Virginia Tech Shooting Fuego Version

“for you jerkoffs who cant resist building your soapbox on the bodies of those 32 slain college students, have at it...”

“What? And be part of some knee-jerk feigned indignation where you can vent your anger instead of discussing important societal questions?

Go fool yourself.”

“go fvck yourself

asshat”

“There you have it.”

“Crash Bang, you can take your faux indignation and stick it where the sun don't shine. How arrogant and elitist of you to assume that everyone grieves and reacts the same way you do. Typical of the liberal mindset to want to excoriate people for not living up to some BS politically correct standard.

I am stunned and sickened by this tragedy, but my method of dealing with it is not to post some useless emotional drivel as you have done (no doubt mostly for the benefit of your social image here), but rather discuss the issue and debate its politics and guage how this incident may have influenced people's thoughts about gun rights.”

“guage how this incident may have influenced people's thoughts about gun rights.” Mutt



I certainly hope that if there is any good that can come from such a horrible mass murder that this incident galvanizes folks, shocks them awake, strips them of the veil of crap that the NRA espouses and that we finally gets comphrehensive, draconian, restrictive gun ownership, registration, liscensing, selling, and trading laws on the books with teeth in them.


It is unbelievable to me that brainless (its the only explanation) NRA shills like Mutt can somehow spin this event into a reason FOR more gun ownership, looser laws, less teeth and more concealed carrying.

It is mind blowing that you can look into the face of this and come to that conclusion.

Absolutely mind blowing.


And that's it. Like religion (which apparently this is to Mutt), and most politics I don't expect my views to change anyone else's one iota.

Likewise I don't expect theirs to change mine.”

“This is a simple as I can make it.

Mutt fancies himself a logician.


There is no real life argument that you can construct in which it would be true that MORE guns in the hands of the general public would equal fewer deaths.

None.


You can conject the NRA argument that more guns would equal a safer society because we would all be scared of each other.

But, we all know that, empirically that is wrong. Drawn to its logical conclusion, more guns equals more gun deaths.

Period.

To argue against an absolute prohibition on the further sale and distribution of handguns, is to argue that in the 21st century in America, we are willing to accept a certain number of entirely preventable handgun deaths. We are willing to accept that we are something quite a bit less than a civilized society.


Again. I hope that if nothing else comes from the handgun murders at Virginia Tech it is that the veil of crap from the NRA is revealed for what it is and that we finally get some decent, effective gun legislation passed.”

“NRA- National Rock Association. You'll have to peel my cold dead fingers from my rock.”

“Stop playing with yourself, Uncliff.”

“One hand on a bottle the other on car keys- who needs guns.”

“You got it!!”

“Don't remind me of my former self.”

“debate the whole gun issue all you want. just do it here, on a fuego thread, rather than the non-fuego threads concerning the virginia tech shooting. normally i dont give a rats ass, and i hate to be a net-nanny a la stovestomper, but this was an instance where there may have been people too emotionally close to the situation to have to read all the arguing.

mutt, my opening comment on this thread was not directed at you. unlike arclite and a few others, you showed some class when it was pointed out to you that you were not on a fuego thread.”

“crashbang, I thought you said the official exclusive trailtalk copywrited term was 'thread-nanny'.”

“Okay CB, here's your honorary badge:



I know you've always wanted one of your very own.”

“Screw all of yous -- I don't care about your opinions because I'm so right about this that I don't even need to bother posting my opinion.


-----------------

There. How's that for a soapbox for the soapboxes?”

“Good one George”

“To argue against an absolute prohibition on the further sale and distribution of handguns, is to argue that in the 21st century in America, we are willing to accept a certain number of entirely preventable handgun deaths. We are willing to accept that we are something quite a bit less than a civilized society.

lee
10:43:21 AM
4/17/07

I disagree. To argue against an absolute prohibition could also flow from a realuty based acknowledgement that government prohibitions seldom succeed in making things go away. Laws aren't magic wands. You're coming perilously close to the line that if you don't favor my steps to prevent X, then you are for X (If you don't support Bush's war on terror, you are for the terrorists = If you don't support Israel's invasion of Lebanon you are for Hamas almost = If you don't support a ban on handguns you tolerate murder.")

From another angle, I enjoy my booze - but I'd support prohibition if it would mean there was no more alcohol. I don't oppose prohibition of alcohol because my booze is more important that preventing all the harm alcohol does, but because all of the problems, government intrusion and coercion that come with trying to enforce prohibition can't be justified by the benefits of a legal prohibition on alcohol.”

“i don't see what the debate is all about... it's all george bush's fault. hell, let's pile up the 33 bodies and make some moral high ground so we can all sleep better at night. such a lack of humility in the face of a tragedy of this magnitude is hard to believe. this is a classic example of why a moment of silence can be so important.”

“(no doubt mostly for the benefit of your social image here),

Does birch know Crash is going for his title?”

“i want to know where xl is, dammit. i really need to talk about my FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS right now”

“holy crap. i just read "richard mcbeef". tarantino or rodriguez may be interested in optioning it for the next "grindhouse" installment”

“The Bacpac post is from the non-fuego thread, but I will respond here.

[i]The largest racial attack in the history of the United States and these racists clam up?”[/i]
bacpac
7:04:26 AM
4/19/07

It takes some warped sense of race conciousness to come up with that. As MarkO said - no thoughtful person could look at the faces of those killed and see this as a racial killing. How odd that someone would assume that it was without even looking.”

“ole drunken uncle bacpac is just grasping at straws again”

“Hey, I just realized that Bacpac is way over-due for another late night drunken posting session talking to himself again!

The man really knows how to make an ass out of himself. Gotta respect that.”

“I am politically the opposite from PedXing but again agree with his position here.

We do live in a free society but how far are we prepared to limit freedom to remove societal evils.

Prohibit guns - OK, how far are we prepared to go to enforce that ? Do we execute anyone found with a gun ? we certainly do not seem to have jail space

What about exceptions ? police -
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0204/10/ltm.04.html
"Police in New Jersey say one of their own, a 15-year veteran of the Seaside New Jersey Police Department apparently went on a shooting rampage last night."

Guess police are no exception


Military - 1986 Patrick Henry Sherrill a National Guard small arms instructor killed 14 and wounded seven in less than 15 minutes.

Guess military are no exception

So how is this to be implemented ?


Motor vehicles kill 3 times the number that guns do.
How about limiting vehicle size ?
How about governers on all vehicles limiting speed ?
Limited hours for tractor trailers 12% of vehicles 38% of road deaths. Yes this will increase the cost of good everywhere and make shipping much more expensive but who wants to trade dollars for lives??
What about DUI, not fines, long term incarceration for any offense.

While we are changing the constitution to remove the 2nd ammendment (guns) why not adjust the 4th as well and allow random search for motor vehicles, breathalyser without having reasonable cause.
And while we are at it, how about a little fine tuning on the 1st. Do not allow the Press to give any publicity to criminals, no photo, no name, just anominimity to these mass killers, deny them the visibilty they crave.

Drugs, do we want to implement Singaporan laws, up to a legally defined amount you are a user, over that amount is more than a user can be expected to use therefore you are a dealer and subject to the death penalty.
BTW Singapore does seem to follow the 6th ammndment, or at least this part of it.
"the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" no ten year wait there for execution.

Every time something major goes wrong, some want to throw out selected portions of the Constitution, but only those portions they disagree with.

Freedom comes at a huge cost, but who prefers the alternative. We all fondly imagine ourselves as the nobility in a feudal society but it takes an awful lot of serfs to support one Duke, statistically most of us are serfs.
Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote about the other side, it was a lot less attractive.”

“I believe there were some rather large massacres carried out against striking workers around 100 years ago.

Some of the killers were organized state militias and others were mercenaries like Pinkertons.”

“The King Kong of population,transportation and communication has broken his chains and runs rampant down the path of our own freedoms.”

“uncliff, you sound like salebored.”

“The Godzilla of failed metaphors, miscommunication, and unclear references, has escaped Tokyo and is hurtling down the path of my migraines.”

“I feel like I am in bizarro world....”

“"Guess police are no exception"

is that a division of the fashion police?”

“Most Martial Arts training consists of replacing instinctive reaction with non-instinctive learned responses.

I received military training and the methods were the same, replace instinct with specific learned responses.

According to the news article below (and other articles) the killer took 9 minutes and 170 shots to murder his 30 fellow students in the final scene.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...h.24eb404.html

How long is a classroom 30ft ? 10 yards.
Most humans can run 22ft/sec (4 minute mile) for a few yards.
If the students had responded by rushing the gunman how many would he have been able to shoot in the 1.5 seconds it took to reach him?
Perhaps 2, maybe 4.
For comparison US competition shooting has 'rapid fire' shooting 5 shots in 10 seconds, Olympic rapid fire is 5 shots in 4 seconds but only with a anatomically fitted gun shooting .22 short and years of practice.

On the Long Island subway on Dec 7, 1993 it only took 2 passengers to subdue Colin Ferguson. They only rushed him when he stopped to reload.

The instinctive thing is to try and get away.
Probably the correct action would be to throw whatever you had in hand to try and cause an instinctive reaction in him to avoid the thrown object as he was rushed.
Not so good for the 2 or 3 shot, but chances are his aim will be poorer, far fewer will be injured and/or killed, and even those who are shot will have immediate medical attention giving perhaps some chance of survival.

Children are taught what to do in case of fire (stop, drop, and roll) and to prepare a fire escape plan from their house, crawl to stay low, met at neighbors, etc.
Perhaps this could be introduced to classes taught to high schoolers and above such as: ROTC, Hunter safety, and public self-defence classes.

I just happen to think that education works better than prohibition.

Opinions ?”

“I was taling to someone today about how no one did anything. Nothing. He was walking up and down the isles shooting them like sheep. Having never been in that situation I can't say why no one tried to do anything but I'd hope and pray it's not some type of pacifism we are piutting into our young people.”

“"Virginia Tech Shooting Fuego Version"


Cool!

Is this where we shoot`em all and let someones "god" sort`em all out?!?”

“Appeasement was the policy given to all airline staff on how to act during a hijacking prior to 9/11.

Unfortunately the pilot association suggestion of allowing them to have firearms in the cockpit (they said a lot started their flying in Vietnam) was considered crazy.
So other than stronger doors and a new class of Marshalls who may or may not be on any particular flight, nothing seems to have changed.

El Al, now that is a different airline.”

“"Appeasement was the policy given to all airline staff on how to act during a hijacking prior to 9/11."

Remember, up until 9/11, "co-operation" with the hijackers proved to be mostly successful way to save lives.

9/11 crossed the line that was enabled by those past practices.”

“If you read my post, I was advocating unarmed rushing and overpowering with numbers as being better than retreat and being shot singley.

I did not suggest anyone have a gun,
I was suggesting a different herd behavior when faced with a deadly threat, fight rather than flight.

I guess you truly believe that a gun ban will solve the problem.
But Virginia Tech DID have a gun ban
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/jsullum.htm
its just that that naughty boy broke the rules



in addition to killing everyone he could find.

Do you have a workable solution rather than your utopian universal disarmament ?”

“"If you read my post, I was advocating unarmed rushing and overpowering with numbers as being better than retreat and being shot singley."

Your post that I commented on said nothing of the sort. Perhaps you said it earlier, but not here. I was commenting on your comment about a comment from somebody else's comment, then.

"I guess you truly believe that a gun ban will solve the problem."

Why are you using assumption? I firmly believe that all passengers should carry Ninja swords. That way we don't have to lose pressurization when we do battle.

Duh!
last edited: 4/27/07 8:44:48 PM”

“Duh! is correct, my mistake in trying to converse with you.

I apologise for that foolishness.”

“"Duh! is correct, my mistake in trying to converse with you.

I apologise for that foolishness."

Your inability to satisfy the minimum requirements for a point in an argument is duly noted.

BTW -- Apology accepted.”

“http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/12/virginia-tech-reports-shots-fired-on-campus/1?csp=34news

Two confirmed dead, shooter at large”

“Not possible. That is a gun-free zone.”

“One of the dead a police officer...I'm assuming he had a gun. But I guess we don't know for sure.”

“This is a weird story. Apparently a police officer pulls a car over, some person unrelated to the car, walks up and kills the officer then later shoots himself.

While officials would not confirm that the second victim in the shooting was in fact the gunman, a law enforcement source tells Fox News that authorities do believe that the second victim is the gunman, and that he suffered a self-inflicted wound.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/08/shots-fired-at-virginia-techs-campus-gunman-sought/

Fox news so...maybe there is more.”