the shooter was or who may have killed
him, or if he even intentionally shot himself. The reason I bring this up,
is that the media has played fast and lose with important facts in the past
so as to reinforce their primary agenda which is to convince Americans that
they should voluntarily disarm themselves in the name of a better, safer
society. Bernard Goldberg, a major league Zionist propagandist spilled the
beans on this in his latest book Arrogance, which was essentially a
worthless piece of pro-Israel propaganda with the exception of this single
important story.

As described by a Rogers University website:

Goldberg analyzed media coverage of a school shooting that occurred at the
Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia

According to Goldberg, what made this story newsworthy is that the shooter
in this event was subdued by several students who themselves used guns to
overpower the gunman. Conducting his own Lexis-Nexis search, Goldberg
pronounced himself stunned to discover that in a search of one hundred news
sources, only a few papers in the whole country reported the rescuers had
guns? (p. 186). That many newspapers then used this case to editorialize
their opposition to private ownership of handguns simply reaffirms Goldbergs
belief that a liberal media embraces a reflexive anti-gun bias.

No doubt this is true, which is reinforced by the following excerpt from a
CNN article entitled Suspects in Law School slaying arraigned, which overtly
neglects to mention that those students that tackled the gunmen were
themselves armed with firearms, which undoubtedly made their job much
easier:

Students apparently tackled the gunman, said Ellen Qualls, press secretary
for Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.

Now I'll bet anyone $100.00 today that you and I will never see, not even
once, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, or CBS, mention the fact that armed
students disarmed a shooter at the Appalachian School of Law back in 2002 on
[this is important] National Television. You will NOT hear about this story
because it does not support the primary agenda the Zionist media which seeks
to imbed into the forefront of our thinking, i.e. that its better to give up
our guns and live in alleged safety than to insist that our Second Amendment
rights to gun ownership be respected by our treasonous government. The
reason for this is that the Zionist media and the traitors in our government
fear us; they fear us because we are a heavily armed society and are
becoming more and more aware of the stink emanating from Washington DC.
Hell, if I were these people, I'd be afraid too.

The Zionist media also won't tell you that Britain and Australian crime rates
have skyrocketed since they willingly gave up their guns a few years ago,
but nonetheless it's true.

In an article I wrote some time ago entitled, Don't let go of your guns, I
emphasized how important it is not to fall for the medias lies, I wrote now
is not the time to even consider giving up guns now is the time to buy them,
in large numbers, in large calibers, for yourself, every member of your
family, and your neighbors. I meant it when I wrote it and I mean it even
more now.

As an aside, I'm watching Bush at this very moment on television as he
attempts to convince Americans that he's shocked by what took place at
Virginia Tech today. The more enlightened reader might ask; how it is that a
man who actively participated in the murder of some 3000 Americans on 9-11
could be shocked by the comparably insignificant number of 32? Fox News has
done its best for the last few hours to convince us all that Bush cares,
that he's horrified, and shocked, they're doing their best to rehabilitate
this wicked man in the minds of Americans, but it won't work the media's
time is nearly at hand. Lastly, I strongly encourage the reader to become
immediately suspicious of any story they see or hear in the media that is
prefaced with the word shocked, no matter who or where it is coming from,
because this word has been so overused and abused, that it's real purpose is
now more than apparent, to manipulate and persuade.

At the very moment I'm posting this [April 16, 2007 @ 1519], Fox News is
interviewing a student named Kelly that saw with her own eyes an Asian man
being detained by police. After she said that, Neil Cavuto immediately
interjected and stated that police are reporting that there was only one
shooter and he was killed. So you see, the story is already unraveling.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/columbineeight.php

http://www.rsu.edu/library/Guides/Go...#_ftn2%23_ftn2

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

no different than the 100% of the country that you could piss off and they'd set fire to your house. that takes nothing but a match and some rags.


all i am saying is the guns are NOT the problem and never have been. it is th culture.

i wouldnt mind if the culture had more fistfights and less gunfights.

[Savage Clone]

Doesn't Canada have a higher per capita gun ownership, but a fraction of the gun violence of the US?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

Doesn't Canada have a higher per capita gun ownership, but a fraction of the gun violence of the US?

might be... check...

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

It's only news for a couple of weeks and then it's back to the war in Iraq and the NHS crisis. Until another one of these nutters strikes again.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

no different than the 100% of the country that you could piss off and they'd set fire to your house. that takes nothing but a match and some rags.


all i am saying is the guns are NOT the problem and never have been. it is th culture.

See if someone set fire to my house theres a chance i could escape, its not an efficient way of killing someone, and many things could go wrong, i could be out, be near a door, the fire might not set.
Shooting someone however is a little less uncertain in its outcome.

the point being that lots of people having guns means its easier for someone to be killed as a result of someone reasonable losing their cool.

But your point about the culture being the real problem is of course 100% correct, i take that as a given. I havent been to america so im in no position to judge the culture from anything other than an outsider position.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

See if someone set fire to my house theres a chance i could escape, its not an efficient way of killing someone, and many things could go wrong, i could be out, be near a door, the fire might not set.
Shooting someone however is a little less uncertain in its outcome.

the point being that lots of people having guns means its easier for someone to be killed as a result of someone reasonable losing their cool.

But your point about the culture being the real problem is of course 100% correct, i take that as a given. I havent been to america so im in no position to judge the culture from anything other than an outsider position.

see the problem with this is that people get pissed off and do stupid things. if you get pissed off and you sock someone on the mouth, well, at the most you knock a couple of teeth. if you get pissed off with a gun, you end up with a humpty dumpty situation.

now people do the same with cars-- a lot of accidents are attributable to anger & violent tendencies. which sucks. but with cars you need to get training, a license, etc-- and still people drive like a bunch of assholes.

with guns, i've heard it say that only those who are thoroughly trained in their use should be allowed to touch them. but any asshole can buy a gun.

i have a story about an asshole ex-friend of mine. he tried to extort a free fuck from a whore that turned out to be a tranny-- true story! because his dad had was a cop & had a gun. so the asshole stole the gun, got drunk, and behaved like the biggest twat in history. he almost killed the tranny/ho except that (i swear im not making this up) i jumped & pushed his arm when he was pulling the trigger.

so i dont like guns because they often fall in the hands of stupid fucking irresponsible jackasses with mental problems. and that includes cops.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i wouldnt mind if the culture had more fistfights and less gunfights.

\

me either. I personally HATE guns. But I feel the right to own a killing weapon is part of life.

[atari 2600]

At Hanover High School in Mechanicsburg, VA, some student made a T-shirt by printing
"Cho Seung-Hiu
(a picture pinned to the shirt)
National Hero"
and then he put it on in class.

I just saw it on the local news.

[Rob Instigator]

nobody said the kids were wise!
I am all for free speech but just cuz you can say t does not mean there will not be repercussions. Like the kid who held up a large sign reading "Bong Hits for Jesus when the president visited his high school. hilarious, but you KNOW you are gonna get in trouble for that one!

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

\

me either. I personally HATE guns. But I feel the right to own a killing weapon is part of life.

That sounds like an opinion thats unlikely to change, but i have to say that a society in which people think that way is barbaric and animal in my eyes.
I feel i should say gun = invented for killing and nothing else is the main thrust of my feeling here.

[LifeDistortion]

I just read online that there is a teacher who connected a photograph of the student holding a hammer and the movie "Oldboy", and of course at least in this article they're running with it. So once again we're going to hear all these stories of film/television insipres violence, from all these self-righteous idiots. How about focusing the responsiblity on the individual who commited the acts instead of always looking for a scapgoat within popular culture?