This is topic Another Bloody Sunday in forum Your News! at The Geek Culture Forums!.

To visit this topic, use this URL:;f=15;t=004726

Posted by Snaggy (Member # 123) on June 12, 2016, 14:15:
Terrible news out of Orlando today.

Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on June 12, 2016, 15:19:
Yes they had a rough weekend.
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on June 13, 2016, 01:46:
Just awful.
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on June 13, 2016, 06:21:
And this is all about how people pray?
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on June 13, 2016, 08:18:
Well, no.
It's about crazy people who use words from silly old books to justify killing people they don't like.

Here's a video of a Christian with the same mental illness. (warning - the crazy dial goes to 11)
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on June 14, 2016, 09:58:
TFD I believe that you first used the term "Nutter" Oh how well it fits.

Someone that rails against the Gay Lifestyle and also practices that very same lifestyle.

Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on June 14, 2016, 18:26:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:
TFD I believe that you first used the term "Nutter" Oh how well it fits.

Someone that rails against the Gay Lifestyle and also practices that very same lifestyle.


Slight nit to pick...and I admit I haven't clicked the link as I'm not in the mood to watch a nutter.

Practicing a "lifestyle" implies choice which is seldom the case. (Unlike say...religion (or polygamy).) People are people and we should treat everyone equally. On second thought, I'm not sure I want to extend equally nice treatment to the horrible people that a perpetrating this madness. They deserve something worse - although maybe if they'd been given a fighting chance when younger, they wouldn't fall prey to the corrupting leaders of these depraved quests of horror.
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on June 15, 2016, 02:38:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:

Someone that rails against the Gay Lifestyle and also practices that very same lifestyle.

Druidling V1.0f had an interesting take on that one:

Was he going to the gay bar looking to get laid?
Or was he casing the joint?

Could be either, or both.

Either way - "Nutter".
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on June 16, 2016, 13:47:
Sometimes Younger people have a better grasp of things than so-called adults.

I myself am getting weary of hearing about mass murder.
Posted by MTB Babe (Member # 2297) on June 16, 2016, 20:20:
Congress isn't budging when it comes to even researching the topic of guns' effects on the population. That's no surprise! But at least California has just approved funding for research. Maybe that's an improvement?

I'm emerging out of nowhere on such a sad topic. Hi!
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on June 17, 2016, 05:12:
Good to hear from you again, wish it was under happier circumstances.

Here's one data point for anyone looking to 'research' whether guns have anything to do with gun violence...

We had a mass shooting here in oz in 1996, 35 people killed in a few minutes by a nutter with an assault rifle.

In response, Australia banned and bought-back a whole class of weapons, and generally toughened its gun laws.

Here's the result.

Gun deaths are about 1/3 of what they were before the change.
Posted by Snaggy (Member # 123) on June 17, 2016, 13:51:
[hearts] [Applause] MTB Babe!!!!! [Applause] [hearts]


*we now return you to this somber topic*
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on June 17, 2016, 16:09:
I am going to muddy the waters some, here in Michigan we have Black Bear (they usually avoid people)Timber Wolves You find evidence not the wolf. and Coyote, all semi protected. So some form of a gun is a nice tool to have available, however I have never felt a need to have an assault rifle. I have read the second amendment, and no where does it mention that an assault rifle is protected by said amendment.

There is an interesting story about going into the woods Washingto Post.
Posted by MTB Babe (Member # 2297) on June 22, 2016, 18:36:
Wow, those stats are pretty telling. Or is it self-evident that if guns are banned, fewer people die because of them? I'm not sure. I'm glad members of Congress are holding a protest to just get to vote on the issue today.

Thanks, Snaggy!
Posted by quantumfluff (Member # 450) on June 22, 2016, 23:33:
Lets get some stats from the conservateive press:

And then the (supposedly) liberal press:

The US record on gun deaths is abysmal.
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on June 23, 2016, 09:28:
I am not entirely certain an outright ban would work in the US. Building Trump's wall might be easier. And I like to shoot guns, TBH. So the idea of an outright ban is not something I want to see either.

However I would like to see a registration and licensing system akin to owning a car done at a national level. You buy, check "VIN" (serial) numbers, get insurance, take regular competency tests. We might complain about the cost or hassle doing it with motor vehicles and such but everyone does this regularly and no one disagrees that it isn't important or useful.
Posted by Shooshie (Member # 2205) on June 29, 2016, 17:54:
Automatic assault rifles, or even semi-automatic ones with huge-capacity clips that can fire 50 - 100 rounds without reloading, are intended for one purpose: killing people and lots of them, quickly, before they can kill you. They're war machines. Private ownership of war machines should not be allowed except in certain circumstances where it can be ascertained that they will not be used to kill people, and by "ascertained," I don't mean checking NO on a box on a registration form that says "are you crazy?" or "will you be killing large number of innocent people with this weapon?"

People can bitch and moan all they want about how it deprives them of their 2nd amendment rights, or it inconveniences them and forces them to go to the black market, but those people in Orlando aren't going to get to exercise ANY of their rights, ever again. Isn't that unconstitutional, and therefore unAmerican?

No, you can't have it both ways. Either you give up a little bitty piece of your alleged freedom (and I'm not convinced that owning a war machine is a right), or your victims (or SOMEONE's victims) give up ALL of their freedoms, including the right to breathe, or the right to live long and die old.

This whole assault rifle issue sucks major league donkey dicks, and I would not be surprised to find that the proponents of it suck same. These people are beasts. Somehow the NRA has made a career out of bending the definitions in the Constitution to mean what they don't. They're the same people who wanted Obama to be considered a foreigner, because one of his parents was. But no, the constitution says "natural born" citizenship is required for a president, and that merely means "born in the USA, and/or born to an American citizen who may be temporarily living abroad. Thus, we've had presidents and presidential candidates who were born in other countries, but at least one of their parents was American, so that makes them natural born. And we've had presidents whose parents were foreigners, but they'd come to the USA, and their child, the future president, was born on American soil, making him natural born. Courts ruled on this in the 19th century; no need to take it to court again. I'm pretty sure the definitions of "natural born" are the same today as they were then, so Obama is definitely a full-fledged American, eligible to be president.

Those who say otherwise are almost always the same people who believe that "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" means "everyone is entitled to their very own machine gun that can kill a hundred innocent people in 30 seconds," even if you're loony as hell, and even if you fit the profile of a religious zealot who thinks that opening fire on defenseless citizens and killing them all wantonly, without purpose will get you 70 virgins in martyr's heaven. Honestly, how did anyone ever interpret the US Constitution so as to believe it protects mass murderers and guarantees an endless future of such perverts, assuring them ready access to the war machines of their choice?

We can have all the guns we want without those. Yeah, we need protection from bears, alligators, rattlesnakes, rabid dogs, and anything else that threatens our lives, including robbers, muggers, and rapists. But unless you walk into a bear convention where they forgot to serve the food, I'm pretty sure a .45 semi-automatic with 10 rounds will do the trick.

Wake up, people. This isn't an abstract argument you need to win. This is tragedy and grief, played out over and over again. This needs to stop. NOW!

[p.s.: I realize I'm mostly preaching to the choir here. I just felt the need to say it somewhere. This place won the honors.]
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on June 30, 2016, 13:21:
Many People read only the first Sentence about gun ownership not the rest about a well regulated militia

This is covered in the Federalist papers #20+ and how a well regulated militia would work.
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on June 30, 2016, 17:52:
Also, it's my understanding that the right to own arms is to ensure that if the time were to come to overthrown a tyranny, it'd be possible for the people to do. There may be more guns in the US than people, but I tend to think the military is still vastly better armed. Our gov't is by the people, for the people. It's not the sort of thing that needs to be challenged by force - the ballot works, even if you don't like the choices people make. (Case in point: Trump, and across the pond, Brexit.) If you want fantastic cases of violent uprisings failing miserably, look at the Arab Spring.

I used to work with a guy from the South who spoke of slow police response times (~45 minutes) as a reason for gun ownership - protection in the home. As a New Yorker, I may not care much for guns, but I can respect his perspective - his desire to protect his family and home. I don't like it much, but I can be okay with a 'simple' gun in that case. A perfectly obvious 'don't mess with me' shotgun, for instance. I'm not okay with a 'shoot up the place' monster, and I'm really not a fan of conceal carry weapons. I also believe there needs to be some kind of rules about safeguarding such weapons from children or other folks who shouldn't be getting their hands of them. Too many people die in pointless accidents or suicides that might not have happened if a loaded gun wasn't conveniently available. (Maybe a happy medium would be to lock up the bullets and if it makes someone happy, keep one in a bedside table or something?)
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on July 08, 2016, 10:44:
Talk about bad news Dallas, not the TV show. I have held the opinion for a long time that this type of incident would happen, and many would not see the cause correctly.
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on July 15, 2016, 13:16:
Great the NUTTERS have found a new method!
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on July 15, 2016, 18:49:
This has been predicted for a long time.
They can secure the airports (kind of).
They can make you take your shoes off before boarding.
Hell, they could make us all fly naked.

But they can't secure every park, supermarket, theatre, shopping centre, beach...

Remember when the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were justified by "We have to fight them over there so we won't have to fight them here"

Some of us asked how invading other countries made their people less likely to hate us.
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on July 16, 2016, 04:43:
It appears that this was not a result of Religion, but of Divorce, Loss of Employment, Loss of Visitation.

This man did not want people to have a good time because he wasn't.
Posted by TheMoMan (Member # 1659) on July 25, 2016, 09:09:
WHY, WHy, Why, why, School children?


© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0