Shooting In Utah

[quote]JD430 wrote:
Still no word on how much Islam played in this guy’s life. It is possible that it may have filled a void in his disturbed mind, the way Marilyn Manson and violent video games did for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. However, that is pure speculation on my part. [/quote]

I believe in this case, his religion had nothing to do with it.

I’ve met many Bosnian refugees in the US, and some of them have “snapped” due to traumatic events in the 92-95 war. However, no one noticed this in their new surrounding in the US for a variety of reasons.

There are some indications that the kid was a survivor of the Srebrenica massacre. Psychological trauma from the war,augmented by the new cultural and social surrounding caused some deep pathological changes in him.

I’d say that there was nothing different that other psychos who went on a killing spree in recent years.

“So, who’s going to bury the last person’s head in the sand?”
-Randy Marsh

I’m sad to see that everyone in the thread so far has completely missed the real lesson to be learned from this shooting.

It’s not a problem with borders or immigrants or even muslims.

The problem here is the guns. If only we had stricter gun laws, this would NEVER have happened. It may be politically impossible to REVOKE the second amendment with another amendment, but we can slowly tighten the noose until that bothersome amendment is choked into unconsciousness. We can continue to restrict “scary looking” assault weapons and banning “extra-dangerous” ammo until whackjobs like this guy won’t be able to get their hands on a slingshot, much less a shotgun.

If we require enough shell stampings, gun locks, background checks, and excessive taxes, eventually even the “law-abiding” citizen who foolishly thinks he “needs” a gun will find the process of obtaining one so onerous that he will simply give up, and then my friends, we will have peace!

Can you deny it?

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
Don’t feel too bad about voting for Bush for lack of border security. ALL Presidents since 1924 have failed the US in border security.
[/quote]

What happened in 1924?

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
I’m sad to see that everyone in the thread so far has completely missed the real lesson to be learned from this shooting.

It’s not a problem with borders or immigrants or even muslims.

The problem here is the guns. If only we had stricter gun laws, this would NEVER have happened. It may be politically impossible to REVOKE the second amendment with another amendment, but we can slowly tighten the noose until that bothersome amendment is choked into unconsciousness. We can continue to restrict “scary looking” assault weapons and banning “extra-dangerous” ammo until whackjobs like this guy won’t be able to get their hands on a slingshot, much less a shotgun.

If we require enough shell stampings, gun locks, background checks, and excessive taxes, eventually even the “law-abiding” citizen who foolishly thinks he “needs” a gun will find the process of obtaining one so onerous that he will simply give up, and then my friends, we will have peace!

Can you deny it?[/quote]

It works here in Canada.

And even with the few guns (and gun related crimes) alot come from you guys in the states.

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
I’m sad to see that everyone in the thread so far has completely missed the real lesson to be learned from this shooting.

It’s not a problem with borders or immigrants or even muslims.

The problem here is the guns. If only we had stricter gun laws, this would NEVER have happened. It may be politically impossible to REVOKE the second amendment with another amendment, but we can slowly tighten the noose until that bothersome amendment is choked into unconsciousness. We can continue to restrict “scary looking” assault weapons and banning “extra-dangerous” ammo until whackjobs like this guy won’t be able to get their hands on a slingshot, much less a shotgun.

If we require enough shell stampings, gun locks, background checks, and excessive taxes, eventually even the “law-abiding” citizen who foolishly thinks he “needs” a gun will find the process of obtaining one so onerous that he will simply give up, and then my friends, we will have peace!

Can you deny it?[/quote]

Who should we disarm first, mein Fuhrer?
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlergun.html

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:
Don’t feel too bad about voting for Bush for lack of border security. ALL Presidents since 1924 have failed the US in border security.

What happened in 1924?[/quote]

Wikipedia article:

The Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the National Origins Act, Asian Exclusion Act or the Johnson-Reed Act, is a United States federal law that limited the number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, according to the Census of 1890. It excluded immigration to the US of Asian laborers,[1] specifically Chinese immigrants who did not agree to work and Chinese prostitutes[2] and had the effect of preventing Japanese Americans from legally owning land.[3] It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s, as well as East Asians and Asian Indians, who were prohibited from immigrating entirely. It set no limits on immigration from Latin America.

The Act passed with strong congressional support in the wake of intense lobbying. [4] There were only six dissenting votes in the Senate and a handful of opponents in the House, the most vigorous of whom was freshman Brooklyn Representative Emanuel Celler. Over the succeeding four decades, Celler, who served for almost 50 years, made the repeal of the Act into a personal crusade. Some of the law’s strongest supporters were influenced by Madison Grant and his 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race. Grant was a eugenicist and an advocate of the racial hygiene theory. His data purported to show the superiority of the founding Northern European races. But most proponents of the law were rather concerned with upholding an ethnic status quo and avoiding competition with foreign workers.[citation needed]

The act halted “undesirable” immigration with quotas. The act barred specific origins from the Asia-Pacific Triangle which included Japan, China, the Philippines, Laos, Siam (Thailand), Cambodia, Singapore (then a British colony), Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma (Myanmar), India, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and Malaysia.[5] It barred these immigrants because they were deemed to have an “undesirable” race.[5].[5] As an example of its effect, in the ten years following 1900 about 200,000 Italians immigrated every year. With the imposition of the 1924 quota, only 4,000 per year were allowed. At the same time, the annual quota for Germany was over 57,000. 86% of the 165,000 permitted entries were from the British Isles, France, Germany, and other Northern European countries.

[quote]Juan Blanco wrote:
Who should we disarm first, mein Fuhrer?
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlergun.html[/quote]

From article:

To summarize, Hitler did “effect total gun control,” but only for the Jews, and only after his regime had been in power for several years. For the rest of the population he relied on laws already in place.

Interesting. No?

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:

To summarize, Hitler did “effect total gun control,” but only for the Jews, and only after his regime had been in power for several years. For the rest of the population he relied on laws already in place.

Interesting. No?[/quote]

If memory serves, I think that the case for gun control is not so different in the U.S. Originally, gun control laws were designed primarily to keep firearms out of the hands of disgruntled black folks. Which would make it more difficult to argue in favor of Micheal Moore’s assertion that the NRA is merely the legal wing of the KKK. Though far be it from me to criticize the fact-finding abilities of such an accomplished documentary maker as himself…

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
I’m sad to see that everyone in the thread so far has completely missed the real lesson to be learned from this shooting.

It’s not a problem with borders or immigrants or even muslims.

The problem here is the guns. If only we had stricter gun laws, this would NEVER have happened. It may be politically impossible to REVOKE the second amendment with another amendment, but we can slowly tighten the noose until that bothersome amendment is choked into unconsciousness. We can continue to restrict “scary looking” assault weapons and banning “extra-dangerous” ammo until whackjobs like this guy won’t be able to get their hands on a slingshot, much less a shotgun.

If we require enough shell stampings, gun locks, background checks, and excessive taxes, eventually even the “law-abiding” citizen who foolishly thinks he “needs” a gun will find the process of obtaining one so onerous that he will simply give up, and then my friends, we will have peace!

Can you deny it?[/quote]

Yes.

Sounds like a few law abiding citizens who “needed” guns and knew how to use them could have ended this incident before 5 of their fellow citizens died.

Just a thought.

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
Cunnivore wrote:
I’m sad to see that everyone in the thread so far has completely missed the real lesson to be learned from this shooting.

It’s not a problem with borders or immigrants or even muslims.

The problem here is the guns. If only we had stricter gun laws, this would NEVER have happened. It may be politically impossible to REVOKE the second amendment with another amendment, but we can slowly tighten the noose until that bothersome amendment is choked into unconsciousness. We can continue to restrict “scary looking” assault weapons and banning “extra-dangerous” ammo until whackjobs like this guy won’t be able to get their hands on a slingshot, much less a shotgun.

If we require enough shell stampings, gun locks, background checks, and excessive taxes, eventually even the “law-abiding” citizen who foolishly thinks he “needs” a gun will find the process of obtaining one so onerous that he will simply give up, and then my friends, we will have peace!

Can you deny it?

It works here in Canada.

And even with the few guns (and gun related crimes) alot come from you guys in the states.

[/quote]

Bullshit. It drives me crazy when such asinine apples to orange comparisons are made. The differences between the United States and Canada are so vast, isolating one factor like gun control to explain lower violent crime rates is the height of stupidity. The gun banning idiots try to do the same thing with Japan. The Japanese also eat way more fish than us…perhaps the higher Omega 3s in their brains contribute to better mood(that is a facetious example of the thousands of factors that can contribute to different crime rates). Of course, since you already have a view point set in your skull, you’ll ignore logic and just cling to the facts that you like. Damn the vast array of demographic and cultural differences. Damn the studies that show areas of the US with the most liberal gun laws are safest while those with the most oppressive gun laws are the most dangerous.

Guns don’t have any type of moral alignment. Neither does your car, your kitchen knives or a big rock. In an evil man’s hands(like the suspect), guns serve an evil purpose. In a righteous man’s hands, guns serve a righteous purpose. You realize this rampage was stopped by men with guns right? How can that be if
the object itself is the problem? Most Americans, despite how we are looked down on as ignorant cowboys, are smart enough to realize this. We are the height of freedom and individual responsibility and wouldn’t want it any other way.

And cunnivore, that was pretty clever.

It’s called, “Sudden Jihad Syndrome.”
http://www.aina.org/news/20070217140736.htm

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
I’m sad to see that everyone in the thread so far has completely missed the real lesson to be learned from this shooting.

It’s not a problem with borders or immigrants or even muslims.

The problem here is the guns. If only we had stricter gun laws, this would NEVER have happened. It may be politically impossible to REVOKE the second amendment with another amendment, but we can slowly tighten the noose until that bothersome amendment is choked into unconsciousness. We can continue to restrict “scary looking” assault weapons and banning “extra-dangerous” ammo until whackjobs like this guy won’t be able to get their hands on a slingshot, much less a shotgun.

If we require enough shell stampings, gun locks, background checks, and excessive taxes, eventually even the “law-abiding” citizen who foolishly thinks he “needs” a gun will find the process of obtaining one so onerous that he will simply give up, and then my friends, we will have peace!

Can you deny it?[/quote]

Why bother denying it? You are 100% right! There’s no way in Hell that had a gun not been available to him he could’ve used a homemeade bomb, shit no one does THAT anymore.

Oh, wait…

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
The problem here is the guns. If only we had stricter gun laws, this would NEVER have happened.

Can you deny it?[/quote]

No, I can’t but John Lott can;

Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.

Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate?as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
Can you deny it?[/quote]

How, about YOU, John?

Question: But how about children? In March of this year [1998] four children and a teacher were killed by two school boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Won’t tragedies like this increase if more people are allowed to carry guns? Shouldn’t this be taken into consideration before making gun ownership laws more lenient?

Lott: The horrific shooting in Arkansas occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. I have studied multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two or more people were killed and or injured in a public place; in order to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas, shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery, were excluded. The effect of “shall-issue” laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent.

For other types of crimes, I find that both children as well as adults are protected when law-abiding adults are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Finally, after extensively studying the number of accidental shootings, there is no evidence that increasing the number of concealed handguns increases accidental shootings. We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take care of their guns.

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
even the “law-abiding” citizen who foolishly thinks he “needs” a gun will find the process of obtaining one so onerous that he will simply give up, and then my friends, we will have peace!

Can you deny it?[/quote]

Question: Wouldn’t allowing concealed weapons increase the incidents of citizens attacking each other in tense situations? For instance, sometimes in traffic jams or accidents people become very hostile?screaming and shoving at one another. If armed, might people shoot each other in the heat of the moment?

Lott: During state legislative hearings on concealed-handgun laws, possibly the most commonly raised concern involved fears that armed citizens would attack each other in the heat of the moment following car accidents. The evidence shows that such fears are unfounded. Despite millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in self-defense.

[quote]Haq liked to talk about politics (he was a Democrat and a John Kerry supporter)…
Haq said Fox News was the worst, Renner says, because “it was owned by the most Jews.”[/quote]
Naveed Afzal Haq was a democrat and hated Fox News? Say it isn’t so.

[quote]derek wrote:

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

[/quote]

Oh, you poor, misguided, and probably-evil neocon! When will you learn that the road to peace is paved not with liberty, but legislation? Giving people more freedom has never made them safer.

Layering on ever-more restrictive gun laws is no more nefarious than putting up a fence to keep your toddler from burning himself on the stove. Isn’t that really what the government is there for - to protect us from ourselves?