NationStates Jolt Archive

Saturday Mourning (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=31345)

The short version is a wacko from Montana who loved his guns went to a rave until the early hours, then, later at an afterparty that went even earlier went and retreived a shotgun from his truck and killd six people, then himself.

The really creepy part is the strange links this crime has to a seeming hatred of art and creativity on the part of Huff.

link (http://www.thestranger.com/blog/archives/2006/03/26-01.php#a005114)

It would be funny in a Mel Brooks movie. But, in the real world it's a horrifying, and frightening to think that, if you are at all involved with a creative endeavor there is someone out there that want to dust you with a shotgun.

We covered this a bit. They were all dressed like zombies. I think he took too many drugs and forgot they were costumes. :p

"When I hear the word 'culture', I reach for my revolver."

"When I hear the word 'culture', I reach for my revolver."
You stay the fuck away from my yogurt stash, pal!

Ah, my hometown. We're either fucking up in the Super Bowl, starting the female-teacher-on-male-student press coverage trend, feeding the world's coffee jones or offing ourselves with shotguns. I miss home.

Well, I guess it's "in" to make jokes about this, but this one hits a little too close to home for me to think it's really all that funny.

The part that really pisses me off is that he was allowed to keep a gun that he had used in a previous crime. On top of that, he was plead down to community service, which he never served.

All this, and the icing on the cake. One of the people he shot to death was a 14 year old girl.

Well, I guess it's "in" to make jokes about this, but this one hits a little too close to home for me to think it's really all that funny.
When was bad taste ever "out"?

Huff—whose truck, found a block away from the murder scene, contained 300-plus rounds of ammunition, a semiautomatic rifle, a .40-gauge handgun, a baseball bat, and a machete—was “very deliberate in his attempt to kill everyone he shot.”
That's nice to see. Most mass murderers these days, they just half-ass the matter. It is always refreshing to see a young man taking the noble craft with the solemnity and thoroughness it deserves.

When was bad taste ever "out"?


That's nice to see. Most mass murderers these days, they just half-ass the matter. It is always refreshing to see a young man taking the noble craft with the solemnity and thoroughness it deserves.



yikes...

Saturday Mourning (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=31345)

The short version is a wacko from Montana who loved his guns went to a rave until the early hours, then, later at an afterparty that went even earlier went and retreived a shotgun from his truck and killd six people, then himself.

The really creepy part is the strange links this crime has to a seeming hatred of art and creativity on the part of Huff.

link (http://www.thestranger.com/blog/archives/2006/03/26-01.php#a005114)

It would be funny in a Mel Brooks movie. But, in the real world it's a horrifying, and frightening to think that, if you are at all involved with a creative endeavor there is someone out there that want to dust you with a shotgun.

Very nice with the attempt to equate gun ownership with being a wacko and mass murderer. I'm willing to bet he broke a number of laws long before opening fire.

Well, I guess it's "in" to make jokes about this, but this one hits a little too close to home for me to think it's really all that funny.

The part that really pisses me off is that he was allowed to keep a gun that he had used in a previous crime. On top of that, he was plead down to community service, which he never served.

All this, and the icing on the cake. One of the people he shot to death was a 14 year old girl.

Under US law, you're not supposed to be allowed to own or keep a firearm once you've used one in a crime, regardless of what it is reduced to.

Nice to know that they can pass laws, and no one enforces them.

Of course, murder is against the law, too. But we see how effective more laws has been.

When in the US, I always keep a pistol on my person to rectify just such a situation.

Saturday Mourning (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=31345)

The short version is a wacko from Montana who loved his guns went to a rave until the early hours, then, later at an afterparty that went even earlier went and retreived a shotgun from his truck and killd six people, then himself.

The really creepy part is the strange links this crime has to a seeming hatred of art and creativity on the part of Huff.

link (http://www.thestranger.com/blog/archives/2006/03/26-01.php#a005114)

It would be funny in a Mel Brooks movie. But, in the real world it's a horrifying, and frightening to think that, if you are at all involved with a creative endeavor there is someone out there that want to dust you with a shotgun.

how about a fuckin loony nut...instead of gun nut????
i could toss a molotov into your room and would i be a molotov nut?

how about a fuckin nut..that will do dont you agree....or do you have an agenda?

or should this discussion devolve into modes of murder?

and please dont trot out the whole guns are easier...thing...i can make a bomb with kitchen ingrediants...so fuck that argument...ok...please...if someone had a gun they coulda shot the fuck ass before he did his damage.

oh well..some will never learn.

yikes...
What? Killing is the second oldest proffession, and since tradition lends presence . . .

Very nice with the attempt to equate gun ownership with being a wacko and mass murderer. I'm willing to bet he broke a number of laws long before opening fire.

Well, the convenience of the coralation is too glaring to pass up. This guy, and his twin brother, were the poster children for gun control. Sorry if a mass murder subverts your ideal gun paradise.

While it is people who do kill people, guns make it a hell of a lot easier to do so. How many people do you think this guy would have gotten to had he been brandishing a knife?

how about a fuckin loony nut...instead of gun nut????
i could toss a molotov into your room and would i be a molotov nut?

how about a fuckin nut..that will do dont you agree....or do you have an agenda?

or should this discussion devolve into modes of murder?

and please dont trot out the whole guns are easier...thing...i can make a bomb with kitchen ingrediants...so fuck that argument...ok...please...if someone had a gun they coulda shot the fuck ass before he did his damage.

oh well..some will never learn.

talk about darwin...jeez

Well, the convenience of the coralation is too glaring to pass up. This guy, and his twin brother, were the poster children for gun control. Sorry if a mass murder subverts your ideal gun paradise.
In an ideal gun paradise, he wouldn't have gotten off the second shot before someone else capped him. Instead, the people trusted to government to keep them safe, and for that they payed the "Ultimate Price"TM
While it is people who do kill people, guns make it a hell of a lot easier to do so. How many people do you think this guy would have gotten to had he been brandishing a knife?
He had a machete and a baseball bat, right? When taking on 14 year old girls and ravers who are probably a little . . . *ahem* one doesn't need much more to set the odds heavily in their favor.

Well, the convenience of the coralation is too glaring to pass up. This guy, and his twin brother, were the poster children for gun control. Sorry if a mass murder subverts your ideal gun paradise.

While it is people who do kill people, guns make it a hell of a lot easier to do so. How many people do you think this guy would have gotten to had he been brandishing a knife?

While we're tossing around pointless generalizations, why don't we attack the idea of a zombie rave, and the people who attend them?

Most gun owners never kill anyone. Sorry. 96 percent of US violent crime is not committed with a firearm at all, and firearm murders are WAY down (to an all time low).

Of course, you would rather not see the statistics from the Department of Justice that show the firearm murder rate is down 65 percent.

You would rather generalize from a single incident.

I tell you what - when you make dressing as a goth and conducting zombie raves illegal, and persecute the people who do so, because they ostensibly worship death (who cares if that's true or not - this is persecution), then we can go after the crazy people with guns.

He had a machete and a baseball bat, right? When taking on 14 year old girls and ravers who are probably a little . . . *ahem* one doesn't need much more to set the odds heavily in their favor.

But he chose to use his gun, becauce he could get more of them that way. While I don't remember the exact quote, he did say something like "I have enough ammo to gett all of you." Why bother with a hand weapon when you can stand back and spray guts all over the walls with a scattergun?

Of course, you would rather not see the statistics from the Department of Justice that show the firearm murder rate is down 65 percent.

I would rather not see any more death attributed to guns at all. How about you?

Well, the convenience of the coralation is too glaring to pass up. This guy, and his twin brother, were the poster children for gun control. Sorry if a mass murder subverts your ideal gun paradise.

While it is people who do kill people, guns make it a hell of a lot easier to do so. How many people do you think this guy would have gotten to had he been brandishing a knife?

I would make the argument about "Well, he would probably have gotten a gun from somewhere else", but it's been done ad nauseum.

It just blows my mind how many non-US people absolutely refuse to accept that the majority of Americans have no problem with guns. Americans are harped on constantly about respecting other cultures (and rightly so) but people refuse to respect ours.

Anyway, the argument that a gun makes it easier to kill someone doesn't really work with me. Yes, it makes it phyiscally easier, but the assumption is that it makes it easier to do because it's somehow less personal, which isn't entirely the case. Especially since most shootings occur at very short distances.

But he chose to use his gun, becauce he could get more of them that way. While I don't remember the exact quote, he did say something like "I have enough ammo to gett all of you." Why bother with a hand weapon when you can stand back and spray guts all over the walls with a scattergun?

Hmm. Because past 15 yards, a shotgun is not a terrifically lethal weapon, even when loaded with buckshot?

Studies have shown that a service caliber pistol or greater is far more lethal than a shotgun at ranges in excess of 15 yards.

Nice to know you have the "movie" view of the relative effectiveness of a shotgun. At virtually any effective range with a shotgun, you never hit multiple people with buckshot, and past 15 yards, it's more of a wounding weapon than one that kills, largely due to low velocity and relatively small size of the individual buckshot pellets, which also have a low penetration.

If he had been armed with a pistol, he probably would have killed more people.

I would rather not see any more death attributed to guns at all. How about you?

Sorry, can't buy that either.

1. Both my wife and I have successfully defended ourselves multiple times against unarmed attackers using firearms without firing a shot. I suppose you would rather that my wife suffer repeated beatings at the hands of her ex-husband instead of defending herself.
2. I had a friend who thought as you did. He gave his wallet to six men, two of whom were armed with machetes, at the Lee Multiplex Cinema in Merrifield, Virginia. Then, for sport, they cut his hands off. He wishes now that he had done as I do now - carry a firearm at all times where it is legal to do so (and it's legal in Virginia).

Under US law, you're not supposed to be allowed to own or keep a firearm once you've used one in a crime, regardless of what it is reduced to.
Not necessarily for misdemeanors. He probably ended up getting one of those deals where after you've fullfilled the terms of your sentence, it's like you weren't convicted of a crime anymore. Basically, there was a period of time where he was convicted of a crime, but as it currently stands he's not. And so he got his weapons back.

Besides, the statue shooting was commited in Montana.

Hmm. Because past 15 yards, a shotgun is not a terrifically lethal weapon, even when loaded with buckshot?

Studies have shown that a service caliber pistol or greater is far more lethal than a shotgun at ranges in excess of 15 yards.

Nice to know you have the "movie" view of the relative effectiveness of a shotgun. At virtually any effective range with a shotgun, you never hit multiple people with buckshot, and past 15 yards, it's more of a wounding weapon than one that kills, largely due to low velocity and relatively small size of the individual buckshot pellets, which also have a low penetration.

If he had been armed with a pistol, he probably would have killed more people.


Wow, now I can tell that you didn't even deign to read the story.

To sum up. All of the people he killed were inside a house, most of them sitting on some piece fo furnature, unable to evade any incoming projectiles, and far closer that 15 YARDS (i.e. 45 FEET!), all of the people who survived were the luck ones who were able to scramble out the back door, or hide sonewhere in the house. If the cops hadn't came when they did (thus facilitating the murderer's own suecide) more would have likely been sprayed across a wall.

I would rather not see any more death attributed to guns at all. How about you?
I'd rather there not be any more death, to be perfectly honest. I don't really care about the source, getting killed isn't something many people look forward to.

I'd rather there not be any more death, to be perfectly honest. I don't really care about the source, getting killed isn't something many people look forward to.

For once I can actually agree with you Fiddly! Don't let it go to your head...

This argument doesn't have to be as extreme as you all make it out to be. On one side there is Kimchi who, in my opinion, is pretty far right on the gun issue. I'm sure he is quite capable with a weapon and trained and in the right mind to carry one but I personally don't feel that most people should carry firearms. Just look at incidents of road rage, many people are simply too stupid or too reactionary to be trusted to carry a weapon that can end someones life in moments from a distance. People do very stupid things on a daily basis I don't want to be constantly ready to defend myself from gunfire from ordinary morons.

As for the other side eliminating or seriously controlling firearms in America is not only impossible but extremely foolish. Like it or not guns are a huge part of America and I personally am looking to get my LTC in Massachusetts assuming the self-righteous police around here even let me. I don't want the states highest class that enables me to carry a concealed weapon around I simply would like to be able to own and operate firearms where permitted. (aka not in a neighborhood or populated area). Limiting who can carry a loaded firearm in public and having criminal checks and such is one thing but limiting who can even possess and enjoy firearms too severely is another. Guns are an important aspect of American life and should be kept that way, loonies or not.

For once I can actually agree with you Fiddly! Don't let it go to your head...
What if it goes to my genitals instead? I'm not sure if it is your post or the fact that I'm making grilled cheese sandwiches, but I'm starting to feel vaguely aroused right now.

What if it goes to my genitals instead? I'm not sure if it is your post or the fact that I'm making grilled cheese sandwiches, but I'm starting to feel vaguely aroused right now.

Take it any way you want, Fiddly. Just know that I would need you to dress up in gold taffeta, and shave your entire body in order to even get close to the drag queens that have tried to get into my pants....


Ummm. "Not that there's anything wrong with that." But, don't get any ideas...:p

This argument doesn't have to be as extreme as you all make it out to be. On one side there is Kimchi who, in my opinion, is pretty far right on the gun issue. I'm sure he is quite capable with a weapon and trained and in the right mind to carry one but I personally don't feel that most people should carry firearms. Just look at incidents of road rage, many people are simply too stupid or too reactionary to be trusted to carry a weapon that can end someones life in moments from a distance. People do very stupid things on a daily basis I don't want to be constantly ready to defend myself from gunfire from ordinary morons.

As for the other side eliminating or seriously controlling firearms in America is not only impossible but extremely foolish. Like it or not guns are a huge part of America and I personally am looking to get my LTC in Massachusetts assuming the self-righteous police around here even let me. I don't want the states highest class that enables me to carry a concealed weapon around I simply would like to be able to own and operate firearms where permitted. (aka not in a neighborhood or populated area). Limiting who can carry a loaded firearm in public and having criminal checks and such is one thing but limiting who can even possess and enjoy firearms too severely is another. Guns are an important aspect of American life and should be kept that way, loonies or not.


I agree with most of what you have to say. In essence, I think that gun owndership should be a privaledge, not a right.

I agree with most of what you have to say. In essence, I think that gun owndership should be a privaledge, not a right.

then read our constitution if it is foggy for you...ok.

it is the second amendment for a reason..not the tenth or the sixth...the second!:headbang:

then read our constitution if it is foggy for you...ok.

it is the second amendment for a reason..not the tenth or the sixth...the second!:headbang:

right behind freedom of speech..my personel fave...

I agree with most of what you have to say. In essence, I think that gun owndership should be a privaledge, not a right.

That is a difficult statement to back just because it leaves too many loopholes. Gun ownership is a right but unlike other rights it can be lost which makes it more like a priviledge. The sticking point I want to stress is that as long as someone follows reasonable rules in aquiring a gun license and has not committed acts that would bar them from gun ownership and is in right mind they should never be denied gun ownership. In a way this is a priviledge not a right but if someone has not committed offenses against society and is not insane they have the right to obtain a license and thus a gun(s) if so desired. In this case denying them the right to gun ownership and operation is definately infringing on their rights as an American.

then read our constitution if it is foggy for you...ok.

it is the second amendment for a reason..not the tenth or the sixth...the second!:headbang:

Well read my post about this since it was after his and your response. But yes I would also argue that "right" is not cut and dry when it comes to gun ownership. It is a right that can be forfeited by action or health unlike the other rights which cannot be forfeited. Perhaps the forefathers did not want to bar known criminals from obtaining firearms (I really don't know) but I do see the need for such practices. I also don't think those that are not of their right mind and could hurt themselves or others should not have the right to firearms. This is difficult because "freedom of speech" and "fair trial" and all that jazz are not rights that can be lost under any circumstances.

Of course they wrote "bear arms" and that implies the right to nuclear bombs and artillery guns. So clearly this ammendment requires more thought than the others when it is enforced.

In an ideal gun paradise, he wouldn't have gotten off the second shot before someone else capped him. Instead, the people trusted to government to keep them safe, and for that they payed the "Ultimate Price"TM

He had a machete and a baseball bat, right? When taking on 14 year old girls and ravers who are probably a little . . . *ahem* one doesn't need much more to set the odds heavily in their favor.



wow..i am impressed that someone actually gets it...i wish i could swim with sharks and wrastle tigers...and play in the ghetto....but it is just flat bad for your health....stroll thru north philly then tell me about peace pot and microdot...ok..

In an ideal gun paradise, he wouldn't have gotten off the second shot before someone else capped him. Instead, the people trusted to government to keep them safe, and for that they payed the "Ultimate Price"TM

Quote:

wow..i am impressed that someone actually gets it...i wish i could swim with sharks and wrastle tigers...and play in the ghetto....but it is just flat bad for your health....stroll thru north philly then tell me about peace pot and microdot...ok..

In an ideal gun paradise, he wouldn't have gotten off the second shot before someone else capped him. Instead, the people trusted to government to keep them safe, and for that they payed the "Ultimate Price"TM


Yet you still didn't comment on my post that directly addressed you about legitimate issues....alright sounds like you are just trolling. I'll bite and answer anyways since your post is ridiculous.

He had a shotgun designed for this exact purpose and a handgun. I'm pretty sure he would have killed all the people he did even if the 15 year old girls were packing heat. Even the 26 year old or whatever ages they were didn't sound like the type of people who are experts with sudden assault situations. If you read the reports some of the people were sleeping and almost all were sitting and laying around. The first two had no chance outside. Maybe later on in the house after he busted his way through the living room someone could have shot him without getting outgunned by the shotgun that he clearly knew how to use effectively. Guns would not have helped these people unless "gun paradise" means that 15 year old girls become SWAT trained marksmen.

As for the part you actually wrote it shows your ignorance and extremely prejudicial stereotyping. "tell me about peace pot and microdot...ok..", who do you think you are? Anyone who raises objections to your beliefs becomes some sort of drugged out hippie? Pull yourself together before you become a complete bigot.

Yet you still didn't comment on my post that directly addressed you about legitimate issues....alright sounds like you are just trolling. I'll bite and answer anyways since your post is ridiculous.

He had a shotgun designed for this exact purpose and a handgun. I'm pretty sure he would have killed all the people he did even if the 15 year old girls were packing heat. Even the 26 year old or whatever ages they were didn't sound like the type of people who are experts with sudden assault situations. If you read the reports some of the people were sleeping and almost all were sitting and laying around. The first two had no chance outside. Maybe later on in the house after he busted his way through the living room someone could have shot him without getting outgunned by the shotgun that he clearly knew how to use effectively. Guns would not have helped these people unless "gun paradise" means that 15 year old girls become SWAT trained marksmen.

As for the part you actually wrote it shows your ignorance and extremely prejudicial stereotyping. "tell me about peace pot and microdot...ok..", who do you think you are? Anyone who raises objections to your beliefs becomes some sort of drugged out hippie? Pull yourself together before you become a complete bigot.


I'm impressed.

Another part of this story that no one seems to be talking about is that this guy's truck was literally with all kinds of guns. He literally had a buffet of firearms to choose from, even one that he had used in a previous crime that he never served his sentence for.

I'm impressed.

Another part of this story that no one seems to be talking about is that this guy's truck was literally with all kinds of guns. He literally had a buffet of firearms to choose from, even one that he had used in a previous crime that he never served his sentence for.

It sounds like a failure in the justice system combined with one very very sick man.

It sounds like a failure in the justice system combined with one very very sick man.

I agree, and I think that most people that desire gun owndership are in some way a little off balance. Add that to a hamstrung justice system and a society of "cold-dead-handers", and you end up with columbines, Kip Kinkles, and guys like this.

C'mon, you know he was afraid of the zombie infestation.

I agree, and I think that most people that desire gun owndership are in some way a little off balance. Add that to a hamstrung justice system and a society of "cold-dead-handers", and you end up with columbines, Kip Kinkles, and guys like this.

Ok, now this is where I disagree with you. I, and 75% of the people I know have a gun in their household. No one I know has come even remotely close to shooting at anyone. The vast majority of gun owners, like myself, have never even thought about using their guns for anything besides hunting and recreational shooting.

I wonder how people such as yourself have been driven to such absolute terror of something that requires a criminally insane person or criminal neglect (as in kids playing with them and shooting themselves) to make dangerous. But, as I've said before we're different cultures. Here we're not afraid of guns in and of themselves, over there you are.

I agree, and I think that most people that desire gun owndership are in some way a little off balance. Add that to a hamstrung justice system and a society of "cold-dead-handers", and you end up with columbines, Kip Kinkles, and guys like this.

No biased stereotyping there, no, none at all.

I guess the increase in ownership caused the increase in violent crime in the 90's?

Oh, wait, crime decreased.

Maybe it has to do more w/ the encouragement of not being responsible for ones actions or any sort of personal responsibility combined w/ idiotic subcultures that encourage violence against women and authorities while committing crimes.

Along w/ a justice system that openly states the police don't have to protect you while at the same time preventing them from arresting the people who actually commit crimes.

Saturday Mourning (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=31345)

The short version is a wacko from Montana who loved his guns went to a rave until the early hours, then, later at an afterparty that went even earlier went and retreived a shotgun from his truck and killd six people, then himself.

The really creepy part is the strange links this crime has to a seeming hatred of art and creativity on the part of Huff.

link (http://www.thestranger.com/blog/archives/2006/03/26-01.php#a005114)

It would be funny in a Mel Brooks movie. But, in the real world it's a horrifying, and frightening to think that, if you are at all involved with a creative endeavor there is someone out there that want to dust you with a shotgun.
So maybe it's not a mass-murder, it's dadaist performance art.

Ok, now this is where I disagree with you. I, and 75% of the people I know have a gun in their household. No one I know has come even remotely close to shooting at anyone. The vast majority of gun owners, like myself, have never even thought about using their guns for anything besides hunting and recreational shooting.

I wonder how people such as yourself have been driven to such absolute terror of something that requires a criminally insane person or criminal neglect (as in kids playing with them and shooting themselves) to make dangerous. But, as I've said before we're different cultures. Here we're not afraid of guns in and of themselves, over there you are.

Well, first, it's not absolute terror, it's more a concern for other people. Show me another type of weapon that is capable of the kind of destruction, in a comparable amount of time, that a 12 guage is. Tell me how destructive you think any of the school shootings would have been had the shooters brought crossbows, or adladls to class.

Well, first, it's not absolute terror, it's more a concern for other people. Show me another type of weapon that is capable of the kind of destruction, in a comparable amount of time, that a 12 guage is. Tell me how destructive you think any of the school shootings would have been had the shooters brought crossbows, or adladls to class.

Somebody already pointed out molotov cocktails.

Tell me how many of those school shooters had legally owned firearms?

You've expressed your "concern for other people" by stereoptyping firearm owners as mentally defective.

No biased stereotyping there, no, none at all.

What ever gave you the impression that I made the pretense of being UNbiased? I truly hate guns, I think they're a coward's weapon. Why craft a martial skill when you can pull a slide and put 15 pills in someone.

Well, first, it's not absolute terror, it's more a concern for other people. Show me another type of weapon that is capable of the kind of destruction, in a comparable amount of time, that a 12 guage is. Tell me how destructive you think any of the school shootings would have been had the shooters brought crossbows, or adladls to class.

Flamethrower.

Somebody already pointed out molotov cocktails.

Tell me how many of those school shooters had legally owned firearms?

You've expressed your "concern for other people" by stereoptyping firearm owners as mentally defective.

I never said "defective", I did say off balance though. To be "defective" intones bat-shit insanity, like sociopathy, or paranoid schizophrenia, or something else from the movies and TV. I do think that one has to be mildly pinched though to want to own one of the deadliest weapons in history (yes, the gun and it's permutations have proven to be the deadliest weapon invented aside from WMD) and call it "recreational". In some places it's legal to own Chinese AK knock-offs but it's not legal to use an adladl. Weird.

Well, first, it's not absolute terror, it's more a concern for other people. Show me another type of weapon that is capable of the kind of destruction, in a comparable amount of time, that a 12 guage is. Tell me how destructive you think any of the school shootings would have been had the shooters brought crossbows, or adladls to class.

I'm concerned for other people as well, and it's a tragedy that this happened. It just seems to me that when something like this happens people scream "Guns! Guns!" and don't look at the bigger picture. It's this tendancy that makes me think that a fear of guns is almost as much an issue as concern for the dead.

This guy in particular should not have had that gun. The Montana judicial system dropped the ball in a very bad way.

Banning firearms would stop the small amount of unpremeditated (is that a word?) murders, but it wouldn't stop guys like this. This guy obviously planned ahead, and would have gone to great lengths, I'm sure, to acquire what he need to murder those people.

I don't think the high murder rate in the United States is caused by our high rate of gun ownership, but by the fact that as a culture we're extremely aggressive and violent. A few other countries have comparable rates of gun ownership, but we have expotentially more murders.

Well, first, it's not absolute terror, it's more a concern for other people. Show me another type of weapon that is capable of the kind of destruction, in a comparable amount of time, that a 12 guage is. Tell me how destructive you think any of the school shootings would have been had the shooters brought crossbows, or adladls to class.

Well now, do you want the amount of death, or destruction....I mean, a handgun could work well for getting kills...preveousily mentioned flamethrowers would be awesome for destroying.

What ever gave you the impression that I made the pretense of being UNbiased? I truly hate guns, I think they're a coward's weapon. Why craft a martial skill when you can pull a slide and put 15 pills in someone.

and more ignorant stereotyping. Shooting is a "martial skill" as well. Keep showing your lack of knowledge of firearms and self-defense.

I think it's obvious what actually happened here. This kid was clearly just minding his own business playing a harmless zombie themed computer game when Derren Brown came along, hypnotised him, shoved a shotgun into his hand and placed him into a room full of people dressed as zombies. The poor beggar thought he was still playing the game! This sort of thing can't go on - he's done it before and he'll do it again and I don't think we should stand for it.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1478902,00.html

I never said "defective", I did say off balance though. To be "defective" intones bat-shit insanity, like sociopathy, or paranoid schizophrenia, or something else from the movies and TV. I do think that one has to be mildly pinched though to want to own one of the deadliest weapons in history (yes, the gun and it's permutations have proven to be the deadliest weapon invented aside from WMD) and call it "recreational". In some places it's legal to own Chinese AK knock-offs but it's not legal to use an adladl. Weird.

so off-balance /= defective? You keep saying that you believe firearm owners have mental disorders.

In most places it's legal to have "Chinese AK knock-offs" if you have a type III federal firearms license and fork out thousands of dollars.

Unless of course you're trying the old "assault weapon" baitnswitch.

and more ignorant stereotyping. Shooting is a "martial skill" as well. Keep showing your lack of knowledge of firearms and self-defense.

C'mon now, why start the train of insults? I never got personal with you. Why make it personal at all?

Tell me how long one has to train in order to accuratly fire a gun. Then, compare that to how long one has to train to accuratly throw a knife, or spear, or fire a bow. I went to a firing range once, and having never even touched a gun before that I was able to, un less than two hours, hit a target's "center mass" with 8 out of 10 shots at 50 feet. While, by contrast, it took me six weeks to learn how to properly throw a knife into a 8' x 8' slab of wood and mke it stick. Accuracy came much later.

It just blows my mind how many non-US people absolutely refuse to accept that the majority of Americans have no problem with guns. Americans are harped on constantly about respecting other cultures (and rightly so) but people refuse to respect ours.
Exactly. This disparity bothers me more than almost anything else on here. Some freak in Scotland blows away a shitload of tourists and everyone says, "Oh, that was just one nutty guy." If it happens in America, everyone says, "OMG! Teh Amerikan gun nutz iz at it again!!ELEVEN111!"

Sometimes I wonder why their heads don't implode from all the cognitive dissonace they carry around. :(

C'mon now, why start the train of insults? I never got personal with you. Why make it personal at all?

so you didn't state I was "a little off" , etc. and a "coward"?

Tell me how long one has to train in order to accuratly fire a gun. Then, compare that to how long one has to train to accuratly throw a knife, or spear, or fire a bow. I went to a firing range once, and having never even touched a gun before that I was able to, un less than two hours, hit a target's "center mass" with 8 out of 10 shots at 50 feet. While, by contrast, it took me six weeks to learn how to properly throw a knife into a 8' x 8' slab of wood and mke it stick. Accuracy came much later.

And nothing you have stated makes it not a "martial skill".

By stating that using a firearm is a "cowards weapon", you are now stating that self-defense should only be for healthy, young males as women, the elderly, and the physically disabled are less physically adept than the average attacker. Are they "cowards" for wanting to adequately defend themselves?

C'mon now, why start the train of insults? I never got personal with you. Why make it personal at all?

Tell me how long one has to train in order to accuratly fire a gun. Then, compare that to how long one has to train to accuratly throw a knife, or spear, or fire a bow. I went to a firing range once, and having never even touched a gun before that I was able to, un less than two hours, hit a target's "center mass" with 8 out of 10 shots at 50 feet. While, by contrast, it took me six weeks to learn how to properly throw a knife into a 8' x 8' slab of wood and mke it stick. Accuracy came much later.


If you're talking about firing a gun in a military sense (since "martial skill" was mentioned) it took me about 2 weeks during basic combat training. That meant being able to hit 26/40 targets at ranged from 50m to 300m. It wasn't until I'd been in the Army for about a year that I was able to get to "expert" and hit 36/40 or higher. And I grew up with firearms. Of course, hitting your target is a bit more difficult when your target is shooting back and you're trying not to get shot by him.

so you didn't state I was "a little off" , etc. and a "coward"?

I never call YOU any of those things, you chose to take it personally though. Not once did I single you out and say any of those things about you and you alone. I don't even know you, and you obviously don't know me. You, however, did insult me personally.

Moving on.

And nothing you have stated makes it not a "martial skill".

By stating that using a firearm is a "cowards weapon", you are now stating that self-defense should only be for healthy, young males as women, the elderly, and the physically disabled are less physically adept than the average attacker. Are they "cowards" for wanting to adequately defend themselves?

Well, I would rather they weren't attacked at all, actually. But, case in point; there was a guy in my Wotokai class that could beat everyone he came across, both with his Bo stick, and in straight up grappling. And, the best part; he was parpalegic.

I never call YOU any of those things, you chose to take it personally though. Not once did I single you out and say any of those things about you and you alone. I don't even know you, and you obviously don't know me. You, however, did insult me personally.

Moving on.

You: A firearm is a cowards weapon.

I use firearms => you called me ( and many others) a coward.

You: one has to be "mildly pinched", etc to want to own firearms.

I want to own firearms => you called me mentally off.



Well, I would rather they weren't attacked at all, actually. But, case in point; there was a guy in my Wotokai class that could beat everyone he came across, both with his Bo stick, and in straight up grappling. And, the best part; he was parpalegic.

So everyone has his capabilities?

Case in point: a pregnant woman recently defended herself and her children against an armed attacker by using a firearm.

Was she a "coward" or "a little pinched"?

Case in point: a pregnant woman recently defended herself and her children against an armed attacker by using a firearm.

Was she a "coward" or "a little pinched"?

Look. You are not going to convince me that guns are good in any way. I've seen pregnant women beat up people too. You cannot convince me that giving people an easier way to hurt each other is going to make society safer. And, continuing to harang at me about the "merits" of guns is only a waste of your time.

It's impractical to call for a total ban, since you've demonstrated in great detail the American love of shootys. But, I will continue to hate them, and continue to advocate that people not use them, and continue to not allow them in my home. Do what you want, just know that violent thoughts can easily translate into violent actions.

<sarcasm>
Too bad the other partygoers didn't have any guns, or they could've had a really good shoot-out with much more dead and injured.
</sarcasm>

I love how if I report an article "man kills boy passing by" or "man murders six people", it's universally condemned. But if someone uses words like "gun nut", "liberal" or "communist" in the title, then the NS Right and Left go at it like trained squirrels instead of simply wholeheartedly condemning the murder.

The part that really pisses me off is that he was allowed to keep a gun that he had used in a previous crime.
What a crappy government, not enforcing its own laws.

While it is people who do kill people, guns make it a hell of a lot easier to do so. How many people do you think this guy would have gotten to had he been brandishing a knife?
How many people do you think he could have deliberated over killing if some people at the party had been armed?

It's impractical to call for a total ban, since you've demonstrated in great detail the American love of shootys. But, I will continue to hate them, and continue to advocate that people not use them, and continue to not allow them in my home. Do what you want, just know that violent thoughts can easily translate into violent actions.
This reminds me of religious, rightwing rhetoric.

"It's impractical to call for a total ban on homosexuality, since you've demonstrated in great detail the American love of ass. But, I will continue to hate the gays, and continue to advocate that people not perform homosexual acts, and continue to not allow gays in my home."

The same refutation still applies: practice your morality; just don't try and enforce it on everyone else.

Well, first, it's not absolute terror, it's more a concern for other people. Show me another type of weapon that is capable of the kind of destruction, in a comparable amount of time, that a 12 guage is. Tell me how destructive you think any of the school shootings would have been had the shooters brought crossbows, or adladls to class.

How about this pipe bomb? *Tosses capped PVC pipe up and down*

(No, I do not own/make pipe bombs)

It's impractical to call for a total ban, since you've demonstrated in great detail the American love of shootys. But, I will continue to hate them, and continue to advocate that people not use them, and continue to not allow them in my home. Do what you want, just know that violent thoughts can easily translate into violent actions.

It's cool, you have your throughs and I have mine. Keep your hands off my property and all will be well! :)

It's cool, you have your throughs and I have mine. Keep your hands off my property and all will be well! :)

You frontin', bee-och!?! ;)

Look. You are not going to convince me that guns are good in any way. I've seen pregnant women beat up people too. You cannot convince me that giving people an easier way to hurt each other is going to make society safer. And, continuing to harang at me about the "merits" of guns is only a waste of your time.

Because, of course, you couldn't care less about reality so it's not like you could be reasonable or anything...

Yet you still didn't comment on my post that directly addressed you about legitimate issues....alright sounds like you are just trolling. I'll bite and answer anyways since your post is ridiculous.

He had a shotgun designed for this exact purpose and a handgun. I'm pretty sure he would have killed all the people he did even if the 15 year old girls were packing heat. Even the 26 year old or whatever ages they were didn't sound like the type of people who are experts with sudden assault situations. If you read the reports some of the people were sleeping and almost all were sitting and laying around. The first two had no chance outside. Maybe later on in the house after he busted his way through the living room someone could have shot him without getting outgunned by the shotgun that he clearly knew how to use effectively. Guns would not have helped these people unless "gun paradise" means that 15 year old girls become SWAT trained marksmen.

As for the part you actually wrote it shows your ignorance and extremely prejudicial stereotyping. "tell me about peace pot and microdot...ok..", who do you think you are? Anyone who raises objections to your beliefs becomes some sort of drugged out hippie? Pull yourself together before you become a complete bigot.

that was a wise crack..the peace pot and microdot thing...seeing as i have done all that and then some.

and i certainly do not think that people that take drugs are all hippies...cant you tell i am stoned to the bejesus belt right now?

i was doing mad amounts of drugs(givin to me by my mom in the sixties...when i was about 10)

so i have no axe to gring about that.

but you are making some false assumptions..ie...that at a rave ...the kids are all sleeping or spaced out...i have been to a few(not my cup of tea..i prefer poker and gambling)but anyone that has a gun should be
1.proficient in it's use
2.not intoxicated to the point of not handling said weapon safely
3.if in possession of a weapon....be able to use it in defense of self and others.

the guy that went blasting was at an all night party..so he violated all 3 rules...but that could have/should have made him easy pickens for someone trained...and again..if you carry...you best be trained.

sorry if i came off as smug..i was drunk when i posted..meant no disrespect...but i have been around guns all my life...and have cop friends that have...no one goes berserko unless they are ...nuts..he could have as easily tossed a molotov into the place and killed more...but since he went "rambo"there was a chance for someone to end it ...as opposed to a molotov...if as you say..they were all asleep....they would have died from smoke inhalation or worse...burns.

i need to lay off the captain morgan..lol

Somebody already pointed out molotov cocktails.

Tell me how many of those school shooters had legally owned firearms?

You've expressed your "concern for other people" by stereoptyping firearm owners as mentally defective.

damn..you get a cookie

I think it's obvious what actually happened here. This kid was clearly just minding his own business playing a harmless zombie themed computer game when Derren Brown came along, hypnotised him, shoved a shotgun into his hand and placed him into a room full of people dressed as zombies. The poor beggar thought he was still playing the game! This sort of thing can't go on - he's done it before and he'll do it again and I don't think we should stand for it.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1478902,00.html

how correct...ban video games....