Myspace to blame for colorado shooting

124

Comments

  • Depends on what you mean by restriction. Preventing someone who is mentally unstable or who has a history of violent crime from owning a gun would be a good thing. Preventing someone who does not meet these criteria from owning a gun would do nothing beneficial.


    In most cases you don't know until it's too late.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    zstillings wrote:
    Sometimes though a step in the right direction completely defeats the purpose of what is intended. Handgun ownership in DC is illegal. We have one of the highest per capita murder rates in the country. Obviously this step is in no direction except to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

    Crime rates in Washington have been dropping consistently for over ten years, and as a result gentrification has swept eastward across the District and has transformed the neighborhoods of Adams Morgan, Logan Circle, Columbia Heights, and the East End of Downtown (Chinatown). In the past ten years, the number of homicides has been halved — from 399 in 1994 to 195 in 2005. It is believed by many that the gentrification of these neighborhoods was spurred in part by the extension of Metrorail's Green Line to the Shaw, U Street, Columbia Heights, and Petworth neighborhoods during the late 1990s. The revitalization efforts began first in the Adams Morgan and Logan Circle areas and more recently in Columbia Heights.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    Why do you disregard logical arguments? Its an equally valid question, my friend.

    i'm not disregarding them though chief... i accept some of the points you are making


    1. i accept that a total handgun ban might not work
    2. i accept that the murder rate might not go down
    3. i accept that society as a whole in the US needs to be pro-active in this, its not just about banning... its about education


    what i do know is that its an experiment worth trying... give it a shot ;)

    i know that if handguns were banned/regulated properly then all those kids who die every year in the US wouldnt be dead.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Why are threads like this so popular?

    The brain kills.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Why are threads like this so popular?

    The brain kills.


    because life is so valuable...
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Crime rates in Washington have been dropping consistently for over ten years, and as a result gentrification has swept eastward across the District and has transformed the neighborhoods of Adams Morgan, Logan Circle, Columbia Heights, and the East End of Downtown (Chinatown). In the past ten years, the number of homicides has been halved — from 399 in 1994 to 195 in 2005. It is believed by many that the gentrification of these neighborhoods was spurred in part by the extension of Metrorail's Green Line to the Shaw, U Street, Columbia Heights, and Petworth neighborhoods during the late 1990s. The revitalization efforts began first in the Adams Morgan and Logan Circle areas and more recently in Columbia Heights.

    If you look at the areas where people are being pushed out to (East of the District), their crime rates are enormous. It has gotten better but I would dare people to walk alone in some of the neighborhoods that you name as the bars are closing.

    The question still remains, is all of this a reason to tell law abiding citizens that the Bill of Rights does not apply to them?
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    what i do know is that its an experiment worth trying... give it a shot ;)

    If we repeal the First Amendment, there would be a little less for people to kill over.

    Wait, we already did that.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Crime rates in Washington have been dropping consistently for over ten years, and as a result gentrification has swept eastward across the District and has transformed the neighborhoods of Adams Morgan, Logan Circle, Columbia Heights, and the East End of Downtown (Chinatown). In the past ten years, the number of homicides has been halved — from 399 in 1994 to 195 in 2005. It is believed by many that the gentrification of these neighborhoods was spurred in part by the extension of Metrorail's Green Line to the Shaw, U Street, Columbia Heights, and Petworth neighborhoods during the late 1990s. The revitalization efforts began first in the Adams Morgan and Logan Circle areas and more recently in Columbia Heights.
    Coincidentally, this time period is when Maryland and Virginia, the latter formerly home to some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation, instituted a one gun per person, per month law :)
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    hippiemom wrote:
    Coincidentally, this time period is when Maryland and Virginia, the latter formerly home to some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation, instituted a one gun per person, per month law :)

    It's doing a great job in PG County too.
  • In most cases you don't know until it's too late.

    Maybe so, but you can make that sort of argument about any kind of accidental or intentional death. I don't want to be 100% safe if it means living in a police state where there are no freedoms.
  • because life is so valuable...

    Of course it is ... But I don't appreciate your intimation that people who don't think guns should be banned don't value life.
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Maybe so, but you can make that sort of argument about any kind of accidental or intentional death. I don't want to be 100% safe if it means living in a police state where there are no freedoms.

    Exactly. In the town where I went to college, there was a kid who got in his car (fully licensed) and drove wildly down a busy street with the intention of killing as many people as possible. He got 9.
  • Ahnimus wrote:
    Why are threads like this so popular?

    The brain kills.

    Good question ...
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    don't value life.

    This makes me think an abortion thread is coming on here. ;)
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    Of course it is ... But I don't appreciate your intimation that people who don't think guns should be banned don't value life.

    it was meant from both sides... i want handguns banned as i value life too much to see it wasted

    i presume and i'm guessing, but i believe most pro-gun people wants guns to defend their own life

    both sides of the fence, i believe, value life...
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    zstillings wrote:
    Give the kid a spoon and he could kill one or two on his way to being subdued. Nobody ever talks about banning spoons though. Except airlines but they will probably ban air soon since you can't kill if you can't breathe.

    find me one example in all of american history where somebody has killed somebody else.

    likewise, find me any example where a computer has literally been used as an instrument to murder.
  • Yep, ban it. :)
    Banning solves all the world's problems ...

    the ultimate answer is to ban people. i think people should be banned altogether. we've proven that we can't live peacefully and in a manner becoming a sentient species.

    ds
    And no one sings me lullabyes
    And no one makes me close my eyes
    So I throw the windows wide
    And call to you across the sky....
  • find me one example in all of american history where somebody has killed somebody else.

    likewise, find me any example where a computer has literally been used as an instrument to murder.

    The (1982) case of Dufus County vs. Bilge Ates, who beat his opponent Steve Jobless around the face and testicles with a Sinclair ZX Spectrum keyboard, in a dispute over whose turn it was to take the next serve at Grandstand Tennis. Ates was acquitted, and now allegedly fronts Irish rock combo Manboob O' Hair and the Milkmen.

    Ah, the persistence of a legal mind. ;)
  • likewise, find me any example where a computer has literally been used as an instrument to murder.
    1. Main Entry: com·put·er
      Pronunciation: k&m-'pyü-t&r
      Function: noun
      Usage: often attributive
      : one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data
    2. Smart weapon
    3. Smart weapons in forward role
    4. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
    ds
    And no one sings me lullabyes
    And no one makes me close my eyes
    So I throw the windows wide
    And call to you across the sky....
  • DarkStar wrote:
    1. Main Entry: com·put·er
      Pronunciation: k&m-'pyü-t&r
      Function: noun
      Usage: often attributive
      : one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data
    2. Smart weapon
    3. Smart weapons in forward role
    4. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
    ds

    Ah, so that explains their lack of accuracy. Myspace Tom is designing the software. :D
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    The (1982) case of Dufus County vs. Bilge Ates, who beat his opponent Steve Jobless around the face and testicles with a Sinclair ZX Spectrum keyboard, in a dispute over whose turn it was to take the next serve at Grandstand Tennis. Ates was acquitted, and now allegedly fronts Irish rock combo Manboob O' Hair and the Milkmen.

    Ah, the persistence of a legal mind. ;)


    :D

    cant have been a ZX Spectrum as the murder weapon... those rubber keys would act as small crash barriers.... until they all got stuck under the plastic fascia... zx sepctrum... horace goes skiig... ahhhhh i feel old now... do you? are you happy with that?... you've made me feel old.... i'm so depressed now...


    myspace it is :)
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • miller8966miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    Why do people want the government overly involved in their lives? No you cant fucking have my gun...its mine not yours..
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • miller8966miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    :D

    cant have been a ZX Spectrum as the murder weapon... those rubber keys would act as small crash barriers.... until they all got stuck under the plastic fascia... zx sepctrum... horace goes skiig... ahhhhh i feel old now... do you? are you happy with that?... you've made me feel old.... i'm so depressed now...


    myspace it is :)

    well if you dont like americas gun laws than stay in scotland..cause we aint changing baby...NRA all the way!
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    miller8966 wrote:
    I agree...But cars do kill alot of people also..maybe even more than guns

    They do.

    Twice as many as guns EVERY YEAR!
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    69charger wrote:
    They do.

    Twice as many as guns EVERY YEAR!

    And your chances of dying in a car accident are more than twice as great as dying from a gunshot wound.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    miller8966 wrote:
    I agree...But cars do kill alot of people also..maybe even more than guns

    and to drive a car you are required to take several classes, practice driving sessions with a qualified instructor, maneuverability/parallel parking. you have to maintain insurance. you have to register any car you buy and make sure it is tracked from owner to owner. you have to renew your license on a regular basis. you are required to maintain your car in certain working order. you are subject to fines if you are found to misuse your car (speeding, etc).

    is all of this unreasonable? therefore, is it really so unreasonable to ask that we keep a bit more control over who can buy guns and what they can do with them in this country?

    the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that our citizens could form militias to defend the country from its government in a pinch. im sorry, but your pistol is not going to stop the US army if our leader decides to make this a dictatorship. furthermore, it says NOTHING about guns. it says "keep and bear arms." considering this and the purpose it was intended for, using your logic that the 2nd amendment guarantees you absolute freedom from any accountability for any "arms" you possess... we should not just be able to buy guns. we should also be able to own landmines, rocket launchers, grenades, cruise missiles, nuclear warheads, and any other "arms" we feel are necessary for maintaining a well ordered militia. is that, in fact, what you are suggesting? because if it is not, then you are already placing restrictions on the 2nd amendment "for the greater good" and you have no ground to stand upon when you claim that advocates of tighter gun laws are violating the 2nd amendment. so are you.
  • It's all Stone's fault. Not Marilyn Manson's.
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • 69charger69charger Posts: 1,045
    and to drive a car you are required to take several classes, practice driving sessions with a qualified instructor, maneuverability/parallel parking. you have to maintain insurance. you have to register any car you buy and make sure it is tracked from owner to owner. you have to renew your license on a regular basis. you are required to maintain your car in certain working order. you are subject to fines if you are found to misuse your car (speeding, etc).

    is all of this unreasonable? therefore, is it really so unreasonable to ask that we keep a bit more control over who can buy guns and what they can do with them in this country?

    By your logic, Cars are far, far, FAR, more dangerous than guns. Afterall, drving a car requires all sorts of intensive training, licensing, and registration, and still manages to kill twice as many Americans a year as something that requires no training or licensing?!?

    BTW, you are subject to fines and jail time for misuse of a firearm.
    the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that our citizens could form militias to defend the country from its government in a pinch. im sorry, but your pistol is not going to stop the US army if our leader decides to make this a dictatorship. furthermore, it says NOTHING about guns. it says "keep and bear arms." considering this and the purpose it was intended for, using your logic that the 2nd amendment guarantees you absolute freedom from any accountability for any "arms" you possess... we should not just be able to buy guns. we should also be able to own landmines, rocket launchers, grenades, cruise missiles, nuclear warheads, and any other "arms" we feel are necessary for maintaining a well ordered militia. is that, in fact, what you are suggesting? because if it is not, then you are already placing restrictions on the 2nd amendment "for the greater good" and you have no ground to stand upon when you claim that advocates of tighter gun laws are violating the 2nd amendment. so are you.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Not the right of the Militia or that of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE.

    Ladies and Gents, these men knew exactly what they were talking about when they wrote this amendment. It is one of the most important rights we have. All the other rights given to us by the constitution mean nothing if you lack a means to defend those rights from those who wish to take them from you.

    As for the argument of a person going up against the government with a pistol. If enough people are willing to fight a tyrannical goverment they could take over in a heartbeat. Look at what the insurgency is doing to us in Iraq. Now think of the millions of gun owners in this country that actually know how to shoot, most better than privates in the army. We have access to a lot of the same gear and technology as our army. It could be done.
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    miller8966 wrote:
    well if you dont like americas gun laws than stay in scotland..cause we aint changing baby...NRA all the way!

    Well there's a serious problem in the States but I guess with an attitude like yours we'll be seeing a lot of threads about shool shootings.

    Thank god, there are people who do want change in America.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    69charger wrote:
    As for the argument of a person going up against the government with a pistol. If enough people are willing to fight a tyrannical goverment they could take over in a heartbeat. Look at what the insurgency is doing to us in Iraq. Now think of the millions of gun owners in this country that actually know how to shoot, most better than privates in the army. We have access to a lot of the same gear and technology as our army. It could be done.

    I very much doubt it.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
Sign In or Register to comment.