Four school shootings in a week
Harry Hope
The shooting was the fourth at a U.S. school within a week.
On Feb. 8, a woman shot two fellow students to death before committing
suicide at Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge.
In Memphis, Tenn., a 17-year-old is accused of shooting and critically
wounding a fellow student Monday during a high school gym class, and
the 15-year-old victim of a shooting at an Oxnard, Calif., junior high
school has been declared brain dead.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/ap_on_re_us/niu_shooting
6 dead in N. Illinois U. hall shooting
By CARYN ROUSSEAU and DEANNA BELLANDI, Associated Press Writers
DEKALB, Ill. -
A former student dressed in black walked onto the stage of a lecture
hall at Northern Illinois University and opened fire on a packed
science class Thursday, killing five students, wounding 16 and setting
off a panicked stampede before committing suicide.
_____________________________________________
Harry
David Hartung
Your point?
Winston Smith, American Patriot
So your question is an attempt to say that you absolutely learned nothing
from the story because you persist in being a Bush-worshipping right-wing
dumfuk?
That's the point I take away from your response, unless you wish to
clarify.
Smirnoff
Another gun nut that just doesn't get it.
Mitchell Holman
in news:Xns9A4540CBE...@207.115.17.102:
Hartung thinks everyone has a right to carry a gun
wherever they want to.
Mitchell Holman
"I say that the government has no business limiting anyone's
access to firearms". David Hartung, 4/28/07.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
That would take us back to the "Wild West" days with a concomitant high
rate of deaths-by-firearms per 100,000 people.
It is because there is NOT a gun ban EVERYWHERE that these murders-by-
firearms are also occurring seemingly EVERYWHERE.
The police at NIU are going over the timeline of that killer's activities.
IF EVERYONE in that auditorium had been armed, that killer would have
still killed and/or critically injured the same number of people, since
the shots he fired were done within seconds. He would also be shooting
without worrying about taking cover while others would first be looking to
find a defensive cover before drawing their own weapons and firing, since
they don't draw a weapon from a suicidal stance, whereas the killer was
already prepared to commit suicide. Of course, if the killer goes into
the auditorium knowing everyone is armed, he probably takes a more
advantageous position by which to kill the largerst numbers.
You can bet that EVERY one of those weapons in the killer's hands were
LEGALLY OBTAINED in a supposedly developed society that allows guns to be
ubiquituous....unlike truly developed societies.
If a rigid gun ban throughout the country were enforced, the count of mass
killings by firearms would drop precipitously. The facts show that.
Death-by-firearms rates in developed societies with gun bans are a
INFINITESIMAL FRACTION of the death-by-firearms rates in the United
States, which is only lower than countries in a state of war.
David Hartung
That's the basic message of the Second Amendment.
In the above situations, the fact that an individual possessed a weapon
was not the problem. The problem is what that individual did with the
weapon.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
The 2nd Amendment, according to the standard gun stroker's thinking, also
protects our right to possess a shoulder-launched low-yield rocket-fired
tactical nuclear weapon. It's a good thing we are being cavalier in saying
that there was a "problem [with] what that individual did with the weapon"
in the case of a nuke.
A gun stroker would not have invaded Iraq for Saddam's right to have
weapons now, would he?
Smirnoff
That's the basic message of the NRA and the gun nut community.
>
> In the above situations, the fact that an individual possessed a
> weapon was not the problem. The problem is what that individual did
> with the weapon.
This changes what?
Smirnoff
"You want to disarm everyone"
"Why do you want to take away my rights"
"You must be a "LIBERAL""
"From my cold dead hands" (and the gun nut crowd goes wild)
Geo
<FranzKa...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote:
> Mitchell Holman <Noem...@comcast.com> wrote in alt.politics.bush:
>
>
>
> > "Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKa...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV>
> > wrote innews:Xns9A4540CBE...@207.115.17.102:
>
> >> David Hartung <dhart...@none.net> wrote in alt.politics.bush:
Would you be surprised to learn that the crime rate in what we now
refer to as the "wild wild west" was actually lower than it is in most
American cities now? Take a guess why.
Salad
Here's a link from the Clint Eastwood movie Unforgiven where the Duke or
Duck is accosted by the sheriff played by Gene Hackman. The sheriff
really didn't like guns in the town...and made an example of this fact
with the Duke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xWqbzLsW8Q&feature=related
Smirnoff
Loony from loontown........Wahahahahaha......
Ya, give everyone a gun. That will make everyone
safer...........Wahahahaha........Man you are one stupid moron. There are
far more sick people that get guns then ever before and you WANT them all to
have guns. Do you still read those wild west comics Jessie?
Smirnoff
Which one is you? The drunk that fell off his horse?
Smirnoff
>
> Are you that dense?
They all are. Every gun nut that responds to this thread is just as loony as
the next. They all see themselves as the hero that is there to save the day
by getting the drop on some nut that already has everybody covered.
Broomstick cowboys every one of them.
Jeffrey Turner
>
>
> Here's a link from the Clint Eastwood movie Unforgiven where the Duke or
> Duck is accosted by the sheriff played by Gene Hackman. The sheriff
> really didn't like guns in the town...and made an example of this fact
> with the Duke.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xWqbzLsW8Q&feature=related
I saw that movie. Typical gun-lover rant. Guns were not so subtly
equated with penises. The sheriff who confiscated guns was even called
"Little Willy" or something like that. It was the guys with guns,
teamed up with the prostitutes, who saved the day.
--Jeff
--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman
Geo
Where did I ever say I wanted sick people to have guns? I notice you
didn't respond to fact I posted.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:01:16 -0600, David Hartung
> <dhar...@none.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Hartung thinks everyone has a right to carry a gun
>>> wherever they want to.
>>
>>That's the basic message of the Second Amendment.
>
> No, it is not
>
> The "Basic message", crafted in rural, agrarian, 18th
> century, suggested that every individual should be
> ready to help a small, frail central government enforce
> military-type duties against foriegn enemies and
> outlying attacks.
>
> The second "underlying message" was reflected in the
> fact that IF a central government became "large" (which
> it was not at the time) like European governments, it
> was put into writing THEY (the government) could not
> pass laws that set themselves up to thwart a "rule of
> law".
>
> But WE devised a "rule of law" (constitution) that
> addressed ALL the known "grievances" which would
> logically preclude having to use "guns" to force
> government to stay within the bounds of that contract
> with the people
>
> Blanket "everyone gets a gun" nonsense is stupid,
> Hartung
>
> States DO have the right to pass gun laws
>
> THey have for generations
>
> That negates ANY "literal reading " of the 2nd
> Amendment.
No WEAPONS control law ever passed in the United States, of which there
have been many, has ever been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme
Court.
David Hartung
just out of curiosity, what was the "death-by-firearms" rate in the days
of the "wild west"?
David Hartung
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:01:16 -0600, David Hartung
> <dhar...@none.net> wrote:
>
>>> wherever they want to.
>> That's the basic message of the Second Amendment.
>
>
> The "Basic message", crafted in rural, agrarian, 18th
> century, suggested that every individual should be
> ready to help a small, frail central government enforce
> military-type duties against foriegn enemies and
> outlying attacks.
>
> The second "underlying message" was reflected in the
> fact that IF a central government became "large" (which
> it was not at the time) like European governments, it
> was put into writing THEY (the government) could not
> pass laws that set themselves up to thwart a "rule of
> law".
>
> But WE devised a "rule of law" (constitution) that
> addressed ALL the known "grievances" which would
> logically preclude having to use "guns" to force
> government to stay within the bounds of that contract
> with the people
>
> Blanket "everyone gets a gun" nonsense is stupid,
> Hartung
>
> States DO have the right to pass gun laws
>
> THey have for generations
>
> That negates ANY "literal reading " of the 2nd
> Amendment.
So, you can make the Constitution mean whatever you wish?
David Hartung
>
> Are you that dense?
Merely asking a reasonable question.
David Hartung
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:04:28 -0600, David Hartung
> constutition anyway YOU think it should be---despite
> the logical arguments of WHY the amendment was written,
> when it was written and the venue in which it pertained
> when written---then skip 220 some odd years and apply
> it "literally"
How is that different from your rather creative interpretations?
Jorge W. Arbusto, Presidentchul Candydate
"Smirnoff" <Unl...@unlisted.com> wrote in message
news:X6ktj.1219$lU5...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
air rifle!
No, you'll shoot your eye out.
Jorge W. Arbusto, Presidentchul Candydate
<stuff...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ppkbr3hlp8s9bgi8t...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:39:03 -0500, "Smirnoff" <Unl...@unlisted.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>They all are. Every gun nut that responds to this thread is just as loony
>>as
>>the next. They all see themselves as the hero that is there to save the
>>day
>>by getting the drop on some nut that already has everybody covered.
>>Broomstick cowboys every one of them.
>
>
Or maybe their Ralphie Parker from A Christmas Story Moment, "Oh my God, I
shot my eye out!"
Winston Smith, American Patriot
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:19:05 GMT, "Winston Smith,
> American Patriot" <Franz...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV>
> wrote:
>
>>> That negates ANY "literal reading " of the 2nd
>>> Amendment.
>>
>>No WEAPONS control law ever passed in the United States, of which there
>>have been many, has ever been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme
>>Court.
>
> Good
>
> Then I want YOU to purchase a gun and walk into any
> 7-11 store and tell them the constitution forbids "gun
> laws" and you "aint gonna take it off"
Why would I do that?
Read my response again.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
> Nic...@Click.com wrote:
It works for Scalitoberts, which is a run of the names of what will prove
to be the worst justices in the history of the Court: Roberts, Scalia,
and Alito.
Mitchell Holman
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> "Winston Smith, American Patriot" <Franz...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV>
>> wrote in news:Xns9A4540CBE...@207.115.17.102:
>>
>>> David Hartung <dhar...@none.net> wrote in alt.politics.bush:
>>>
>>>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>>>> The shooting was the fourth at a U.S. school within a week.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb. 8, a woman shot two fellow students to death before
>>>>> committing suicide at Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Memphis, Tenn., a 17-year-old is accused of shooting and
>>>>> critically wounding a fellow student Monday during a high school gym
>>>>> class, and the 15-year-old victim of a shooting at an Oxnard,
>>>>> Calif., junior high school has been declared brain dead.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/ap_on_re_us/niu_shooting
>>>>>
>>>>> 6 dead in N. Illinois U. hall shooting
>>>>>
>>>>> By CARYN ROUSSEAU and DEANNA BELLANDI, Associated Press Writers
>>>>>
>>>>> DEKALB, Ill. -
>>>>>
>>>>> A former student dressed in black walked onto the stage of a lecture
>>>>> hall at Northern Illinois University and opened fire on a packed
>>>>> science class Thursday, killing five students, wounding 16 and
>>>>> setting off a panicked stampede before committing suicide.
>>>> Your point?
>>> So your question is an attempt to say that you absolutely learned
>>> nothing from the story because you persist in being a Bush-worshipping
>>> right-wing dumfuk?
>>>
>>> That's the point I take away from your response, unless you wish to
>>> clarify.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hartung thinks everyone has a right to carry a gun
>> wherever they want to.
>
> That's the basic message of the Second Amendment.
>
Obviously Hartung hasn't bothered reading the
first four words of his hallowed Second Amendemnt.
David Hartung
> doctrines that they accept.
>
> You, OTOH, seem to be railing against them
>
> Which is stupid for you because you don't even know
> basic american civics
Let me see, you read the Second Amendment in such a way that I do not
have a constitutionally protected right to arm myself. While I am not a
constitutional attorney, I am not aware that any court, much less the
Supreme Court has made this ruling.
Looks to me as if you are indeed being creative.
David Hartung
Worst, of course being defined as disagreeing with you, and going by
what the document actually says.
David Hartung
I've read them, so?
Smirnoff
Facts are not unsupported babble. Can you cite such a WILD claim or are you
shooting off your mouth?
Smirnoff
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:01:41 -0600, David Hartung
> <dhar...@none.net> wrote:
>
>>> That would take us back to the "Wild West" days with a concomitant
>>> high rate of deaths-by-firearms per 100,000 people.
>>
>> just out of curiosity, what was the "death-by-firearms" rate in the
>> days of the "wild west"?
>
> with "hostiles"
>
> MOF, Hartung, Deadwood---one of the "newer" old
> frontier towns in the middle of the gold fields, passed
> "gun laws" as one of the first items on their agenda to
> control guns.
>
> Most deaths recorded in the Local papers at the time
> were related to squabbles over mining claims, or in
> bars when frictions began arising
>
> So "GUN LAWS" were passed.
Everyone knows that in the old wild west the sheriff would make everyone
check their guns and pick them up on their way out of town.
Mitchell Holman
"The right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by
the Second Amendment."
Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261
(7th Cir.1982) cert. denied, 464 US 863 (1983)
"The Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does
not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen."
Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3rd 98 (9th Cir.,1996)
"The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment
only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms
which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."
Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied,
116 S. Ct. 64 (1995)
pkgojak
"David Hartung" <dhar...@none.net> wrote in message
news:g6qdnbNmbLfTtSva...@comcast.com...
Man, Dave....you've been owned. You're embarassing us all. Walk away
man.
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
drew
A------WELL------REGULATED--------MILITIA-----??????
Richard Eich
> On Feb 15, 9:46 am, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
> > That would take us back to the "Wild West" days with a concomitant high
> > rate of deaths-by-firearms per 100,000 people.
>
> Would you be surprised to learn that the crime rate in what we now
> refer to as the "wild wild west" was actually lower than it is in most
> American cities now? Take a guess why.
Human reaction to the stress of overcrowding. It drives us (all
mammals, actually) batshit crazy. Rats will actually tear each other
apart. (Don't you inform your opinions by reading research into
animal behavior and human psychology? No? Well, please start.)
You give everybody guns, and the dorks will still come out of the
woodwork. They have a death wish, and all _armed_ targets do is up
the stakes. They'll aim to go out in a blaze of gunfire, instead of
at their own hand. The behavior, in other words, will only GET
WORSE.
--
An optimist is a person who pours themselves a big bowl of cereal
before checking to see if they have enough milk.
Richard Eich
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:20:08 -0800 (PST), Geo
> <taxpa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Would you be surprised to learn that the crime rate in what we now
> >refer to as the "wild wild west" was actually lower than it is in most
> >American cities now? Take a guess why.
>
Yep. Another damned liberal who knows how to read.
Jeffrey Turner
> taxpa...@hotmail.com wrote...
>>On Feb 15, 9:46 am, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
>
>
>>>That would take us back to the "Wild West" days with a concomitant high
>>>rate of deaths-by-firearms per 100,000 people.
>>
>>Would you be surprised to learn that the crime rate in what we now
>>refer to as the "wild wild west" was actually lower than it is in most
>>American cities now? Take a guess why.
>
> Human reaction to the stress of overcrowding. It drives us (all
> mammals, actually) batshit crazy. Rats will actually tear each other
> apart.
They wouldn't have to if only someone would make a gun they could use.
--Jeff
--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman
Geo
Here's one for starters: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176g.html
Now, get your fat head out of the sands of denial, go do some
research, and learn a thing or two. Use google. There's enough there
to keep you busy for quite some time.
Geo
> taxpayer...@hotmail.com wrote...
> > On Feb 15, 9:46 am, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
> > > That would take us back to the "Wild West" days with a concomitant high
> > > rate of deaths-by-firearms per 100,000 people.
>
> > Would you be surprised to learn that the crime rate in what we now
> > refer to as the "wild wild west" was actually lower than it is in most
> > American cities now? Take a guess why.
>
> Human reaction to the stress of overcrowding. It drives us (all
> mammals, actually) batshit crazy. Rats will actually tear each other
> apart. (Don't you inform your opinions by reading research into
> animal behavior and human psychology? No? Well, please start.)
>
> You give everybody guns, and the dorks will still come out of the
> woodwork. They have a death wish, and all _armed_ targets do is up
> the stakes. They'll aim to go out in a blaze of gunfire, instead of
> at their own hand. The behavior, in other words, will only GET
> WORSE.
>
Actually, this is the first time I've heard of such a theory about
shootings. As nutty as it is, I'm not surprised. In fact, I have yet
to hear of any mass shooter, or any shooter for that matter, who
decided to go ballistic because he felt crowded. Additionally, I have
never suggested that everybody be given guns.
Smirnoff
You have your head so far up your lame ass it is unfuckingbelievable. What
a goober.
Geo
Have you been sitting by your laptop all night waiting for me to
respond? LOL!! Get a life loser. Then go read the link I sent and
learn something.
David Hartung
Mitchell, none of these are Supreme Court rulings.
David Hartung
Your point?
Mitchell Holman
Cert denied means the Supreme Court looked
at the case and decided to leave it as is.
But then, I never counted on you knowing anything
about the law..................
Mitchell Holman
"The only "right" that an illegal immigrant has, is to
be speedily deported."
David Hartung, Feb 28, 2007. In fact illegal aliens
accused of a crime have all the same legal rights
under Constitution that an American has.
richard schumacher
Smirnoff
Have you been waiting for me to get back to you loser? You are the one
with no life. Go read some more western comics and get back to me when you
arrive in this century. You link doesn't mean shit to anyone but a gun loon
like yourself. Man you are one dumb shit. Give everyone a gun and the world
will be much safer, right? Any lower crime rates then compared to now has
nothing to do with gun ownership no matter how hard you dream about the old
west.
David Hartung
Which is not the same thing as a Supreme Court decision. It means that,
for some reason, they decided not to review it.
Richard Eich
> On Feb 15, 8:37 pm, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > taxpayer...@hotmail.com wrote...
> > > On Feb 15, 9:46 am, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
> > > > That would take us back to the "Wild West" days with a concomitant high
> > > > rate of deaths-by-firearms per 100,000 people.
> >
> > > Would you be surprised to learn that the crime rate in what we now
> > > refer to as the "wild wild west" was actually lower than it is in most
> > > American cities now? Take a guess why.
> >
> > Human reaction to the stress of overcrowding. It drives us (all
> > mammals, actually) batshit crazy. Rats will actually tear each other
> > apart. (Don't you inform your opinions by reading research into
> > animal behavior and human psychology? No? Well, please start.)
> >
> > You give everybody guns, and the dorks will still come out of the
> > woodwork. They have a death wish, and all _armed_ targets do is up
> > the stakes. They'll aim to go out in a blaze of gunfire, instead of
> > at their own hand. The behavior, in other words, will only GET
> > WORSE.
>
> Actually, this is the first time I've heard of such a theory about
> shootings. As nutty as it is, I'm not surprised. In fact, I have yet
> to hear of any mass shooter, or any shooter for that matter, who
> decided to go ballistic because he felt crowded.
He wouldn't "feel" crowded. It's an indirect effect to the condition
of high population density and related psychological stresses. (So
is road rage, for that matter.)
If you don't already think you know everything, Google 'human
psychology effects overcrowding' and do some reading.
If you do think you already know everything, by all means continue to
make asinine comments about not knowing of any shooters who went
ballistic because they felt crowded.
Your choice.
> Additionally, I have never suggested that everybody be given guns.
No, just everyone who isn't "sick", if I recall correctly. But the
latest shooting was done by someone who had purchased the guns
legally and who by all tangible indicators was completely normal.
David Hartung
> He was given four cases, one a Supreme COurt case and two with cert
> denied. and he's still going to feign ignorance and innocence.
It is possible that I missed one, but I only counted three cases, all
circuit court rulings. The funny thing is that one of them came out of
the 9th Circus, I mean Circuit.
David Hartung
> remember them.
>
> HArtung:
>>>> While I am not a
>>>> constitutional attorney, I am not aware that any court, much less the
>>>> Supreme Court has made this ruling.
>
Ah yes, the famous Miller case. The only problem is that your cite on
the Miller case does not state that I have no right to arm myself, and
if it had, it would have been every bit as wrong as the Dred Scott case was.
Mitchell Holman
Does the term "settled law" mean anything to you?
Mitchell Holman
"The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that
there is no individual right to own a firearm".
Robert Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, p.166
David Hartung
At one point, Dred Scott was considered to be "settled law". That didn't
make it right. Remember, the makeup of the Supreme court today is quite
a bit more conservative than it has been, and I believe that a Second
Amendment case is on the schedule this year. The issue may not be as
settled as you believe.
Geo
Check out Switzerland you lemon.
>Any lower crime rates then compared to now has
> nothing to do with gun ownership no matter how hard you dream about the old
> west.
Check out Switzerland you lemon.
Geo
Go ahead, cite a couple of cases for us where any mass shooting in the
US happened because of the stress of crowding.
> Your choice.
>
> > Additionally, I have never suggested that everybody be given guns.
>
> No, just everyone who isn't "sick", if I recall correctly. But the
> latest shooting was done by someone who had purchased the guns
> legally and who by all tangible indicators was completely normal.
>
Oh really? You missed the part about him being on meds.
Geo
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:51:22 -0800 (PST), Geo
>
> <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> If you do think you already know everything, by all means continue to
> >> make asinine comments about not knowing of any shooters who went
> >> ballistic because they felt crowded.
>
> >Go ahead, cite a couple of cases for us where any mass shooting in the
> >US happened because of the stress of crowding.
>
you cite it then.
Richard Eich
I'd say all of them, based on predicted responses of humans and other
mammals to overcrowded living conditions and other features of modern
urban life.
You attribute it to there not enough guns being carried around.
I tried to point you to easily found resources that show a
correlation between modern living conditions and abberant behavior,
but it seems to threaten your idea that more guns is the cure. If you
don't want to learn anything beyond what fits into your worldview, I
can't force it on you.
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
-- Keynes
> > Your choice.
> >
> > > Additionally, I have never suggested that everybody be given guns.
> >
> > No, just everyone who isn't "sick", if I recall correctly. But the
> > latest shooting was done by someone who had purchased the guns
> > legally and who by all tangible indicators was completely normal.
>
> Oh really? You missed the part about him being on meds.
...which wasn't enough to keep him from obtaining the guns legally.
--
"The president has said that American lives will be sacrificed if
Congress does not change FISA.
"But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not
grant retroactive immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill.
"So if we take the president at his word, he's willing to let
Americans die to protect the phone companies."
-- Senator Ted Kennedy (who I never thought I'd quote for anything)
Richard Eich
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:51:22 -0800 (PST), Geo
>
> >> If you do think you already know everything, by all means continue to
> >> make asinine comments about not knowing of any shooters who went
> >> ballistic because they felt crowded.
> >>
> >
> >Go ahead, cite a couple of cases for us where any mass shooting in the
> >US happened because of the stress of crowding.
>
It's not stupidity, it's willful ignorance. There's nothing you can
do about it except be glad you're not that way.
Geo
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:40:00 -0800 (PST), Geo
>
> <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 16, 10:08 am, stuff_st...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:51:22 -0800 (PST), Geo
>
> >> <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> If you do think you already know everything, by all means continue to
> >> >> make asinine comments about not knowing of any shooters who went
> >> >> ballistic because they felt crowded.
>
> >> >Go ahead, cite a couple of cases for us where any mass shooting in the
> >> >US happened because of the stress of crowding.
>
> >> Good lord, can you really be this stupid?
>
> >you cite it then.
>
>
> PLONK.
In other words you can't cite it so you run and hide. Very
predictable. Bye bye.
Geo
> stuff_st...@comcast.net wrote...
> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:51:22 -0800 (PST), Geo
> > <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> If you do think you already know everything, by all means continue to
> > >> make asinine comments about not knowing of any shooters who went
> > >> ballistic because they felt crowded.
>
> > >Go ahead, cite a couple of cases for us where any mass shooting in the
> > >US happened because of the stress of crowding.
>
> > Good lord, can you really be this stupid?
>
> It's not stupidity, it's willful ignorance. There's nothing you can
> do about it except be glad you're not that way.
>
Yet through it all and your little lovefest with puff-n-stuff you
can't answer my very simple question. Can't say that I'm surprised.
I'll stick with debating the adults around here.
Richard Eich
> On Feb 16, 1:12 pm, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > stuff_st...@comcast.net wrote...
> > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:51:22 -0800 (PST), Geo
> > > <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >> If you do think you already know everything, by all means continue to
> > > >> make asinine comments about not knowing of any shooters who went
> > > >> ballistic because they felt crowded.
> >
> > > >Go ahead, cite a couple of cases for us where any mass shooting in the
> > > >US happened because of the stress of crowding.
> >
> > > Good lord, can you really be this stupid?
> >
> > It's not stupidity, it's willful ignorance. There's nothing you can
> > do about it except be glad you're not that way.
>
> Yet through it all and your little lovefest with puff-n-stuff you
> can't answer my very simple question. Can't say that I'm surprised.
> I'll stick with debating the adults around here.
You can't say you're suprised that no one has answered your very
simple question: Find a citation assigning overcrowding as the cause
of a shooter snapping and killing people.
OK, let's see if you're NOT being willfully ignorant, but instead are
-- as you say -- asking a legimate question. To do this, let's take
an example from history: The bubonic plague. Now I warn you, I'm
about to build a case that I think shows you to be a willfully
ignorant simpleton -- but try to read along anyway and see if you can
figure out why you are what you are.
The plague was transmitted by fleas that carried the yersinia pestis
bacteria, and who bit people and regurgitated bacteria-infected blood
back into the open wound (i.e., the flea bite). There are some
details about why the fleas regurgitated the blood back into the bite
wound instead of eating it, but you can probably find that on Google
if you take a few minutes. (Ha.)
Fleas were easily able to find new hosts for the yersinia pestis
bacteria because of the common practice of meeting for Catholic Mass.
Fleas would hop off of one person and onto another, and voila! a new
person would be infected. Not only that, but they'd commonly carry
the flea(s) home with them and -- if you've ever had fleas -- they
got the run of the place. Bad news.
Now if you are true to the form you have shown so far, are going to
insist on asking me to prove that going to Mass killed people during
the Bubonic plague.
Now, I don't think that anyone who can turn on a computer is really
THAT stupid, so I'd have to conclude that you would be defending the
Church for some reason, and so want to posit a reductio ad absurdum
argument (your question: Prove that going to Mass killed people
during the Bubonic plague) in order to NOT really ask a question, but
to make the supposition (that going to Mass made it easy for the
fleas to find and bite new hosts, spreading the disease) seem
ridiculous.
You with me this far, Geo?
In the example above, going to Mass is what is called an indirect
factor. The carrier fleas hopping around and biting people is what
is called a direct cause.
Let's apply this to guns and shooters.
Some people are doing some batshit crazy stuff these days, such as
loading up with guns and ammo and wiping out total strangers and then
shooting themselves. One good question is: What makes human beings
do batshit crazy things? Well, sustained and systemic stress, for
one thing. It's really been very well studied, but if you're
surprised that I refuse to take your logical-fallacy-posing-as-a-
legitimate-question at face value, I'm NOT surprised that you haven't
availed yourself of the stacks of research into this behavior.
The next good question is: What causes sustained and systemic stress
in human beings? This is also well-known: Overcrowding, and many of
the secondary effects of modern (particulary urban) life. There are
other effects. One of them is apathy. Remember the Kitty Genovese
case, in NYC in 1964? Where 38 people heard Kitty get stabbed to
death out in the common area in front of her apartment building, but
not one single person intervened or called the police? Same thing.
But you know, some people deal with the complexities and stresses of
modern life by coming up with a simple solution, and once they have
it they really aren't psychologically able to deal with the effort of
reconstructing a new vision of how the world works.
If you're one of those folks, well, I know that you can't help it.
But you're worthless as far as actually being a force for solving
problems.
If you're not willfully ignorant, you're stupid. You can't help that
either, so I don't hold it against you. But I'm not wasting any more
time with you, either. Have a nice life -- and watch your back when
you're out at the shopping malls. It's getting weird out here.
Smirnoff
Ya, ya, moron, I know. You pack a gun because the crime rate rose in
Australia and Switzerland. Now you are safer. Man you are one stupid
shit-for-brains. That has about as much to do with the present crime rate in
the US as the old west now doesn't it? You really are one clueless toad
aren't you?
Geo
Not surprisingly, the point went directly over your pointy head.
Geo
> taxpayer...@hotmail.com wrote...
Yeah, someone might shoot me because it's crowded.
Bwahahahahahahh!!!!!!
Smirnoff
> What part of "well regulated" do the gun nuts not understand?
All of it. That is why the gun nuts skip right over that part and start
handing you the part that they like as though it is what was only text
included.
Smirnoff
No, I get simple asses like you. You are very common and easy to figure
out. It has been obvious that you are simple minded from the start. You gun
nuts carry firearms because you are really afraid to face the world without
your security blanket. You will live in a safe neighborhood thinking you
make it so because you are armed. Do you think you are any different then
any of the rest of your ilk? Do you think I have not laughed at you losers
many time before? You cite far away places and time of the past to give you
comfort in thinking you actually have a point. You have nothing.
Richard Eich
Yeah, I know. I just wanted to make it clear that his "but you
haven't answered my question" bullshit is utter stupidity.
> He could read something like
> this:
> http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/18/6/771
> Population Density, Social Structure, and Interpersonal Violence.
I hope he's the kind of person who can take in new information and
change his perspective if it's called for. I'm not too hopeful;
usually in Net-land they just get entrenched and plug their ears.
Richard Eich
I don't know what you think you're laughing at. You're the one who's
just shown he has shit for brains.
Nice time I bring my boys in for a McDonald's breakfast, stop mopping
for a minute and introduce yourself.
Geo
It's kind crowded in this forum, I think I'll go out and shoot
someone....BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Smirnoff
Man you sure are an ignoramace.
Richard Eich
Don't sweat it. He's knows that he's wrong, but isn't man enough to
admit it. His replies now are just an admission that he can't argue
on the merits.
I'm completely enjoying seeing him reduced to this.
Smirnoff
My guess he has always been this small. A very pathetic little man indeed.
Most gun nuts are of extreme low IQ thinking they will some day be heroes by
overthrowing the government or saving the day by eliminating some other gun
nut that has gone berserk on the helpless public. What a way to live filled
with delusion.
Richard Eich
Well, in all fairness to sane gun enthusiasts (there are some in my
family, with large collections of hunting rifles and shotguns, which
they use during hunting season and store safely when not in use) my
only argument is with the people who have a closed mind regarding the
solution to gun violence being more guns in society.
By saying that a widely armed population will deter people who would
otherwise Go Rambo in a shopping mall, they presume rationality on
the part of people who are crazy. This is a contradiction that self-
negates their argument.
If they argue that an armed population isn't a deterrent to crazy
people, but that armed citizens can simply take out an armed and
shooting nutcase before they kill as many people as they hope to, I
ask them to imagine the scenario they're advocating: Someone dressed
like everybody else starts shooting, and the guns come out. How is
anyone going to tell who the bad guy is? Maybe those who directly
witnessed the initial shooting, but the armed citizen respondents are
going to approach the scene where there are other armed citizen
respondents. All with guns drawn. It'd be a friendly fire
bloodbath. It's stupid beyond belief to even consider that this
alternative is a solution.
Geo
> Unli...@unlisted.com wrote...
I'm happy to argue on the merits. The problem is you ignor facts.
It's quite impossible to debate someone with their head so far
embedded up their ass as you two lovebirds are. I mean, if the
psychobabble that you've be spouting wasn't so comical it would be
pathetic. So, you and smirnoff continue your little love in while the
rest of the adults carry on a mature conversation.
Overcrowding.....bwahhahahahahahahh!!!!!
Geo
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:10:22 GMT, Richard Eich
>
> <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> >You attribute it to there not enough guns being carried around.
>
> and having a gun on hand.
>
> Throw in alcohol and drugs for lowered inhibitions and less thought
> and more guns is a recipe for disaster. But reality never bothers the
> nutters.
And while criminals continue to use their guns you would have law
abiding citizens remain unprotected. If you're too weak to protect
yourself. Just don't push your stupidity on me. I need my gun to
protect myself from morons like you.
Geo
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:10:22 GMT, Richard Eich
>
> <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> and having a gun on hand.
>
> Throw in alcohol and drugs for lowered inhibitions and less thought
> and more guns is a recipe for disaster. But reality never bothers the
> nutters.
And while criminals continue to use their guns you would have law
abiding citizens remain unprotected. If you're too weak to protect
yourself, fine. Just don't push your stupidity on me. I need my gun
Geo
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:10:22 GMT, Richard Eich
>
> <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
Richard Eich
> On Feb 17, 1:04 pm, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > Unli...@unlisted.com wrote...
> > > Man you sure are an ignoramace.
> >
> > Don't sweat it. He's knows that he's wrong, but isn't man enough to
> > admit it. His replies now are just an admission that he can't argue
> > on the merits.
>
> I'm happy to argue on the merits.
Dismissing an argument that you chose not to attempt to understand as
"psychobabble" is not "arguing on the merits". It's simply showing
the depth of your ignorance.
> The problem is you ignor facts.
...says the man with his eyes and ears covered in order to block out
any facts of which he was previously unaware.
(If only he'd complete the trifecta and cover his mouth...)
> [...snip homo-erotic insults...or is that his idea of "arguing on ]
> [ the merits"? So hard to tell...]
> Overcrowding.....bwahhahahahahahahh!!!!!
Give everybody guns and open carry laws....bwahhahahahahahahh!!!!!
Smirnoff
Wahahaha..........What are you gonna do, shoot someone that disagrees with
you? Man you gun loons sure are a retarded lot. You think you need to use a
gun on someone that has not even posed any threat? You are to fucking stupid
to own a gun.