Another Shooting, Close to Home

You place your trust in a broken constitution.


I don't place my trust in anything (except my guns, since I don't buy garbage).

Again, ideologies mean nothing to me. Governments are liars, police are ineffective, and I just want to get home at night. I trust the constitution insofar as it has allowed us to become an armed country. I don't trust ANYONE to do the right thing if that situation were to change.

And to be perfectly honest, if the laws concerning possession of guns WERE to change... nobody better expect me to "do the right thing" either.
 
That's really depressing, if you don't mind me saying so.


Not in the least, although being depressed on a Monday morning sucks so if you want I could say it with finger puppets to make the presentation a little more cheery. :)
 
Not in the least, although being depressed on a Monday morning sucks so if you want I could say it with finger puppets to make the presentation a little more cheery. :)

No, really. That you are armed because "Governments are liars, police are ineffective, and I just want to get home at night" is bleak, cynical and depressing. I actually feel sorry that you feel that way.
 
I don't place my trust in anything (except my guns, since I don't buy garbage). .... Governments are liars, police are ineffective, and I just want to get home at night. .....


Out of interest, where do you live? Question because of the danger you imply.

Fingerpuppets optional in your answer.
 
No, really. That you are armed because "Governments are liars, police are ineffective, and I just want to get home at night" is bleak, cynical and depressing. I actually feel sorry that you feel that way.


From my favorite page of literature ever written:

Your sympathies for my loneliness, tension, and disturbing fluctuations in indentity have some basis in fact and are humbly appreciated. But do not be misled. I am the happiest man in America.
-Tom Robbins, Still Life With Woodpecker


It doesn't fit within the context of your statement, but "as long as every wall is threatened, the world can happen" is a nice follow-up. :)


Out of interest, where do you live? Question because of the danger you imply.

Fingerpuppets optional in your answer.


South Carolina, and we've never torn down Fort Sumter just in case we need it again. :p
 
I think you just need a hug, Drudge... and we all know you can't hug with firearms.
 
... South Carolina


Ah, figures.


and we've never torn down Fort Sumter just in case we need it again.


And Fort Sumter is still owned by the Feds, administered by the U.S. National Park Service no less.

Or is your life in so much danger because you are a Fed?

One more question, if you will permit: do you find your fingerpuppets defuse or exacerbate situations?
 
Do you think the Founding Fathers would have written the exact same Constitution today?

If they had access to a time machine & saw how the Constitution was being used/abused, would they have thrown up their arms (not weapons) & said, "Come back Your Majesty, we knew not what we were doing."?

Don't get me wrong - I like guns, I like shooting at targets. I have an air rifle & an air pistol that I use for that purpose (I used to be in the Air Training Corps when I was in my teens, I've fired Lee Enfield .303 bolt action & 7.62mm SLR rifles & been awarded markmanship badges for it), but I don't feel the need to have a real, honest-to-goodness firearm in the house.
 
And Fort Sumter is still owned by the Feds, administered by the U.S. National Park Service no less.

Or is your life in so much danger because you are a Fed?


It was a JOKE.


One more question, if you will permit: do you find your fingerpuppets defuse or exacerbate situations?


Depends which one I pull out. They're like Harvey Dent's coin that way. :cool:
 
It was a JOKE.


I KNOW. I was joking in reply. We don't need to shoot it out quite yet. But there is always an element of serious point in my jokes, and always some joking irony in my serious points.


Depends which one I pull out. They're like Harvey Dent's coin that way. :cool:


Care to share in the differences between your fingerpuppets, then?
 
I KNOW. I was joking in reply. We don't need to shoot it out quite yet. But there is always an element of serious point in my jokes, and always some joking irony in my serious points.


Hey, me too. I like the cut of your jib. :)


Care to share in the differences between your fingerpuppets, then?


Oh the possibilities for "pull my finger" or "smell my finger" punchlines are overwhelming. Unfortunately, none of the ones coming to mind pass rule 10. :o
 
Harris and Klebold didn't manage to kill anyone with bombs. They didn't have the skills needed to be effective bomb makers.

Actually, they did. Both bombs had the potential to take out at least a third of the school had they worked. The error that prevented them from working was a comparitively minor problem with the triggering mechanism. A firebomb that they detonated just prior to the attack did function; but didn't injure anyone, since it was set off outside the school as a diversion.
 
Let's be fair. He killed because he had both.
But had he not had access to firearms, then we'd be reading about him killing people with pipe bombs.
As has already been mentioned, the Columbine killers' bombs didn't work. It's trickier stuff than pointing and squeezing.
Not really, not by that much. Anyone who has the skills to change the oil in their car, or replace a leaky u-bend under the sink, has the skills to create a very effective pipe bomb. At most, 30 minutes with a chunk of pipe, a couple end caps, a can of black powder, and either a fuse or length of wire with a 12-volt lantern battery. It's far from rocket science.

The reason that Klebold and Harris failed is that they attempted a far more complicated, and higher yeild, fuel-air bomb. The bomb mechanism worked fine; they simply screwed up the trigger timing. A simple error, which would have been avoided if they had been just a little more attentive to their construction, and less involved in writing manifestoes. Their much simpler fire-bomb succeeded.
Would he have gone on his rampage without the firearms, if he'd had to devise and deploy explosives or grapple with his victims with a knife?

Maybe. But probably not.
No, he'd have simply constructed pipe bombs instead.
 
I'm just saying that, in that case, it was probably the intersection of bad brain and easy means.

Same with Andrew Golden and Mitchell Johnson. I find it hard to believe that they would have attempted to blow up their school or to go on a stabbing rampage.
Actually, that's not true. None of these incidents were the "spur of the moment" actions. The case of Cho, and that of Golden and Johnson, both show considerably forethought and planning leading up to the incident. Cho had already issued multiple threats to various individuals, which were not taken seriously by the school. The only significant case of a school shooting I can think of that didn't include a substantial planning stage was that of Brenda Ann Spencer; and she wasn't actually on the school campus. In nearly every case, there is also a substantial prior history of violent anti-social behaviour (Golden was known as a bully, as were Klebold and Harris) or mental illness.
Of course, that doesn't mean that there are easy solutions, unfortunately.
No, but that doesn't stop the anti-gun lobby claiming that banning firearm is an easy solution.
 
Actually, they did. Both bombs had the potential to take out at least a third of the school had they worked. The error that prevented them from working was a comparitively minor problem with the triggering mechanism. A firebomb that they detonated just prior to the attack did function; but didn't injure anyone, since it was set off outside the school as a diversion.

The death toll was still zero. A few students suffered relatively minor injuries from the various explosive devices planted by the Columbine killers.
 
The death toll was still zero. A few students suffered relatively minor injuries from the various explosive devices planted by the Columbine killers.

I don't know why, but bombs seem to be preferred by political killers, like Eric Rudolph. Maybe it's the big statement, the flash and bang. But many of them do use firearms, such as abortion clinic snipers.

Paranoid-aggressives appear to have a preference for firearms and, for some reason, vehicles. Firearms are also prevalent in institutional massacres e.g. schools, workplaces, and churches -- except, again, for political massacres such as Klan church bombings. "Kick" killers, like highway snipers, are also prone to use guns.

Sadistic killers like to get close to their victims, and generally choose ligatures, bladed instruments, and in some cases blunt force trauma, or, like Speck, bare hands.

Every killer is different, of course, but there are patterns, which appear to be related to motivation.
 
Mayor Mike Svoboda passed away this past weekend, from complications to the gunshot wounds he suffered in the February shooting.
 

Back
Top Bottom