Another day, another shooting in the US

[jonny5]

So because of the occasional act of madness from a fucking spaztard all Americans must be disarmed so that the only people with weapons are criminals and the force of the criminal state? Very good, carry on.

Guns are all over the place here in Canada, doesn't bother me at all.

Lots of rifles for hunting in the more rural areas, but VERY few legal handguns compared to the US

[Obscura]

Every life matters.

This is a ridiculous statement. There have been people who have committed suicide and no one knew about it for years, until the body was discovered, simply because no one had any reason to care about their absence.

Hell, I'm sure the chick's fiance will get over it in a few weeks when his socially-mandated displays of mourning are over.

You could kill about 99.993% of Earth's population right now and leave everyone who matters alive.

Even if the shooter was in fact treated poorly at the company (which, you have to remember, is being claimed by someone unstable enough to resort to homicide to vent his frustration and film himself doing so)

The claim that him being so distraught that he was willing to shoot three people and then himself makes it less likely that he was being treated badly is so fucking absurd that I don't quite know how to describe it.

When his former coworkers are saying things like "he didn't laugh at our jokes or at himself when he would make a mistake.", it makes it even more obvious.

[Satan]

Obscura : license revoked.

[Skykid]

So because of the occasional act of madness from a fucking spaztard all Americans must be disarmed so that the only people with weapons are criminals and the force of the criminal state? Very good, carry on.

The problem is more how many spaztards America has, hence it's way more volatile than anywhere else with legal firearms.

Yet I admit the conundrum. If spaztards stopped shooting each other and instead used that weaponry against the powers that need unseating, it would be way more economical.

@ obscura - you're being incompassionate and foul with it. These people wanted to live. Taking a life shouldn't be trivialised, even if, when we all have our misanthropic venting episodes, we sometimes allude to cleansing by force.

[Obscura]

I'm also sure that the guy who committed the murders wanted to not be treated badly at his job.

I'm not straight-up endorsing his actions (pretty sure doing so would be illegal where I live). I'm saying that calling the people who he murdered "innocent" is absurd.

[Satan]

Them there spaztards ain't hungry enough yet. Not long now hopefully.
Chinless wondermongs like Alex Jones are currently fearmongering a total collapse incoming, who knows maybe he's right. I don't know. He's 41 you know? And he lost 4897LBs thanks to magic anti-NWO oil of snake available from his website.

[Skykid]

I'm also sure that the guy who committed the murders wanted to not be treated badly at his job.

I'm not straight-up endorsing his actions (pretty sure doing so would be illegal where I live). I'm saying that calling the people who he murdered "innocent" is absurd.

Define innocent? Do you think they deserved to die?

We should be candid about this: it's just another mentally unhinged American with a gun. Even if they called him names doesn't give him the right to deny them life.

[neorichieb1971]

The problem with making guns available to the general public is that Mr sane today isn't necessarily a man with equal sanity tomorrow. He might own a gun tomorrow.. Bang bang, more headlines.

The other thing that really worries me is that the USA has had almost 100 years sitting on top of the world. What happens when they lose that status? What if people in the USA suddenly become desperate? Then your in a world of hurt. It will be the sequel to Natural born killers.

What we witnessed today is a tremor of things to come.

BTW, although I am anti gun I totally don't want an argument about it. If people are brought up right it makes no difference if guns co exist with people or not. You have to blame society on two fronts. You have to respect people more in a society with guns.. If you don't, or even one person doesn't, then you have a bigger problem than any other country that doesn't have guns.

[Obscura]

I'm also sure that the guy who committed the murders wanted to not be treated badly at his job.

I'm not straight-up endorsing his actions (pretty sure doing so would be illegal where I live). I'm saying that calling the people who he murdered "innocent" is absurd.

Define innocent? Do you think they deserved to die?

We should be candid about this: it's just another mentally unhinged American with a gun. Even if they called him names doesn't give him the right to deny them life.

The question of whether they deserved it or not makes zero sense. It's like asking whether a kid who pokes a coyote with a stick "deserves" to be badly mauled.

[Shepardus]

The question of whether they deserved it or not makes sense in the context of answering whether they're "innocent." If you're going to say that they're not innocent because they did something in the past the shooter didn't like, then nobody is innocent and the word itself is pointless. Even if they did do something to trigger the shooter, even if they could have done something or not done something to prevent this from happening, I don't think it's fair imply that they brought their deaths on themselves, it's clearly the gunman's fault. It would be fruitless to try to bend societal behavior around the whims of crazies in the hopes of not triggering them.

[Obscura]

Let me try another example to make this clearer.

Let's say a family with a small child goes on vacation at Yosemite. While the parents are distracted, the kid wanders off, provokes a bear, and is killed. Do we say that the child "deserved" to die? No, we don't. But we also can't claim that the child was innocent. We don't condemn all bears and try to have them removed from national parks. We don't start campaigns of "bear declawing" for the safety of kids that don't know better than to provoke bears. We just try to do better at making sure our kids don't provoke bears.

Likewise, it seems pretty damn clear at this point that the shooter was treated like shit by his former coworkers. We can't act surprised that he would lash out, and cries of "hey, let's make sure that people who are being mistreated by more powerful in-groups can't lash out or fight back at all!" are, at best, stupid (frankly, such cries reek more of popular kids in high school campaigning for school officials to recognize their "right" to bully less popular kids).

[Shepardus]

We also don't let wild bears mingle among humans in busy cities. We condemn crazed gunmen because they're human beings within human society and are thus held to a higher standard than wild animals are. Sure, treating people like crap is bad and not treating people like crap does help prevent incidents like this, but the main problem here is the crazed gunman, not his targets. I don't think it makes much sense to use the example of a crazed gunman to encourage better behavior (even if it isn't a bad thing to strive for), because with people like him it really could have been anything to trigger him.

[Squire Grooktook]

But we also can't claim that the child was innocent.

Yes we can, should, and do. The child didn't and couldn't know any better. There was nothing "guilty" (the opposite of innocent) about his/her actions.

[Obscura]

But we also can't claim that the child was innocent.

Yes we can, should, and do. The child didn't and couldn't know any better. There was nothing "guilty" (the opposite of innocent) about his/her actions.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Just because the child doesn't know better doesn't mean that he isn't "guilty" of provoking a bear.

because with people like him it really could have been anything to trigger him.

Given how targeted this attack was, that seems quite unlikely. This wasn't Sandy Hook. This was a guy targeting two people he had harbored grudges against for years (look at his tweets if you need more evidence of this).

[BulletMagnet]

Given how targeted this attack was, that seems quite unlikely. This wasn't Sandy Hook. This was a guy targeting two people he had harbored grudges against for years (look at his tweets if you need more evidence of this).

Didn't he praise previous mass shooters for how many people they'd managed to take down in the manifesto he faxed to the network? Not to mention also shot the person the reporters were interviewing (who knows, maybe she wasn't "innocent" either). Though at this point I'm not altogether convinced you're not just trolling the hell out of us.

[Obscura]

Given how targeted this attack was, that seems quite unlikely. This wasn't Sandy Hook. This was a guy targeting two people he had harbored grudges against for years (look at his tweets if you need more evidence of this).

Didn't he praise previous mass shooters for how many people they'd managed to take down in the manifesto he faxed to the network? Not to mention also shot the person the reporters were interviewing (who knows, maybe she wasn't "innocent" either). Though at this point I'm not altogether convinced you're not just trolling the hell out of us.

According to AP, they weren't able to verify that the faxed manifesto actually came from him.

Meanwhile, he posted grievances against the two people who he succeeded at actually killing on his twitter.

Had he been going for raw bodycount, I'm pretty sure he could have found an area with more than three people to shoot. Hell, most public areas he could have gone to would have given him more targets.

[Squire Grooktook]

But we also can't claim that the child was innocent.

Yes we can, should, and do. The child didn't and couldn't know any better. There was nothing "guilty" (the opposite of innocent) about his/her actions.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Just because the child doesn't know better doesn't mean that he isn't "guilty" of provoking a bear.

Semantics. Guilty of provoking the bear, but not "guilty". I'm also guilty of getting up in the morning, and guilty of playing games. If my PC or Game Console turns out to be secretly laced with nitroglycerin by aliens, and explodes, killing me, then yes I suppose I'm "guilty" of playing the game. I'm not innocent in that situation...by your definition...somehow...

Whether a random, morally innocent child is "guilty" of something they had no way of knowing about, is meaningless. It's a pointless, horrible tragedy. And attempting to assign blame to the victim (especially in this example, where the child had no way of knowing), is as pointless as the tragedy itself.

For the record, I'm not listening in on the gunmen convo, I just really don't like the bear analogy.

[ZacharyB]

The point is no longer to keep guns out of the hands of criminals; we must now keep ordinary citizens from turning themselves into criminals.

[evil_ash_xero]

The point is no longer to keep guns out of the hands of criminals; we must now keep ordinary citizens from turning themselves into criminals.

It's too late. There's absolutely NOTHING that will change Americans, or the majorities' view on guns, gun control, etc.. It's just pointless. After Sandy Hook, I am completely convinced of this.

I mean, if you want to say "hey, I love guns. I love them so much, that I don't CARE if they are making society more unsafe. I just don't care. Collateral damage", then I would at least be like "well, OK". But they deny reality. They're like "there is no link to all these guns, and gun deaths, and mass shootings..to the fact that everyone has access to guns. Absolutely no connection. Nope nope nope".
What can you do with that? Nothing. And that's the majority of people in this country. They just deny reality. Like someone can kill the amount of people Cho killed at Virginia Tech (33) without using a firearm? But nope, people will be like "he could have made bombs! he could have yelled really loud and caused an avalanche, if he decided to do this in the winter!". It's mind numbing. It's stupid. And it's like someone telling you the land you walk on is made of Jello.
Mass shootings lead into conversations about a fucking flag, rather than gun control.

Just be honest about it, at least. Jesus.

I have one gun. A handgun. I have it to for protection of my house. That's all I have. I was thinking about getting a shotgun, since I find it to be more of an "intimidation weapon", and in theory, you could just sort of wave it about at a burglar, and they're going to see it and go (if they aren't armed). My dad chased off the Klan like that, a long time ago, so don't tell me that's preposterous. We have a lot of pillheads that attempt to break into houses all the time. I was robbed last year, so stuff is sorta scary.
But that's all I need. You're not going to catch me deepthroating the fucking things, and having delusions that I could ACTUALLY take back my government, if it went overboard. Yeah, these weapons will do amazing work against bombs and tanks. The only thing all these guns are doing, is allowing us to kill each other off.
And talking about mental instability, violence in media, censoring shit, disintegration of the family...etc, is going to do FUCK ALL about this. The fact is, one person can take out tons of people, by getting the right weapon. Otherwise, this would be impossible.
But nah..crazy talk.

I have known numerous people, killed with guns. Be it by murder, accident, whatever. It's just constant. And no one EVER says "hey, why did the drug addict, who has been to prison have access to firearms?".

And WHY the fuck is anyone defending this guy? His REASONS aren't good enough. He died a murderer. And those people did not deserve to die. End of the fucking story.

[Squire Grooktook]

One more thing I'd like to point out: Just because a pyschopath thinks someone is harassing or "bullying" him, doesn't mean it's true. Normal people sometimes like to scapegoat and hate people who have done nothing wrong to them for irrational reasons. And this is a delusional psychopath. His "grievances" could have been completely fictional, as they often are for madmen.

I'm pretty sure nobody should be giving a lunatic killer the benefit of the doubt here. The twitter feed of crazed gunmen is not a reliable source. I wouldn't be surprised if the people he shot (or anybody he worked with) never even gave him a nasty glance.

[Lord Satori]

The fact of the matter is that he did something he had absolutely no right to do. If he was actually bullied you might say "It's a shame." or "He should've sought help instead." but the fact of the matter is that he did not. When someone is a teen and does this, one might bring up that the brain is not yet fully developed, their hormones are unstable, or something else in defense of their extreme action. This man has none of those things. He is fully grown and should be capable of handling situations in a mature (or at least a less destructive immature) way than that.

This country needs something. I don't know what, but it needs it bad.

[BryanM]

Never really get into these because there's really no new information to ever debate about. It would be news if somehow a day went by without someone dying by gunshot/car.

Did we already go over the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger guy itt? I have no recollection.

This country needs something. I don't know what, but it needs it bad.

Free gyros for everyone for life.

[MintyTheCat]

So because of the occasional act of madness from a fucking spaztard all Americans must be disarmed so that the only people with weapons are criminals and the force of the criminal state? Very good, carry on.

I don't think they need to have all the guns taken away, I think they need stricter rules. Guns are all over the place here in Canada, doesn't bother me at all.

The problem is who has these guns, and how easy it is to obtain them.

Satan: occasional - how many occasionals do we need before it is too many. The real answer is that no one should be harmed due to policy and indeed no lives would be foresaken. That clearly is not the case and as such the policies are not working and hence the number of gun related killings is more than zero in the US.

Noid: we had a guy over in Bavaria this year who went nuts and shot and killed several people. He was legally permitted to own guns. The legal only permit the individual to own a gun and has absolutely no safeguard in instructing how to use those guns. Granted most of these killers only get one chance to shoot people before being pursued but still that gun managed to kill people and he was legally entitled to own guns. The system does not work, people. Germany has substantially stricter laws over gun ownership too and we have this so you simply factor that for the US who have looser rules and laws over gun ownership:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33478581

The greater the number of guns and the easier it is to obtain them for any reasons you simply have to expect that someone will not follow the policy and unlawfully shoot people.

[MintyTheCat]

The problem with making guns available to the general public is that Mr sane today isn't necessarily a man with equal sanity tomorrow. He might own a gun tomorrow.. Bang bang, more headlines.

Exactly! We all change our states and change. Sometimes things make more sense to us under given circumstances in certain situations. We have made snap judgements. We are not machines and we are governed by emotions as such this statement is completely on the mark - 'mr sane today who owns a gun is not necessarily mr sane tomorrow'.

[MintyTheCat]

The point is no longer to keep guns out of the hands of criminals; we must now keep ordinary citizens from turning themselves into criminals.

Exactly and for you who is based in an area of New York that most certainly saw its fair share of shootings back in the 70s and 80s you may well see things from a vantage of seeing the effects guns have and I thank you.

The reasons guns and certain drugs are meant to be controlled substances is that are potentially lethal. I very doubt we will be seeing Cyanide Pills, Missile-Launchers or indeed Nuclear Bomb grade plutonium on the shelves of K-Mart for these very reasons: they are all lethal and are instruments of deaths that can never be clearer by the conscience of a single individual or small group, more over these are issues that impact the entire society and more Guns, Cyanide, etc. the more dangerous your society becomes.

[JBC]

I very doubt we will be seeing Cyanide Pills, Missile-Launchers or indeed Nuclear Bomb grade plutonium on the shelves of K-Mart

I hope we do see a satirical dark comedy flick about it though. Someone get Paul Verhoeven on the horn.

"Winchester - The playing field needs to be leveled. Let's just give plutonium to everybody."

[neorichieb1971]

Americans don't realize but as inferior beings that live in other parts of the world, we are amused by your constant denial of the gun situation. The fact that you have "freedoms" and that somehow we are so much worse off than you. Whilst you have this firm belief and your watching in horror as the next story unfolds, we are actually feeling sorry for you all. Until the lobbying of guns comes back up and they we say "fuck em all".

Remember that line in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly when the North and South armies crash on the bridge and Clint Eastwood says "I've never seen such a waste of life". There is a virtual line of innocent people in America just waiting to be slaughtered today.. Because someone needs money, someone has a revenge plot, someone goes mentally insane after watching Natural Born Killers. Those guns sitting on the shelf will make that once innocent person into a killing machine that won't know what they have done until its done. By which time they point the gun at themselves.

Its not even like we are comparing countries that have no guns. Even other countries that have guns, your stats are pathetically unbalanced and out of alignment.

[Strider77]

I want free gyros for life... that sound awesome. Now I'm hungry.

[BulletMagnet]

Give me tzatziki or give me death!

[neorichieb1971]

Another lockdown in campus in Mississippi.