I walk into the house an hour ago – make a cup of tea – click on the TV and sit down to check out the day’s news. And this is what I see:
A person who shot 13 people Thursday at Northern Illinois University’s DeKalb campus outside Chicago has died, local reports said.
Most of the 13 wounded were shot in the head, said Theresa Comitas, spokeswoman for Kishwaukee Community Hospital, located about 10 minutes from the school…
A woman named Corrine described the scene to CLTV, saying she was “carried out” of Cole Hall by a “wave” of students running for their lives.
“When one of the kids said, ‘This guy is shooting!’ I just ran to the next building as fast as I could and hid in an empty classroom.”
You’ll get to see all the details, the final body count, on TV, tonight. All the “analysis” over the next week.
Mass killings are apparently becoming so common place that boards like this charge straight into political fingerpointing and childish name calling. Geez, have a modicum of compassion FIRST, folks…then start ripping into each other.
Personally, I say, may God Bless and comfort the victims and their families.
And, from the anti-God, anti-religion people on this board, here’s their heart non-felt
“So what? It wasn’t my tough luck, so it means nothing. Get over it and VOTE OBAMA, The Man-God!”
#19;
Additionally:
Those are mitigating factors and make him an abnormality compared to John Q
IdiotPublic.#32;
Who the fuck are you to think you’re so special as to tell me what I was thinking about this? Asshat.
Help, I am running out of hand baskets to put all of this stuff into as the world goes to hell.
Locally here in South-Southern California there is discussion on message boards about IEDs and decapitation wires being placed in the no-mans land between ‘fences’.
Society falling apart? Naw……..
#31;
I forgot option #3: Continue as we have been, sticking our heads in the sand.
Maybe you should have had gun control before everyone had 2 or 3 guns. Blame your weak politicians
Nate, you only hear about a small number of cases. The news media does not mention self defense often because it might encourage people to get a firearm and try to defend themselves (and then where would the papers be without more crimes to write about?).
And for those of you who realize that you would be too terrified to do anything, don’t project. Some of us have been through such things and others have had training to handle such problems.
#38, Phillep;
Yes, I’m sure it’s just a huge conspiracy by the libruhl [sic] media. I’ll take “Crackpot Conspiracies” for $1000, Alex…
Wait, wait, wait! You tell us not to project about how people would react in stressful situations…immediately after your “projection” of a conspiracy by the media to paint guns as evil? Holy smokes, that’s rich.
The research is clear. Crime statistics reported by the FBI show gun-related self-defense cases are exceedingly rare. I don’t remember if they include incidences of self-defense by police.
Furthermore, sociologists and psychologists will tell you the majority of people do not handle stressful situations appropriately. Basic human response is fight or flight. The average human chooses flight. Generally, only well-trained people persons can overcome these base instincts.
(And no, I’m not going to look this up for you. I’ve done it for many reports in college. The information is easy to find via Google-fu powers.)
I no of quite a few adults that are idiots.
Just maybe, they had a kid.
One student who skipped class today was not concerned about her classmates but rather she was glade she was a slacker and skipped today.
I think this sums up a lot of whats wrong with society. We don’t take responsibility for our actions and we blame others for our own problems. It is why people commit these types of acts. They fail to treat themselves but rather blame others for their problems.I grew up in Dekalb, Il. I am sadden at what has happened to a very good University and its students. When are we going to learn that we cannot stop these acts when they are occuring.
We must do something to reconize potential for these acts in people much sooner. We cannot wait until they walk into a school or mall or some other place with guns.
it means the wackos are targeting the intellectuals. We must strike back!
It is too late for gun control. You will NEVER, I repeat NEVER be able to take guns off the street. There are too many out there. And the law abiding citizen who complies with mandatory surrender of arms, will be at the mercy of asshole like this.
Guns are good. People are bad. OK. There are plenty of laws against this kind of thing and one more law won’t make a damn bit of difference.
The problem is elsewhere and nobody is interested in solving it and teaching people to behave in a civil manner in our “I, Me, Mine” society.
A man with a gun is a citizen. A man with no gun is a subject. Being a tax slave is enough for me I don’t want to be a subject.
Remember how after the Virginia Tech massacre, Bush said, “Now is not the time to do the debates.”
http://tinyurl.com/3cqc42
WHEN THE HELL IS THE RIGHT TIME!?!?!?!
This absurd bloody-as-hell dubuious interpretation of the Second Amendment must end.
# 44 Mike Johnson said, One more law won’t make a damn bit of difference.
I’ve lived in countries WITH gun control and I’ve lived in countries WITHOUT gun control.
The countries with gun control had a lot less gun violence.
Obviously, gun control laws DO make a difference.
Well, gregallen, it’s pretty obvious you’ve never encountered the principle ‘correlation does not imply causation.’
Those countries and their people are absolutely identical in every way – except for the gun laws, right? No other factor could have any influence on the relative rates of gun violence, this is what you expect us to believe, am I right?
I’ve been following these threads for quite a while now, and so far, not one single person has yet explained just how making guns illegal would’ve prevented any of these incidents. That, of course, would be because it would not do so. When people determined to kill others stop in their tracks and say, “Oops, I better not murder those people; guns are against the law!”, give me a call.
If trained, licensed individuals were carrying today, just as at VT, the body count would either be: A) the same, or B) LOWER.
That means, for those unfamiliar with common sense, that things would not have been worse, but could have been better.
Can’t have that!
#38, Philleep,
The news media does not mention self defense often because it might encourage people to get a firearm and try to defend themselves …
The media doesn’t report it because it just doesn’t happen very often. Every year thousands of friends and family are injured or killed by weapons bought for self defense. That would include children playing with the weapons, the gun discharging as the owner cleans it, being carelessly dropped on the floor, demonstrating the weapon to friends, etc.
The number of actual times a firearm is useful as a defense is minimal. Usually that is because the weapon is not handy (ie., beside the bed), unloaded (oopps there are kids in the house), or the perpetrator has gotten the jump on the “victim”.
Now I’ve asked you in the past to produce some statistics to bolster you point. You haven’t simply because your claim is bogus. Yet, in your small minded, moranic way, you continue to believe in some bullcrap that justifies keeping a gun beside to how it gives your pants that “roll bar” look.
But Catshit –
I do not accept that I should not be allowed to buy a pistol because Joe Bumblefuck down the street is too stupid to clean one without putting a bullet through his leg. I am not responsible for the dumb or irresponsible behavior of others; I resent being lumped in with the idiots and being presumed incompetent.
As many guns as exist in America today, nothing will stop a criminal from getting one and using it if he so desires. I do not accept a law that stops only NON-CRIMINALS from having them and transforms those otherwise law-abiding citizens concerned with their personal safety in criminals.
Forbidding carrying licensed concealed weapons has NOT SAVED ONE LIFE. But it HAS COST LIVES, no one knows how many. “Oh, no! We can’t allow you to try to defend yourself! You might hurt yourself! We have to disarm you – but not genuinely dangerous criminals – for your own safety! You’ll be safer if you can’t defend yourself!”
Thank you, nanny. Makes perfect sense.
>>> # 47 the Three-Headed Cat™ said, Well, gregallen, it’s pretty obvious you’ve never encountered the principle ‘correlation does not imply causation.’
Of course I’ve encountered that principle — especially from those who want to avoid the clear evidence that countries WITH gun control have a lot less violence.
I studied statistics in college too but I’m not arguing from statistics — I’m arguing from common sense and personal experience.
C’mon, man. If you interpreted the Second Amendment absolutely literally, you’d allow ALL WEAPONS and especially the weapons needed to fight an army.
So, if every other American had a tactical nuke in his basement, do you think there would be an increased change of a nuke going off in the US?
OF COURSE! The same goes for small arms . Every other goofball has them and — SURPRISE! — we have daily slaughter on our streets.
So, that’s the answer to your question: reducing the number of guns in America will reduce the usage of those guns.
This is not only common sense, it has been demonstrated to be true in many countries, some similar to America.
#47 the three headed kitty
“If trained, licensed individuals were carrying today, just as at VT, the body count would either be: A) the same, or B) LOWER. That means, for those unfamiliar with common sense, that things would not have been worse, but could have been better” – the three-headed kitty
I can see you are still unable to see the flaw in most of what you call logic. There is no evidence to show that the same or less people would have been injured. You are speculating and nothing more. Just as someone else could speculate that things could have been much worse if “licensed individuals” with guns were mis-identified as the original shooter and were shot by another “licensed individual” or worse. Police Officers.
I am not sure what you were implying when you brought up VT but just in case you are not aware. Those “licensed individuals” at VT. They were called police. The last thing that would have helped would be having a bunch of wanna-be heroes running around like it was a paintball tournament. Also, just in case you didn’t know. None of those “licensed individuals” stopped him. He stopped himself. It was the deadliest school killing in history so I guess all those “licensed individuals” didn’t help very much at all.
Why don’t we leave law enforcement to the professionals? We should screen and train them better so that we can have more trust in them. Then lets get to the root of the problem “What is causing the problem where kids want to pick up a gun or any weapon for that matter and start killing people.?”
Now I do not believe guns are the problem. The problem is the culture of fear. We are taught from a very early age to fear almost everything around us. I think the current generation more than the previous and it seems to be progressive no thanks to our loving president and his cohorts.
No matter how many or how few guns there are, people are going to kill one another. It is in our territorial nature. Guns are effective and efficient. So maybe a little control about who gets them might be in order. Just because criminals can get them illegally doesn’t mean we should start passing them out in boxes of cereal. I believe the laws are on the books. I think they just aren’t enforced. At least not effectively. The kid at VT got his legally. The system just didn’t catch his little mental problem but the sale was a legal one. Maybe we should re-examine the system and make it work so that stable, law abiding, patriots can have their extended penises and yet keep as many guns out of the hands of over zealous, mentally deficient, trigger happy, yahoos as possible.
#49 the three headed kitty
“Forbidding carrying licensed concealed weapons has NOT SAVED ONE LIFE. But it HAS COST LIVES, no one knows how many.”
There you go again. Not one shred of evidence can be shown to back up either one of those statements. Again speculation. You can’t test such a thing because every situation is different and every situation is dynamic. You can speculate all you want and you can say “so and so shot an intruder and saved his family” but in the end it is nothing more than fortune telling. Unless you can turn back the hands of time and redo the exact situation except that one gun possession variable you can do nothing more than speculate the outcome.
Tools always have more than one application, and usually at least one of them is destructive and venal. If we went about banning every tool that has been used to murder a group of people, we’d have a hard time building our houses and cutting our roast in the evening, not to mention how much less fun our evenings would be without a roaring fire (arson is one of the most common forms of mass killing). But this forgets another point entirely; guns do kill, but unlike most forms of violence a gun doesn’t care how frail or weak the shooter is, as long as they can heft it and aim it. If you miraculously banned and eliminated guns entirely, you’d still have bats, clubs and knives, and so thenceforth the thugs would rule over the weak.
Please, do think of the consequences of the things you advocate, instead of speaking so much out of emotion.
OFTLO, Bravo to you! (#23) This is exactly right. This shooting is the symptom of a much deeper problem.
Ok, take away the guns, now that suicide belts and car bombs are all the rage in much of the world. They kill far better than a gun.
Until Columbine, it was believed that the killer wanted to get away alive, but not anymore!
How many of us are finally realizing that we now have a subculture of suicide “bombers” of our own?
#1
> Perhaps now’s the time for
> stricter gun laws?
What would you propose? The article did not say, but there is a good chance he owned all three guns for months. If he bought them within the last five years, it means he was given and passed multiple background checks. As far as I can tell, no gun law would have prevented this.
#50
Let’s see, in DC, which has the strictest gun control laws, it has the highest murder rate. The problem is that a prevalence of guns skews the crime statistics. In the US, if the use or appearance of a gun scares off a criminal, it will never be reported. If a women scares off a potential rapist with a handgun, that potential crime never gets reported.
#51
RE: VT
If instead of students, the victims were off-duty police officers armed with handguns do you believe the body count would have been different? If yes, then the issue is merely one of training.
> It was the deadliest school killing
> in history so I guess all those “licensed
> individuals” didn’t help very much at all.
You are forgetting the school-wide ban on carrying handguns. Thus, all those licensed gun owners made no difference since they were unarmed.
> Why don’t we leave law
> enforcement to the professionals?
An excellent question for which there is an excellent answer: they are wholly ill-equipped to protect everyone everywhere. If you want to find how ill-equipped the police are to solve crime, try reporting a robbery some day. A friend of mine had his place robbed and it took the police three hours to show up. The police will tell you (off the record of course) that if you are robbed of something other than car, your odds of getting it back are almost nil. If you are assaulted, the odds of getting police help at the time of the crime are almost nil. The police have become almost entirely reactionary. Thus, they cannot be there when the crime actually occurs to help you. The only person on which you can rely to protect yourself is yourself.
Banning all guns will not fix this.
Drugs are illegal and people can still get them.
Rape is illegal and people still do it.
Just because something is “banned” or “illegal” according to the law,simply means people must go through different channels to acquire or commit said illegal act or product.
A crazy person will always find a way. Always.
More laws equals more oppression.
Making things illegal gives more power to the black market. It solves nothing.
Name one thing that is against the law that people DON’T do. Go ahead, try.
Like I said, crazy people will ALWAYS find a way to commit crazy acts.
If not with a gun, then maybe by poisoning the food in the cafeteria, or planting home-made bombs.
I’m wondering if the shooter was on meds. Probably.
You guys are so dam lucky to have all those guns all over the place in the US. Im serious.
Over here in the UK I could wake up in the morning to martial law. They could kill your kids in front of you, order the men into one truck, the women into the other and we would be defenceless.
You guys can lean out the window, put two in their head and then go back to sleep.
You guys have the huge freedom of being able to protect your families. Don’t take it for granted.
“13” These luciferians have a real knack with numbers (numerology).
Psi-ops continues…. Those silly nazis are still running things.
Mmmm mkultra
Too bad the students weren’t armed so they could shoot back instead of run.
#35 – The space between the fences should be used for storing nuclear waste and obsolete chemical weapons.
You think we won’t see more of this after 4 years of President Obama leaves us 22 steps closer to Hell? Fix some problems and you’ll have less whackweeds out there. In the meantime, giving those capable, the ability to defend themselves is a pretty obvious plan.
#57 u bastad i wish i had summo that!
Does this finally make a case for online schooling? Maybe it is not the guns but the available targets.
Just saying.