| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| rubylith |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 09:46:39 AM
I just want to say that my heart goes out to the victims of this terrible tragedy yesterday. This tragedy should and could have been stopped before the number killed got so high. The media thinks a gun ban (which is unconstitutional) is the solution, but do you really think a gun ban would stop someone who has murder in their blood? In a perfect world there would be NO GUNS, and no need for guns. However, we don't live in a perfect world. A gun ban will not stop someone that already intends to commit a crime. A gun ban only leaves the victims defenseless. And that's how THEY want you. Unarmed, obedient, workers. Watch how states will start banning guns and installed eye and hand scanners at the schools now. They will continue to transform the schools into tiny prisons. This is fucking terrible. In ever angle, this is fucking terrible. I hope that the surviving victims make it through ok, and the families get peace in their hearts.
Gun Control Law Helped Campus Killer
Yet disarmament lobby and establishment media exploit tragedy to disarm more potential victims
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
In January 2002, a student at the Virginia Appalachian School of Law, Peter Odighizuwa, shot three people dead before other students were able to retrieve guns from their cars and put an end to the carnage before there was more bloodshed. Over thirty victims at VA Tech yesterday were denied that right as a result of a campus gun control law that helped the shooter pick off his targets at will.
A bill in the Virginia legislature last year that would have allowed students with concealed weapons permits to carry their guns at schools was killed, with VA Tech spokesman Larry Hincker heralding the move as action that would "help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." How hollow those words sound now in light of eyewitness reports of how victims had to cower under desks as the killer calmly approached, their only means of defense throwing chairs or risking their lives by escaping out of high-rise windows.
"Isn't it interesting that Utah and Oregon are the only two states that allows faculty to carry guns on campus. And isn't it interesting that you haven't read about any school or university shootings in Utah or Oregon? Why not? Because criminals don't like having their victims shoot back at them," Gun Owners of America's Larry Pratt said yesterday. "That's why the American people want an end to this ineffective gun ban."
85% of Americans support the right of a principle or a teacher to have instant access to a safely stored firearm in order to defend the lives of students and prevent a school massacre, but a drive is already underway to disarm more victims and grease the skids for more horrors similar to what unfolded yesterday.
The talking points have already been disseminated and the disarmament lobby and the establishment media is doing it's best to exploit yesterday's tragedy to push for gun control.
AFP led the way, writing that "Buying a handgun or rifle is relatively easy in Virginia," before any details of where the killer acquired his weapons have even been released.
The Los Angeles Times lauded the fact that the NRA are still silent on the massacre, claiming that "Supporters of gun rights generally kept their heads down," which is completely untrue. Everyone besides the NRA immediately went on the offensive, pointing out the fact that campus gun control policies directly disarmed the victims. The NRA at its apex is a co-opted organization, and routinely backs down when key gun control debates arise.
Gun Owners of America, the only major no compromise 2nd Amendment group in America, issued a press release in which its President Larry Pratt stated,"All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last ten years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen -- a potential victim -- had a gun."
"The latest school shooting demands an immediate end to the gun-free zone law which leaves the nation's schools at the mercy of madmen. It is irresponsibly dangerous to tell citizens that they may not have guns at schools. The Virginia Tech shooting shows that killers have no concern about a gun ban when murder is in their hearts."
Questions linger about the massacre itself, with furious students blaming a delayed, incompetent and cowardly response from police for the over two hour gap between the first and second shootings before they were warned.
The identity of the killer has not yet been released, but quite what motivated a man whose girlfriend cheated on him to slaughter over thirty other innocent people is very suspicious. Rumors that two shooters were involved have still not been ruled out. Students of numerology will be all too aware of the connotations attached to the fact that there were 33 victims in all. The massacre occurred three days short of the anniversaries of Waco and Ruby Ridge and four days short of the 1999 Columbine shootings.
|
| 64 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 03:51:44 AM
Two things:
1) It would be VERY hard to get rid of all hand-guns and rifles. United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment II: "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."
2) Everyone brings up England when they're trying to make a gun control argument. If you're going to bring Europe into the picture, you might want to look at Switzerland, and maybe a few other countries as well. A 1999 Wall Street Journal article had this to say:quote:
According to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the homicide rate is lower than in the U.S. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: In 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.
Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S. This suggests that lawfully armed citizens in the U.S. deter such crimes. Only the murder and rape rates in the U.S. were higher than in England. The small number of violent predators who commit most of these crimes in the U.S. have little trouble arming themselves unlawfully.
The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned. (Emphasis mine, not the author's.)
There's also an interesting article on GMU's "History News Network" entitled "Do Guns Cause Crime?" by Don B. Kates, a retired professor of constitutional and criminal law, and a criminologist associated with the Pacific Research Institute (San Francisco). A member of both Handgun Control Inc. and the National Rifle Association, he has been bitterly criticized by both. As a civil liberties lawyer he has represented gun owners attacking the constitutionality of certain firearms laws. quote:
Anti-gun advocates endlessly compare the U.S to a few European nations on the assumption that those nations' low murder rates stem from severe gun controls. In fact those nations' rates were lower yet (and far below ours) before WWI when controls were minimal or nonexistent. Their controls were enacted to preclude political crime in the turbulent post-WWI era. Despite this, these nations far exceed the U.S. in political homicides -- a fact they conceal by just omitting such homicides from their murder statistics.
To determine whether severe gun controls reduce murder, the proper comparison is not to the high (apolitical)-homicide U.S., but to other European nations where firearms (especially handguns) are allowed and common. That comparison reveals that homicide rates in the latter (Austria - 1.0 per 100,000 population, Switzerland - 1.1) do not exceed those of the highly gun-restrictive surrounding nations (France and Germany, both 1.1; Hungary 3.5; Italy 1.7; Slovenia 2.4; Yugoslavia 2.0).
Thus it is not gun scarcity that keeps European homicide rates low. Indeed, analysis of data on 36 nations show "no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate...."
Concomitantly, the U.S. should be compared not to Western Europe but to other high-murder-rate nations such as Russia. There, severe and severely-enforced gun bans applied to a largely unarmed population succeeded in virtually eliminating gun murders -- so other weapons were substituted. In only four of the 35 years 1965-99 was Russia's murder rate (barely) lower than ours, while in another 10 the rates were almost identical. But in 21 years the Russian rate was higher, and in seven the Russian rate was more than twice the U.S. Today it is almost four times higher.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/21/2007 : 4:48:53 PM
yeah, i think restrictions are a little more reasonable. i don't really think someone who has a pressing need for a gun, like, immediately, should be allowed one. but again, someone who wants to committ a gun crime probably wouldn't bother obtaining one legally.
i submit that in the case of this shooting, that gun was bought legally is largely academic because he wasn't concerned with being caught. he did kill himself, after all. |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 04/21/2007 : 1:24:27 PM
Well if I was going to implement a ban I would ban production sale or import of these guns. Of course no ban is going to eradicate guns. However the level of guns available that are plain unnecessary could be reduced drastically. I'm not for banning all guns, but I think that assault rifles have no purpose as a tool other than threatening humans. I mean back in the day it might have been nice for a cowboy to have one to shoot his horse or a cow if it was injured or something, but that seems irrelevant now. I will say it is nice when backpacking in the woods to have a gun in case of a bear or something.
However these guns could be made so much harder to obtain. Considering we lead the Richer nations of the world in gun violence. The best thing that could be done is a social solution in which we educate each other and work towards teaching people that guns are not really useful tools in solving human problems and it would be nice if a gun ban or I should say restriction wasn't needed. However it's hard to convince a society violence doesn't work when it's used abroad constantly to try to solve political problems. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/21/2007 : 12:18:22 PM
there is a very large flaw underlying your reasoning for bannding hand guns and assault rifles.
the issue is not creating criminal activity, which would increase as far as illegal arms trade goes, the issue is taking guns out of the hands of killers. and banning them won't do that. guns won't just disappear when they become illegal, and honestly, they won't be much harder to get. if someone wants a gun to shoot someone they will simply buy it illegally. the only difference is now it isn't registered and doesn't have a serial number. so when he kills someone, it's a bitch to track the murder weapon. by banning these guns, you're just taking legally sold and payed for property away from people who almost entirely don't plan on doing anything illegal with them. a crackdown on illegal arms would address this problem much more effectively, because then you're targeting people who, for some reason, don't want to have their gun registered or easily tracable.
although i agree in principle that no one really fucking needs an assault rifle. they do need handguns, though. how else are you going to keep the king of england out of your face? huh? HUH? |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 04/20/2007 : 10:16:11 PM
If you even begin to think that citizens stand a chance of violently opposing our government then you have no clue of how powerful the US military is. Go ahead and get the entire population of california to arm and rebel. All it will take is a few trips from one of those gunships and LA would be rubble with everyone dead and that's without a nuke. Brittan has no guns allowed and their police don't even carry guns. They don't seem to have a problem.
What jackasses like Watson don't seem to realize is that all violence does is alienate, divide, and is not IMO a serious idea for revolution especially when we can vote in regime changes. The only way a revolution would have meaning is when it comes about by education just like all social movements have come about in the last hundred years.
I'd support a ban on hand guns and assault rifles, because no one has a reason to have them. SO we should just stop selling them and start taking away ones people have. It would be a long time before most of the number of guns around were small, and yes there would be some around and we would create criminal activity, but there would be way less people committing gun crimes. If people come and start putting citizens in camps violent resistance will end in your death. What I'm saying is that if we let it get to that point we're already too late. So stop bitching about guns being taken away and start resisting the government and educating yourself and others.
Oh and from and activists point of view Paul Watson does nothing but sensationalize stories and alienate people by not pursuing journalism in a professional and intellectual manner. If he put half of his (negative) energy (which does little to attract the kind of people we want shaping the world) into organizing people he might have an organization to help bring about change. I completely disagree with his strategy to bring about change. Anyone who doesn't like the way things are and want to expend energy to change them should study people who were succesful doing it i.e. Ghandi. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/20/2007 : 4:16:52 PM
i don't understand how a federal organization has much authority in a crime that took place on presumably state property. isn't that exactly what the police are for? dealing with shit that happens in their domain? |
| rubylith |
Posted - 04/20/2007 : 3:37:21 PM
Sources: Feds Ordered VA Police To Stand Down
Keep an eye on that the next few days.
Can anyone say....FALSE FLAG. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/20/2007 : 1:52:06 PM
so, the author thinks that guns and bullets are "our only defense" against tyranny. he also thinks that the government is a tyranny. but why hasn't the author started a military campaign against that tyranny, or taken any sort of violent "defense" against it? could it be because he's a sensationalist and doesn't really believe exactly what he's saying?
also, if he thinks the 2nd amendment is the bedrock of the constitution, i would suggest that maybe he doesn't know fuck about the constitution. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 04/20/2007 : 09:58:31 AM
I am a strong supporter of Dennis Kucinich, and I was rigorously involved in his campaign in 2004. However, by invoking the tragedy in Virginia, he now has legislation set to ban all handguns, to civillians. I know his intentions are well-meaning and of good intention, however, this will only create a black market of unregistered guns to criminals, not to law abinding citizens. Criminals will still find a way to get guns, it will only make it difficult for the citizen to protect their family. Again, in a perfect world there would be no guns, tanks, missles, wars, DUH. I wish more than anyone. I also believe in peaceful demonstrations and protests. However, when your government has carried out terror attacks and have fucking sound weapons and torture people, one of our only defenses againast this tyranny are guns, sad but fucking true. Swords and karate kicks aren't going to stop them from murdering you and your family, neither will prayer or civil disobedience.
Call me crazy, but the day may come when some sort of threat (Bird Flu, Anthrax, terror attack) will cause the government to round up thousands and place us in detention centers. There are already plans and buildings for this, google it. When the militarized thugs come for you, your right to bear arms is your only protection from them.
I sure hope Kucinich changes his stance in light of his new found support from the more "right" leaning crowd. Just as he changed from Pro-Life to Pro-Choice a few years back. He has always been labeled as the "ultra-liberal candidate" and by questioning 9/11, promising a new investigation, and going foward with the impeachment of Dick Cheney, he found support from American's from all across the political spectrum.
I fear he may have really polarized his supporters. I support him and wonder how anyone could not vote for him. i guess it was too good to be true.
If you want to call his office to let him know you support or oppose this, the number is...202-224-3121
---------------------
Hypocrite Kucinich Drafts Legislation To Ban Guns
Entertains notion that bloodthirsty Neo-Fascists carried out 9/11, then says we should hand over our only protection against them
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, April 20, 2007
Dennis Kucinich has shot himself in the foot, pardon the pun, by alienating a huge majority of his most vocal and active online supporters, the 9/11 Truth Movement, in drafting legislation that will completely ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.
Kucinich has effectively ended any minute chance he had of becoming President in 2008.
The Congressman from Cleveland has received plaudits for being the only man on Capitol Hill, besides Ron Paul, to even consider pushing for a new inquiry into the events of 9/11. Though Kucinich warned that the investigation "would be limited," he has promised to organize a committee before the end of the year to focus on "Some specific areas that to me represent the most egregious examples of distortion of truth or lack of information."
"By focusing in on that, I'll be able to bring forward a new dimension to the discussions. And from there, we'll move ahead," said Kucinich.
According to Raw Story, the Congressman has also selected a date to introduce articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.
Wonderful, empowering, a breath of fresh air - but you know it just sounded too good to be true, because now comes this;
"Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians."
That's right - our intrepid warrior in the fight to restore the Constitution, wants to gut the very bedrock of it - the Second Amendment.
Just as the Bush administration exploited the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to ram through the Patriot Act, Kucinich cites the Virginia Massacre as evidence of a "national emergency" that requires an instant assault on the bill of rights to "protect" us all from the madmen.
Kucinich is seemingly willing to entertain the notion that 9/11 was carried out by a ruthless gang of bloodthirsty Neo-Fascists within our own government, yet he thinks we should all hand in our only means of defense against such thugs when the men in black ski-masks come knocking.
Notice Kucinich specifies that only "civilians" will be forced to turn in their weapons - the guardians of the state will still be allowed to arm themselves to the teeth to keep us all safe.
Gun control is a religion, and no matter how many facts you throw out about how guns prevent hundreds of thousands of crimes every year, or arguments about how criminals don't obey laws and gun control only disarms the victims, the majority will never change minds that are already made up.
Liberals still argue that the language of the Second Amendment applies only to a "well regulated militia" and not the individual, selectively ignoring the very framers of the Constitution, the founding fathers, who in their writings made it abundantly clear that the right to bear arms was included so Americans had a recourse to defend themselves against a tyrannical government - the very tyranny that Kucinich is grandstanding to oppose in his 9/11 and impeachment movements.
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.
Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:
"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):
[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.
Many more quotes can be found here.
Activists within the 9/11 Truth Movement who believe that elements of the U.S. government attacked them on September 11 but support relinquishing the only defense against tyranny to these very same killers are in serious need of a wake up call. They should also immediately identify with George W. Bush, who also shares their zeal for gun control.
Dennis Kucinich needs to understand that if he attempts to legislate away our fundamental liberties and our single defense against tyranny while proclaiming himself to be a champion of freedom, his hypocrisy will be his downfall and the 9/11 Truth Movement will desert him.
|
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 9:33:07 PM
I laughed pretty good after I typed "Teach and destroy." I'll be honest. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 8:13:32 PM
teaching,
seek and destroy |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 7:58:58 PM
Eh, I like the faculty packing heat. Teach and destroy.
Fuck guns, man. Fuck guns like fuck cancer. I hate guns, if you got the nerve to kill something and eat it, good for you. If not, you don't need a damn gun. A gun means you're a weakling and a coward and have no other way of defending yourself. I shit on guns daily.
note: I am fairly baked. If you busted your hump like I did today, you'd have done it too. AHAHA
Peace, man. PEACE |
| Arthen |
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 3:06:07 PM
I think college students should be allowed to have guns, they should not be allowed to have them on state/federal property, which most public universities are on. But at the same time, no one gets to have them there. I totally agree with the fact that they should not be allowed on campuses, I just want to dismiss the idea that college students in general are unfit gun owners. I have many friends who own guns and are more careful with them than a lot of older people I've met with guns.
So, no on campuses/dorms/etc., but yes in general for private home, etc. |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 2:53:51 PM
quote:
you're afraid to let college students have guns? You don't think all of the people with guns don't get drunk? Yeah right, please...
I know a lot of gun owners get drunk, I've been to upstate PA during hunting season...wearing lots of RED! But do you really want the kids in your dorm packing guns? Unless this type of tragedy starts happening on a frequent basis, your chance of being killed by a gun on campus is still low. If students start packing guns you WILL see more deaths, many accidental and you, an RA will really have to think twice about entering a room where there's a dispute because ya know, ya just might get shot by a kid who had a gun for protection! |
| Arthen |
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 2:41:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AGirlNamedPsycho
and Blackwater as being the only guys in the country with guns?
You mean shit-heel Pinkerton operatives...
Honestly, look at how many nuts own guns in the country already, and you're afraid to let college students have guns? You don't think all of the people with guns don't get drunk? Yeah right, please... |
| AGirlNamedPsycho |
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 09:30:17 AM
I find it sort of interesting that "Ismail Ax" spelled backwards and Google'd hits all kinds of Korean websites. Babelfish didn't translate "xa liam si" at all, but it sort of seems to be a series of proper nouns. I'm sure people much smarter than me have determined this already.
It's also an anagram for "I am Axis L" and axis l means something in mathematics, but again I'm too stupid to figure out what exactly axis l is. Meh.
Maybe my focus is wrong, but then again, I'm pretty sure Cho's world was far blurrier than mine. TSUMI has a gig tonite and we're playing Jeremy in regard to recent events. Ed Vedder's comments sum up this song's meaning, and it applies in our perspectives.
"It came from a small paragraph in a paper which means you kill yourself and you make a big old sacrifice and try to get your revenge. That all you're gonna end up with is a paragraph in a newspaper...it does nothing...nothing changes. The world goes on and you're gone. The best revenge is to live on and prove yourself. Be stronger than those people. And then you can come back."
Quiet revenge > this. Sorry kid, you've got your 15 minutes and the media will front page your trail of shit more often than the war in Iraq, but that's all you get. The way we deal is out of your hands now.
Anyway, er, to be a little closer to OT; I hate guns. I'll never own a fucking gun unless I feel I can't exist without one. I dunno, I have this thing about guns and knives, just don't fucking like them. I don't like them, but that doesn't mean I don't respent and understand their function. I won't trash the Second Amendment just because guns make me nervous. Dan P's parallel between owning guns and owning pot is pretty much right on. Do we really want outlaws, law enforcement and Blackwater as being the only guys in the country with guns? How far can you throw these guys? How much do you trust? It's not even about paranoia. |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 04:55:55 AM
I watched an interview of one of his suite mates on MSNBC.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=4F4E05E1-A9EA-4245-9C3D-704A438719A2&f=00&fg=email
Disturbing.
Chris Matthews totally annoys me though. |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 02:31:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by PJK
God help us all, if more college kids pack guns. Alcohol and guns go together about as well as alcohol and driving and show me a dry campus outside of Utah! One kid died of alcohol poisoning a few weeks ago at the school I attend, and a second was hospitalized. Binge drinking is rampant.
For that reason alone people should have the sense to not want to arm college kids.
One of these days I hope people realize that violence doesn't solve problems, in any lasting way. |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 04/19/2007 : 02:20:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
i don't really have any more faith in "non-violent" resistance either. because that depends more on the people in power giving a fuck about what you think.
People in power don't have to care about what you think. Look at the movement Ghandi took such a large part in. It was by no means a passive case of thinking. They demanded to be liberated from British rule, and accomplished this by non-violent means. In fact I think that you will find any real change has occurred because of intellectual movements that educated people and accomplished they're goals by popular support to the point that the people (the ones who grant others the right of power) effectd change upon the world.
You don't have to have faith in it though, because it exists with or without your faith. Look at the civil rights movement and the women's rights movements for two perfect examples. |
| PJK |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 6:05:05 PM
quote:
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 10:45:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Isn't it interesting that Utah and Oregon are the only two states that allows faculty to carry guns on campus. And isn't it interesting that you haven't read about any school or university shootings in Utah or Oregon?"
http://www.cnn.com/US/9805/21/school.shooting.2/index.html
So ya that's the first thing about that article that's dead wrong!
Infant Eyes, thanks, that was my sentiment exactly.
also: quote:
A well-armed populous is the best defense against tyranny."
That's bull. A well educated populous is the best defense against tyranny
Amen!
First, he was mentally ill and as broadcast on all the news stations, he was recommended for counseling and the English professor even went to the police about him. The laws were on his side, there was nothing they could do.
I heard some of the students from VT talking about the gun control law that Dave mentioned on TV. Problems with that argument are that it is very possible that students would be killed in crossfire, that the element of surprise would make having a gun useless and that the police could mistake students defending themselves, for the killer and shoot them.
It still amazes me how anyone can buy a gun and not even know how to use it. You can't even drive a car without driver's tests. I used to sell guns many years ago at good old F.W.Woolworths!
God help us all, if more college kids pack guns. Alcohol and guns go together about as well as alcohol and driving and show me a dry campus outside of Utah! One kid died of alcohol poisoning a few weeks ago at the school I attend, and a second was hospitalized. Binge drinking is rampant.
I have a 9th grade student this year that is just like the shooter at VT. We all know this kid fits the profile but our hands are tied. He is one sick puppy, but unless he harms someone, we can't do a thing. The teacher I work with and myself have joked on more than one occasion that this kid is coming back to get us someday, and although we joke about it, we know it could very well happen. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 5:50:32 PM
I don't know what I just did. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 5:47:34 PM
as it is written, so let it be. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 5:41:39 PM
I blame video games. 
Dan, methinks Rubylith and I crossing your path is inevitable...fate will bring us together. AHAHA
Does that fake fuck Bush actually question why this happened, is what I wanna know. Does he really think there's any difference between some South Korean kid shooting up his classmates and him ordering soldiers to indiscriminantly kill Iraqis, Afghans, etc. I don't agree with either path of 'logic'. (No matter what numbers you look at, thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians are dead, so yes, it's indiscriminant.)
It's just plain fucking sickening this morass of hate we live in, I am so tired of it. |
| SpaceMonkey |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 5:27:30 PM
Did anybody hear Tucker Carlson waxin nostalgic for his college years while he was interviewing some profiler-type guy at VT?
I cant find an exact quote but he basically said "when i was in college kids just wanted to drop acid and have a good time".
|
| Fluffy |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 5:23:34 PM
Hey Arthen, your comments made me think of something I saw just the other day on the History Channel. It was show called "Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy" and it talked alot about Oliver Stone's JFK and how so many people watched that and believe it just as he laid out even though OS has said he took creative license with it and the folks they talked to on the show said thats the problem with the world, folks see a movie like that and they don't check out the facts they take it as gospel. Anyway, it was a great documentary if the JFK assassination fascinates anyone I would recommend watching for it to reair. Very informative. Lots of info I had never heard before on the subject. VERY INTERESTING! |
| Arthen |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 5:05:20 PM
My point was that people just read something and accept it (or watch it) which is highly disturbing in any case and situation, and for both sides involved over the whole 9/11 debate. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 4:54:29 PM
Right on! I totally agree.
I didn't realize you can't make it...DAMMIT! That would have been so sweet, you, me, and HRW! All well... |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 4:45:22 PM
i'll be rolling a d20 to see if i hit you with the tomato. it just so happens i have a +2 tomato of seeking right here. so. . .i hope you have a high dexterity modifier or some dragonscale armor to wear. you know, boost your ac a little. seriously, though, i'm wicked fucking bummed i can't make it out there. we're seriously missing each other by less than a week.
i know what yellow journalism is, and i understand that sensationalism like that still exists in popular magazines and news papers. i wasn't talking about yellow journalism, though. i was talking about prison planet's poor application of the fundamentals of journalistic writing. your thing about the 9/11 truth movement sounds like a prepackage mission statement or something off a broucher, and it too is not relevent to the topic at hand. but i would suggest the reason why your movement doesn't have the things you say it doesn't have because people like the writers at prison planet come off as a bunch of crazies instead of serious journalists doing serious work. standing up for what you believe is all well and good, and certainly that's to watson's credit. i'm saying though, if he wants to spread his version of "the truth," he should maybe consider delivering his message in a manner that more people can respect. it has nothing to do with dumbing the message down and everything to do with properly presenting your material in such a way that people who are wary of him and his message can take seriously. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 3:59:51 PM
I posted that because Arthen brought up 9/11 and his grandmothers reaction. I didn't really focus on what he was actually saying about researching. I agree, surely anyone watching the videos and not doing independent reasearch on the buildings construction, the physics behind the collapse speed, declassified documents, and basic human history in general is just as bad as someone watching Bill O'Reilly. We the people of the 9/11 Truth Movement urge others to DO research on your own and make up your own mind. We do not own 60 TV Channels spewing what we believe is true (since most people do not contest what they view on the TV). We do not own multi-national print publications, we do not own billboards or hold any elected office. We are regular citizens of this country, and we are victims of 9/11. We will have an investigation, and we will hold the criminals who demolished the twin towers accountable.
Hearst Publications (Popular Mechanics) is the very definition of yellow journalism. Brittanica or wiki it.
You might not agree and sit on the same side of the fence that Paul Joseph writes. I am, so of course I will defend him. I enjoy his writings, although sometimes flawed or opinionated, I always research what he says. What I will say is that he is standing up for the people...while most people are sitting around doing NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING he is reporting on things that are not normally reported on. Whether you agree with him or not, atleast he's doing something he believes in for the benefit or everybody. That's saying and doing a lot more then most lazy bastards. But again, I am defending him because I agree with most of what he says, not because I have to, but because I look into what he says and I see it for myself.
Anywho...please don't throw tomatoes at me in NY Dan! |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 3:44:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
Yea no way were explosives used and there is no need for any further investigation...
WTC 7 Video
not relevent to to the topic at hand. we are discussing prisonplanet and their journalistic integrity and skill, or lack thereof depending on your stance. 9/11 has nothing to with anything in this thread. we've all seen the fucking videos, continually cramming it down our throats won't do anything, especially when it has not a damn thing to do with what we're talking about. arthen wasn't talking about his grandmother, and i suppose people at large, who would rather be fed information than do research. i don't know how that relates to prison planet, or why he brought it up at all, but i would seriously try to reign in the knee jerk reaction to respond to even a passing statement about 9/11 one of the videos. it's annoying and entirely non-constructive.
what does the conspiracy theory have to to with prisonplanet's poor journalism or this guy that shot a lot of people? |
| rubylith |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 2:53:36 PM
Yea no way were explosives used and there is no need for any further investigation...
WTC 7 Video |
| Arthen |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 2:29:02 PM
Who the hell are Cho's "handlers"? What an outrageous statement to make!
Prison Planet reminds me of my Grandmother, who watched Loose Change and now all she does is talk about how the government orchestrated 9/11. I asked her if she did any independent reading of sources and facts on her own and she replied: "I prefer letting other people do the research and then present it to me in a movie." As a history major, that was the scariest thing anyone person has ever said to me. I'm highly unimpressed with PP. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 1:54:54 PM
Why does prisonplanet automatically take the stance that Cho was NOT muslim, and that any of his supposed ties to Islam are basically made up by people with agendas? When they haven't, at least, not yet. (PP actually says "look for" this to happen.)
Sounds like PrisonPlanet is using the opportunity to put forth its own agenda.
Even if the shootings were motivated by militant Islam, it's not like someone's going to try to tie him to Al-Quaeda. At least not a sane person.
I definitely agree with Dan P's assessment of PP in general. Rather than put forth objective news stories, they get up on a soapbox and call it journalism. That last article didn't seem to be really reporting anything, just warning to look out for conservative agendas. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 1:07:33 PM
don't drag video games into this. they have nothing to do with the shootings. |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 11:57:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
Reports state that Seung-Hui wrote two words on his arm in red ink before carrying out the bloodbath - "Ismail Ax."
It was probably his username in some video game.
I looked for it online and only found it in two references: one in a a machine translation reasearch project on the other on some French guy's blog, who has a photo with "Ismail Ax" in the middle. (But the dude in the middle isn't the guy in the shooter photo.) |
| rubylith |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 10:45:52 AM
it was more of a footnote that "he was probably on anti-depressents". It was an editorial...
Update I'm sorry they posted someone else's blog saying that the young man was probably on anti-depressents. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 10:29:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
Prisonplanet had an article assuming he would be on anti-depressents before it was actually reported. They have done a lot of articles about the side effects of those drugs. Just to clarify."
thanks for clarifying that prisonplanet assumes things like that without knowning it, and then reports it. that's exactly the king of bullshit i'm talking about. it doesn't mean they're super smart and "called it." it means they report things they don't know to be true. it's like they've never even heard of journalism before. you don't get to assume something like that and then go ahead and report it. christ. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 09:38:07 AM
Prisonplanet had an article assuming he would be on anti-depressents before it was actually reported. They have done a lot of articles about the side effects of those drugs. Just to clarify.
And also that Oregon shooting wasn't on a college campus, it was at a high school.
Right on HRW.. This is a shitty situation overall. I hope everyone is ok down there. People are crazy, people are ignorant, people are violent. Most people however, like all of you, are good, kind people who only want peace and music.
----------------------------------------------
Neo-Cons To Spin VA Massacre As Terrorist Attack
Propaganda junkies may milk "Ismail Ax" to say bloodshed was spurred by militant Islam
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Neo-Con media cheerleaders for the Bush administration's war on terror are set to connect killer Cho Seung-Hui with militant Islam as an excuse to propagandize the notion that Monday's VA Tech Massacre was a terrorist attack.
Reports state that Seung-Hui wrote two words on his arm in red ink before carrying out the bloodbath - "Ismail Ax."
Explanations as to the meaning of the words vary but according to a Chicago Tribune report, "One popular theory spreading across the web comes from a story in the Koran, the holy book of Islam, about Ibrahim and his son, Ismail. This theory picked up speed because many bloggers wondered if the actions at Virginia Tech could be related to terrorism."
"In Islam, Ibrahim is known as the father of the prophets and, upset that people in his hometown still worshiped idols and not Allah, he smashed all but one statue in a local temple with an ax. Ibrahim's son is Ismail, who also became a prophet. Ibrahim is Arabic for Abraham, who plays a significant role in Christianity, Judaism and Islam."
In what was described as a "disturbing note" left in his dorm room, Seung-Hui outlines his motivation for gunning down 32 victims. In the screed, Seung-Hui rails against "rich kids," "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans" on campus. Although the full contents of the note have not been made public, it is understood that the killer also expresses his hatred of Christianity. This would parallel with the explanation that "Ismail Ax" is some kind of loyalty oath to militant Islam.
Though there are other literary possibilities for explaining the meaning behind "Ismail Ax," expect war propagandists like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Shaun Hannity to run hard with this angle for the rest of the week and exploit it to make the case that the VA Massacre was a terrorist attack perpetrated by an America-hating militant Muslim.
"It may be that somebody wants to give the impression Cho Seung-Hui was a Muslim," writes blogger Kurt Nimmo. "Of course, it is possible Cho Seung-Hui converted to Islam after arriving in America in 1992, although there is no mention of this in news reports. In South Korea, the Muslim population stands at an underwhelming 0.2 percent. Is it possible a reclusive and basically non-communicative South Korean student—that is if we can put credence in the story now emerging—discovered this relatively cryptic and obscure Islamic religious reference on his own, maybe at the university library? If so, why was he compelled to pen this on the inside of his arm? Did Cho Seung-Hui want us to believe he was a Muslim?"
"Or did his handlers want us to believe he was but another crazed and psychotic Muslim gunning for innocent young Americans, “rich kids” (as Cho supposedly called them) attending a highly ranked engineering college?"
By connecting the massacre to militant Islam, the fraudulent war on terror can be perpetuated as the Bush administration lines up its aircraft carriers in the Gulf for an imminent strike on Iran. The base level propaganda that "the enemy" is attacking our college kids would give the Neo-Cons all the pretext they need for selling another pre-emptive war to a dumbed down public.
This may not be the false flag we were all fearing, but it certainly puts the population in a semi-comatose state and makes the horrors perpetrated in the name of Empire look insignificant when up against the terror on our doorstep.
|
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 07:35:57 AM
Not buying what, Nick? Reality? I am 100% pacifist, but I, like everyone else, still have to deal with the fact that someone might wanna kill me someday, for reason or no.
The non-violent approach (go TR) is effective in certain ways. For one, it'd be tough for today's media to mainupulate a non-violent protest into a crazed mob...not that a U.S. protest would get any U.S. media attention anyway. Civil disobedience is the level that we've ascended to, I think. Unfortunately, like Dan says, the war mongering higher-ups would have to give a shit what you think. Public opinion obviously hasn't much changed G.W.'s thought process.
Oh, bother.
Tangent: Our P.O.S. president went to that campus for a memorial? I wonder how many students there found that comforting...a man who is knowingly, essentially the cause for deaths all around the globe. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 07:33:27 AM
I've seen that. What a lame 80's 'star'-studded cast.
WOLVERINES! AHAHA |
| tericee |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 03:42:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Muskrat
Hell has frozen over.
I agree with Dave. On a subject other than music.
Me too. Amazing.
Although I agree with Dan on his point about "when was the last time anyone opposed the us government with a gun," all this talk reminds me of that movie about the kids who fought in the resistance when the communists took over America. I had to go look it up on IMDB, but it was called Red Dawn. I haven't thought about that movie in a while... it came out while I was in high school. |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 04/18/2007 : 12:06:03 AM
I'm sorry, but this is just way out there . . . even more than usual. Sorry, I'm not buying this. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 11:40:28 PM
i don't really have any more faith in "non-violent" resistance either. because that depends more on the people in power giving a fuck about what you think. |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 10:45:25 PM
"Isn't it interesting that Utah and Oregon are the only two states that allows faculty to carry guns on campus. And isn't it interesting that you haven't read about any school or university shootings in Utah or Oregon?"
http://www.cnn.com/US/9805/21/school.shooting.2/index.html
So ya that's the first thing about that article that's dead wrong!
"A well-armed populous is the best defense against tyranny."
That's bull. A well educated populous is the best defense against tyranny. I think if anything having to be well armed is tyranny in and of itself. Especially in today's day and age. People can more effectively shape the world through non-violent resistance than violent resistance. Look at Ghandi and MLK (the socialist) for examples and the countless people from those social movements. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 9:56:00 PM
Well elaborated, Dan. That's kinda what I was saying about making legislation banning people from going postal. Some people snap, period. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 7:14:25 PM
also, prisonplanet's stuff on why he shot his school up is bullshit. perhaps they didn't know, or didn't care to report, that the he had been on meds for depression, his frequently disturbing writings, and a note for his roommate that said nothing about a girlfriend, but plenty of things about "rich kids," "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans."
also not noted was the fact that he chained the building doors and padlocked them. this doesn't sound like a guy who saw his girlfriend with another guy. shootings like this don't just, like, happen. it takes some planning. no one spontaneously goes, i better get my chains and padlock (which i carry around with me and bought a long time ago for a completely unrelated purpose) and lock the place up so no one can get out. he had thought about this before hand. also, from the reports, he fitted the school shooter stereotype; a silent loner.
my suggestion to prisonplanet here would be to do some goddamned research if you're going to talk about why he shot people. if you don't want to, or you can't for some reason, leave it out and stick to your original topic, which is presumably has something to do with something bad the government is doing. props on not bringing 9/11 into it, though. |
| Janet |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 5:40:25 PM
It's been pretty slow, HRW. Except for the discussion of VA Tech and a great picture of Tim that I posted. :) |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 5:37:47 PM
Yeah, I gotta go back to that board to see what's doing. |
| Janet |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 5:13:55 PM
Hi, Dan.
I had replied in Fluffy's thread about our site, but it got lost in all the more interesting threads here.
Thanks for the welcome. :) |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 5:01:55 PM
janet! we had heard rumor of you, and here you are. welcome aboard.
i don't have a problem with red tape and regulations for the purchasing of guns. people who don't have urgent business with a gun will probably be willing to wait. |
| Janet |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 4:42:37 PM
I don't know if more gun control or less would have made a difference at VT yesterday, but I do know that gun laws in VA are notoriously lax from the point of view of the criminal, and notoriously full of red tape for those who wish to legally own and carry a weapon. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 4:35:36 PM
I think that's the general concensus here, Dan. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 4:22:50 PM
wtf? |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 3:59:39 PM
FTW! |
| dan p. |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 2:15:03 PM
i used to work at a grocery store.
see, the problem is, a ban on guns won't make guns magically disappear. just because it's illegal doesn't mean it goes away. let me illustrate my point. how much pot does anyone here have on them right now? enough said. no, banning guns will simply create a stronger black market for them. the result then would be people using firearms to committ violent crimes that are not registered and are harder to trace. is that what you want? besides which, someone who wants to committ a crime with a gun doesn't go buy one at an established business and register it legally. they obtain one illegally because, again, harder to trace.
if you want to do something about gun violence, i suggest you target illegal arms dealers. that's where the real danger is. someone with a gun legally registered does not intend to committ a crime. that doesn't mean no one with a register gun ever shoots anyone, but there are better targets for stopping violent crime than legal businesses.
but, even all of this aside, gun control sidesteps the real issue, which is that some people want to kill other people. take guns away, and people who want to kill will do it another way.
obviously the idea "they" want to take your guns away so that they can better reign in tyrany over you is bullshit, and should be disregarded for the joke that it is. when was the last time anyone opposed the us government with a gun? i'd also like to remind you that if it came to physical force between the government and the populous, they'd win. remember, they have the army. we have adorable little hand guns.
in summation: the ban on guns won't make guns stop being, it will only make crimes with guns harder to deal with and the illegal arms trade even stronger. people will kill one way or another, and that's the problem. the government isn't trying to take your guns away because they're afraid of you being able to stand up for yourselves or something.
and yeah, it'd be fantastic if no one ever needed a gun, or shot anyone, or killed anyone, or whatever. but seriously, grow the fuck up. guns are real and you can't make them go away, either by legislation or wishing real hard.
all that being said, the solution to shootings is not carrying more guns around with you. even the premise that there's some solution to people shooting each other is ridiculous. as long as there are guns there will be shooting, and guns aren't going anywhere. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 1:07:08 PM
There must be a clean-up needed in aisle 4. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 12:24:40 PM
Dan P....Dan P??? |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 10:48:54 AM
quote:
This happened for a reason. They will use this to end gun rights and we can look to the militarized police to save us.
No, Dave. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 10:27:13 AM
Potentially...or the kid could have seen another student pull a gun, killed that student, as a result, got worked into a further frenzy and killed more people...see where I am going with this? |
| rubylith |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 10:23:00 AM
In a perfect world there would be no guns. In this situation, and most situations, the cops WON'T SAVE YOU. This happened for a reason. They will use this to end gun rights and we can look to the militarized police to save us. MMMmmmm bootlicking tastes great!
I know that without guns there would be way less murders. That would be great. But banning guns will not stop someone who intends to kill from killing. Not to mention now they report both guns had the serial numbers scratched off yet they found receipts for both guns in his backpack!? This situation is fucking terrible at all ends. I know that if someone had a gun to protect themselve sin that locked down school, more people could have potentially been saved.
And you're right about the cops, I forget how many bullets from the SWAT team were found how many Columbine students, I think 4 or 5 vitims had bullets from the SWAT according to ballistics. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 10:18:39 AM
I understand what Dave is saying, but I don't think anyone who loves peace can agree.
"A well-armed populous is the best defense against tyranny." That isn't the way I wanna live my life.
I also think that the small army of cops on campus everywhere afterward with insane super-sized guns wasn't doing any good either. Friendly fire has been killing more people lately than enemy fire. Keep 'em holstered, fellas. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 10:18:24 AM
Hell has frozen over.
I agree with Dave. On a subject other than music. |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 10:16:48 AM
Yeah, I kind of agree with HRW. I think allowing more unstable, young adults in a high pressure atmosphere (college) to carry guns would be a bad idea.
Maybe (and that's a big "MAYBE") allowing the profs to have them could have saved some lives. But then most profs are complete morons too.
If they could have responded in a relatively timely manner and increased security even slightly in the 2 hours between shootings, then maybe many more lives could have been saved.
But having a bunch of hormone-high teens carrying firearms is probably a bad idea.
This was an extreme case...that thankfully happens very infrequently.
People suck. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 10:09:28 AM
Dave, I am usually with you, but this post can go fuck itself. More legal guns isn't the solution to not-legal-guns, and you're just as bad as those demanding the further tightening of gun control laws.
This is about a sicko whose girlfriend fucked some other dude, so he decided to kill her and a whole bunch of other people. You can't pass any kind of legislation to prevent sickos. Not everyone is a government-brainwashed agent of terror, Dave. Do I believe this is a product of a demented and bellicose society, absolutely. But I don't believe this is will be a catalyst to push legislation. That decision lies with Congress. *prays to something* Unsensationalized media would also help, of course.
I read an online article at 830 am yesterday about the first shootings...I probably knew about it before most of the campus did. Ugh, what a nightmare. |
|
|
