steo on 19/4/2007 at 13:10
Quote Posted by GBM
I can't imagine how big a bunker you'd need to store enough gear for 300 million people.
Why on earth would you keep it in one bunker? The US is a big place with lots of people but with lots of space for all those people, plenty of space for all those bunkers.
Quote Posted by Taffer_Boy_Elvis
Yeah, we're buying guns and ammo for everyone...
But your argument skills break down to saying my opinion is shit, and your opinion must be the ONLY way in the world we could ever go on as a society.
Do I tell you that you need to get your Utopian society out of your ass, because your opinion is wrong?
I'm sure you could find the money for all those guns somewhere in your half a trillion dollar defence budget, even if takes a few years and you have to put mechs and railguns back a year or two.
When did I ever say your opinion was shit? I have merely been outlining my opinion and trying (probably in vain) to convince you that my opinion is better than yours, as is the case with any arguement.
The society 'up my arse' as you so eloquently put it, is far from utopian. I just doubt that there will be a time when every american civilian will suddenly and without warning need a gun to protect themselves from foreign invaders and thus, I feel it would be beneficial to ban guns in the US. I would argue that it is not me who needs to get the utopian society out of my arse, but you who needs to get the paranoia out of yours and be a little more realistic in terms of what is likely to happen.
Quote Posted by paloalto
The fact that you would not even mount a resistence nor want the means to do so even given the odds tells me you take your freedoms for granted.Ghandi's peaceful resistence worked in India because the British even though they were an alien power had a code of conduct within their society.Try that against Hitler.Don't think so.
The reason why Hitler's reigeme worked is because, in many ways, he was probably the best ruler Germany had seen for hundreds of years. He solved an awful lot of problems in Germany and made a lot of German lives better. Had his society been so oppressive that people felt they had nothing to lose by refusing to accept the Nazis as government then the reigeme would have quickly collapsed. As I said before, a nationwide workers strike would be more effective at bringing a tyrannical government to its knees that armed resistance. If such a thing were to happen in the US then it would probably be akin to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia but much worse because of better technology. It would be all too possible in the foreseeable future for a government to begin planting tracking devices and microphones in the back of babies heads at birth, how long before they are able to monitor your thoughts and implant a killswitch? Just a thought.
fett on 19/4/2007 at 13:15
It's obvious from the video that the guy is a fucking lunatic. Trying to analyze why he did it is a pretty huge waste of time. Seems like both him and his parents needed to be nut punched a few hundred times.
NyquistLimit on 19/4/2007 at 13:26
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
jesus fuck
Maybe he also
FUCKED HIS DAUGHTER I mean wtffffff
Fiver says he didn't manage to do the corridor fight scene in one take :p
ilweran on 19/4/2007 at 13:51
Quote Posted by fett
One more victory for psychology! How fucked up is it that the guy was known as a stalker, wrote disturbing/violent rantings, was considered suicidal, and had been psychologically evaluated, yet "no one saw this coming"?
Being mentally ill doesn't mean you're going to go on a killing spree. Being suicidal doesn't mean you are going to kill others.
The mentally ill are more likely to be the victims of rather than the perpertrators of crime.
This is something I feel rather strongly about as here in the UK the government wants to be able to lock up people who have committed no crime, give them treatment that doesn't have to be of therapeutic benefit, and force them to continue with that treatment when they are released even though there is apparently no evidence that this would be effective.
steo on 19/4/2007 at 14:03
Surely selling guns to a suicidal person is a bad idea though.
jay pettitt on 19/4/2007 at 14:12
Quote Posted by paloalto
The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were quite aware that it is the nature of govermnent no matter what the period of time your talking about to evolve into a more centralized and more powerful entity.This included debates about central banking and checks and balances in areas of government to prevent it.That doesn't disappear because technology changes.
The fact that you would not even mount a resistence nor want the means to do so even given the odds tells me you take your freedoms for granted.Ghandi's peaceful resistence worked in India because the British even though they were an alien power had a code of conduct within their society.Try that against Hitler.Don't think so.
As far as a resistence chances,the conflicts in the Middle East shows the shortcomings of air power and armor in urban warfare.You have a large geographical area with many potential pockets of resistence.If you have guns that means the military has to at least put assests up to engage it or to remove those guns in order to gain control.I think the chances would be pretty good.
From a human point of view there are only three situations in which violence is justified.
To defend yourself or another.
To free yourself from tyranny.
and to preserve the freedom and rights that you have.
Maybe you should try living in a country with no rights for a while to see if they are worth fighting for.
What? Seriously, what? What? What? What? Goodness me, where do you start: go grow a critical thought process.
Quote:
I'm not well versed enough in law to know where the local police would stand if a dictatorship would take over the U.S.
I'm sorry but, what?
ilweran on 19/4/2007 at 14:22
Quote Posted by steo
Surely selling guns to a suicidal person is a bad idea though.
I'd say selling guns to anyone is a bad idea, but that's just my opinion.
My point really was about the 'no one saw this coming' comment. From what we've heard of the concerns that were expressed I don't see that a mass killing was the obvious outcome.
Scots Taffer on 20/4/2007 at 00:05
I listened to a very heartfelt speech from one of the survivor's of the Columbine massacre yesterday on an Aussie radio talk show called (
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/) Hack (probably after today they'll reload the "last week" list and Thursday's is well worth a listen for his segment). He spoke well about what people could do to make these tragedies preventable after the shooter has decided to kill people, but he was more focussed on trying to prevent (as he put it) "the emptiness and hatred getting into their hearts" in the first place. It was admirable to hear him say that he thinks his country is diseased, as not many can stand up and make such a bleak statement about the country they love.
Anyway, it seems that (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6572743.stm) the police regret allowing the video to be broadcast and that there is already a copycat in the works, let's hope he's just an idiot with a camera and not an idiot with a gun.
Dia on 20/4/2007 at 00:10
Like I said; they'll be crawling out of the woodwork now. Sad to say. I hope you're right Scots, and this new crazy only does video & phone threats.
paloalto on 20/4/2007 at 01:27
Quote:
What? Seriously, what? What? What? What? Goodness me, where do you start: go grow a critical thought process.
Is this an example of a critically thought out response?
Quote:
In any case it's very very hard to separate real considerations and the wierd-ass fantasy of Red Dawn. I don't think it's a realistic situation, and I find it hard to believe that the chances would be good. In general, I'd warn against making policy based on fear and paranoia, which is pretty much what that movie represents.
So is paranoia now being defined as someone who bieleves in a higher probability that an invasion could be possible?Thats called a difference of opinion not paranoia.
Quote:
The accusation of being unpatriotic isn't too different from me saying that elvis loves penis. I think it's issued far too often, and sometimes for wholly unpatriotic purposes. I pay my parking tickets and I don't lie on my taxes - I've earned the privilege of these freedoms.
I didn't accuse anyone of being unpatriotic nor undeserving of freedoms.I said it appears many don't value them very highly.Patriotism is a very dangerous word.It can be used to negate critical thinking and has been used by many to further thier political and economic ends.
Sadly it appears that many will have to lose their freedom before their willing to fight for it again.I imagine from a reasoning point of view you would have to say that George Washington and his ragtag army never would have won against the British.I'm glad he did not give in to defeatism and held to the vision of victory.
Didn't Hitler confiscate all the guns from the population or is that wrong?
