Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Locutus of Borg on January 08, 2011, 01:25:51 pm
-
(CNN) -- At least 12 people were shot at a Tucson grocery store on Saturday, and U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was among them, a Democratic party source told CNN.
Giffords, 40, was holding a constituent meeting at the grocery store when the shooting occurred, according to a schedule posted on her website.
CNN could not confirm conditions for Giffords or any of the others wounded, but the Tuscon Citizen newspaper was reporting that Giffords was shot in the head.
The Democratic source described the situation as "pretty serious,"
The shooting occurred at a Safeway shortly after 10 a.m. MST, according to sheriff's spokesman Deputy Jason Ogan.
Several shot at Tuscon grocery store
Pictures from the scene showed a Giffords banner hanging from the storefront.
At least two victims with gunshot wounds were transported at Northwest Medical Center, according to spokesman Richard Parker.
"They've been coming in the last 10 minutes. I'm not sure of the severity of their injuries," he said.
Ogan said he did not have conditions on any of the wounded and said the motive for the shooting is unclear.
"We're just trying to sort this out right now," he said.
An employee of a nearby business, Jason Pekau, told CNN that he heard "15 to 20 gunshots."
Giffords, a Democrat, was first elected in 2006. She has served as chairwoman of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee and also holds seats on the House Science and Technology and Armed Services committees.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shooting/?hpt=T2
-
The Democratic source described the situation as "pretty serious,"
interesting
-
I wonder what the assailant's motive was. I guess we'll find out later.
-
Damnit. She actually sounded like a decent politician. Who thinks this was politically-motivated?
[Edit: punctuation. Bleh]
-
I wonder what the assailant's motive was. I guess we'll find out later.
I'm calling it either Teapartier bull**** or the first action of The Latino Rising against the dumbass mother****ers who run that state.
-
FOX news is now reporting that the Congresswoman is alive and in critical condition.
-
ZOMBIE CONGRESSWOMAN
-
Interesting.
I believe, if this turns out to be politically motivated, we as a people should be more focused on the fact that she was shot, as opposed to whether or not one side "did it". The headline, after all, reads "United States Congresswoman" - not "Democrat shot by X" or "Republican shot by Y".
-
Yeah, maybe if we couldn't pretty much expect it was some Tea Party Republican nutcase.
-
iamzack, any more comments like that and I'll boot you from the thread. Facts and discussion, please refrain from inflammatory editorials like "nutcases", with the emphasis on the s.
-
(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0133ec3a6597970b-400wi)
-
Locutus of Borg, is there something in particular you are attempting to say with that image?
-
Whoa chill. What's the hostility for?
(also, I think it's pure coincidence that the guy who got shot is on that "hitlist")
-
iamzack, any more comments like that and I'll boot you from the thread. Facts and discussion, please refrain from inflammatory editorials like "nutcases", with the emphasis on the s.
Oh sorry, what do you call someone who shoots someone over politics? Patriot?
-
Well, who knows if it's over politics? Could be some drugged up retard who felt like making a scene for all we know.
-
Oh sorry, what do you call someone who shoots someone over politics? Patriot?
The troops.
Anyway, if I have to go into wild guesses, my money is on one of those crazy libertarians.
-
Or terrorists, in this case, since the target(s) was civilian.
-
Whoa chill. What's the hostility for?
(also, I think it's pure coincidence that the guy who got shot is on that "hitlist")
There's no hostility. If he posts an image he should actually say what he means by it. It's discussion etiquette.
iamzack, I call that person crazy. I don't say "Tea Party nutcases" - i.e. where you're implying that ALL Tea Party members are just as crazy as this man where they'll shoot a Senator. Perhaps you should examine the causes behind this, instead of just blaming everyone for one crazy person.
Kolgena; it may prove well to be for politics, though. But politics at a local level, unless you'd like to make the argument that this incident represents the national policy of the Tea Party.
Nemesis6: Same warning I said to iamzack goes to you.
Kolgena: That's an interesting argument, is this individual a "terrorist"? What if he proves to be white, Christian, and born in America? Are you willing to label them with the same title we label all of the usual "terrorist" steryeotypes?
-
Politics - Trolls trolling trolls. Seriously.
-
Terrorists can be white, or any race for that matter. People think they have to be middle eastern because of US media.
-
Kolgena: That's an interesting argument, is this individual a "terrorist"? What if he proves to be white, Christian, and born in America? Are you willing to label them with the same title we label all of the usual "terrorist" steryeotypes?
Why the **** would he not be? Are you?
-
Umm. Why can't white people be terrorists?
-
Umm. Why can't white people be terrorists?
How soon we forget history. You would be hard pressed to find an IRA terrorist that wasn't white.
-
http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10
Suspected to be the gunman's YouTube account.
For you folks concerned about his political leanings, he appears to lean toward libertarian.
-
He lists Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto on his list of favorite books, almost next to each other. That seems...ironic.
-
Locutus of Borg, is there something in particular you are attempting to say with that image?
That maybe we have people like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and our friends at Fox to thank for riling up the right into violence.
I mean, come on, what Palin did with that poster was just short of saying "HEY, MAYBE YOU SHOULD SHOOT THE DEMS IF THEY GET REELECTED AGAIN". Remember one of the future Congressional staffers in Florida? "If ballots don't work, bullets will"?
And Glenn Beck fans, oh, don't even get me started. Some nut in California who piled guns into his car and drove down to shoot up a nonprofit Beck said was tied to George Soros. A guy who shot three cops in Pittsburgh because Beck had convinced him that the Feds were coming to take his guns away.
The people on the right NEED to realize that their heated rhetoric has real world consequences...I mean, come on, we've had police officers murdered, Democratic offices vandalized, death threats, abortion doctors being shot, and now a Democratic Congresswoman who was specifically targeted during the election gets shot. Is it REALLY gonna take another OKC to convince these guys that they're dangerous?!
-
For the sake of clarity, Nuclear1, I believe you meant "Oklahoma City [Bombing]" when you said OKC?
-
He lists Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto on his list of favorite books, almost next to each other. That seems...ironic.
One of those people who lists things for their "buzzword" value, not because he's read them I'm sure.
Also, I think "terrorists are arabs" is a pretty new concept. IIRC 'modern terrorism' developed in Serbia in the early 1900s. . .
-
For the sake of clarity, Nuclear1, I believe you meant "Oklahoma City [Bombing]" when you said OKC?
Exactly.
There was plenty of right-wing domestic terrorism leading up to the bombing, but it seemed that Oklahoma City finally turned a vast majority of people against the militia movement for a while, the same way a lot of people turned against Christian domestic terrorism after the Olympic Park bomber.
-
Maybe the real problem is disaffected youth let down by the political process. I notice he was 22 years old. You just can't trust anyone under 30.
-
Maybe the real problem is disaffected youth let down by the political process. I notice he was 22 years old. You just can't trust anyone under 30.
Yeah, those young bastards [/sarcasm]. Or maybe your political system is failing to rally the youth and mobilize them in a constructive way?
-
Unfortunately our political system is at it's best when different parties have control of the presidency and the congress. It stops them from doing as much damage to the country.
-
I hope she recovers.
Beyond that, I'm saying nothing, it's like a fight in a label factory in here...
-
He lists Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto on his list of favorite books, almost next to each other. That seems...ironic.
One of those people who lists things for their "buzzword" value, not because he's read them I'm sure.
Also, I think "terrorists are arabs" is a pretty new concept. IIRC 'modern terrorism' developed in Serbia in the early 1900s. . .
Or he could also have read them because he's a scholarly political student, for all you know. What's your point? It's a YouTube channel with no real relevance to this discussion.
-
Maybe the real problem is disaffected youth let down by the political process. I notice he was 22 years old. You just can't trust anyone under 30.
It would behoove you to justify that comment.
-
You know, in most parts of the world this kind of story would not be news.
-
Hell, all the articles on this issue I've read only mention the five people that were actually KILLED in passing. I haven't seen a "5 killed, numerous injured" headline yet. Oh well, maybe I'm just making a mountain out of a semantic mole hill.
-
Maybe the real problem is disaffected youth let down by the political process. I notice he was 22 years old. You just can't trust anyone under 30.
It would behoove you to justify that comment.
According to most statistics the average age of a terrorist is less than thirty.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2039865.ece
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_age_of_a_terrorist
-
Well, it is pretty rare for the US, though, unfortunately, if things continue down the road they are currently travelling, I can see it becoming more common. That said, however, you only have to go back a few years to realise that in the US, assassination of political figures is a fixed part of their history. If you take people like Abe Lincoln or JFK, both of those were killed (if memory serves) because their policies didn't sit comfortably with certain groups.
What makes this so horrific is that I don't think it's an assassination, I think it's the result of a nutcase with a gun, and trying to brand that nutcase as Libertarian, Republican, Tea-Party or anything else is kind of missing the point in my opinion.
-
You know, in most parts of the world this kind of story would not be news.
I'm not saying that what you say has no relevance when I ask you, but perhaps it might serve the discussion well if you enunciated what bearing that comment has on the current situation and the problems that might have caused it to arise.
Solatar; that's an excellent point, I challenge you to expound further.
-
Maybe the real problem is disaffected youth let down by the political process. I notice he was 22 years old. You just can't trust anyone under 30.
It would behoove you to justify that comment.
According to most statistics the average age of a terrorist is less than thirty.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2039865.ece
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_age_of_a_terrorist
The average age of a soldier is less than thirty, it's meaningless.
Plus that doesn't say a damn thing about the people motivating them.
-
Maybe the real problem is disaffected youth let down by the political process. I notice he was 22 years old. You just can't trust anyone under 30.
It would behoove you to justify that comment.
According to most statistics the average age of a terrorist is less than thirty.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2039865.ece
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_age_of_a_terrorist
it looks like on average terrorists are also professionals or semi-professionals. I guess you can't trust those guys either.
-
Aren't they also usually male? And they're *always* human, so..
-
Maybe the real problem is disaffected youth let down by the political process. I notice he was 22 years old. You just can't trust anyone under 30.
It would behoove you to justify that comment.
According to most statistics the average age of a terrorist is less than thirty.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2039865.ece
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_age_of_a_terrorist
Woah! You've opened my eyes! Now you know people, the next time you see someone in their mid-twenties, from a caring family, married, with children, and graduate, SHOOT THE HELL OUT OF THOSE MANIAC TERRORIST BASTARDS!
I'll explain something to you that may surprise you: All members of B may belong to A, but not all members of A necessarily need to belong to B.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory
You should have studied that in high school, but maybe you were too busy being a terrorist or something...
While I'm at it, would you please explain me how are you supposed to train future politicians if they don't get involved in actual politics until they are 30? And you're still wondering why you're electing those that do the less damage instead of those that do the more good?
-
It's largely to do with phsychology, it's the same reason that Fundamentalist Mullahs encourage other people to go strap bombs to themselves and die for the cause, because they are mostly older men who feel their mortality, and whilst they'll happily preach a heaven filled with virgins, they aren't in any noticeable rush to go and find out for themselves.
-
I'll explain something to you that may surprise you: All members of B may belong to A, but not all members of A necessarily need to belong to B.
All elephants are grey, but not all grey is elephants.
-
Solatar; that's an excellent point, I challenge you to expound further.
I'm conflicted, quite honestly. On the one hand, it appears to me that the news is putting more importance on the life of this congresswoman than on the lives of the people actually killed. On the other, she survived (thus far), so focusing on her may be appropriate - since talking about people that have been killed won't make them any less dead. I know I probably sound like I'm fence sitting, but I'm trying not to take a real "position" on it without evaluating all the nuances, since it's obviously not a binary thing and I hate to be hasty (plus, I study social history and linguistics in school, so I over-analyze the crap out of anything thrown in front of me). And should I be upset at the media for placing this importance on her, or the audience they're doubtlessly catering to?
I'm leaning towards being pissed at the media, because quite honestly I heard something on the local news and then heard something about it from my younger sister. It was only a few hours later, after my sister and I got back from an art museum today that I even HEARD about there being others injured. The fact that the headline focused so intently on the woman herself meant that anybody trying to quickly paraphrase the situation was very likely to leave out the other people, simply because the articles they were sourcing from only mentioned them in passing. I would have been much happier had a single headline had put ANY emphasis on the other people killed - I'll admit I haven't read every article in the world on it though. For Christ's sake, one of them was a 9 year old girl!
It's a matter of the emphasis of the details, not a lack thereof.
-
I'll explain something to you that may surprise you: All members of B may belong to A, but not all members of A necessarily need to belong to B.
All elephants are grey, but not all grey is elephants.
But if it's not grey then it can't be an elephant
or
if it's not A then it's not B
-
It's largely to do with phsychology, it's the same reason that Fundamentalist Mullahs encourage other people to go strap bombs to themselves and die for the cause, because they are mostly older men who feel their mortality, and whilst they'll happily preach a heaven filled with virgins, they aren't in any noticeable rush to go and find out for themselves.
Please relate this back to the topic at hand, either through an edit or follow-up post.
el_magnifico, I'm watching your posts in this thread, please tone down the rhetoric. You haven't technically crossed any lines, but you're inching a bit close.
-
It's largely to do with phsychology, it's the same reason that Fundamentalist Mullahs encourage other people to go strap bombs to themselves and die for the cause, because they are mostly older men who feel their mortality, and whilst they'll happily preach a heaven filled with virgins, they aren't in any noticeable rush to go and find out for themselves.
Please relate this back to the topic at hand, either through an edit or follow-up post.
el_magnifico, I'm watching your posts in this thread, please tone down the rhetoric. You haven't technically crossed any lines, but you're inching a bit close.
I'm referring to the comment that, statistically, most Terrorists are under 30, which is why it is directly under the posts about it. It's not to do with dissasociated youth, in my opinion, it's about the fact that the concept of mortality rests lightly on the shoulders of younger people, whereas the concept of fighting for a cause tends to be appealing, I've personally found as I've aged that I have one life, but you can find a new cause on pretty much any street corner.
-
Please relate this back to the topic at hand, either through an edit or follow-up post.
You're talking to a global mod. Maybe an admin.
Also, I have to ask why the hell this thread gets the ultra-strict moderation regime over any other? Nobody else has ever remotely tried to moderate a thread this closely in the entire time I've been at HLP.
-
Yeah, why is this thread being microed like an all-in roach push? :wtf:
-
el_magnifico, I'm watching your posts in this thread, please tone down the rhetoric. You haven't technically crossed any lines, but you're inching a bit close.
Yes, sorry. I assure you I'm usually more calmed, but when people imply X demographic group is naturally dangerous for democracy/society, I just hear an alarm inside of my head (especially, but not exclusively, when I'm also part of that group). I will tone it down.
I'd also like you to know that, while you're overacting it a bit :P , I like the way you're moderating the discussion, in the true spirit of the word, keeping your interventions neutral and encouraging the discussion to proceed further, in a respectful and yet assertive way. This is the way authority should be handled and I respect you for this.
-
Also, I have to ask why the hell this thread gets the ultra-strict moderation regime over any other?
Maybe because of its volatile nature. Seems reasonable to me, even when I do admit he's exaggerating it a bit.
-
Yeah, why is this thread being microed like an all-in roach push? :wtf:
Unknown Target knows something we don't
-
I think it's pre-emptive. I just had to read the title to think to myself 'This is probably going to end up as one almighty argument."
I'll makes observations on the phsychology of the matter, but I'm not going to comment on the politics of it, mainly because what I know is that someone shot someone, beyond that, conjecture and pointing fingers is pointless.
-
Please relate this back to the topic at hand, either through an edit or follow-up post.
You're talking to a global mod. Maybe an admin.
I'm a global mod too, what's your point?
Also, I have to ask why the hell this thread gets the ultra-strict moderation regime over any other? Nobody else has ever remotely tried to moderate a thread this closely in the entire time I've been at HLP.
It's getting strict treatment because it's something that would provide a great discussion, but it's also something that could pop pretty easily since there's so many tempers going around. Within the first few posts it already got an inflammatory comment.
Yeah, why is this thread being microed like an all-in roach push?
Because of the reasons listed above. The whole reason GD got pushed down to the bottom of HLP is because the discussions got too hot too fast too often. I'm trying to keep this discussion civil and moderated.
el_magnificio, thanks for agreeing to tone it down - I would point out that I don't agree or disagree with you on your assertion that the Tea Party is dangerous for a democratic society, I'm just telling you that you should explain why that is and back it up with logic, rather than with a general assertion.
Flipside; I think the psychology of this is the most interesting and relevant part.
-
Well speaking of psychology I can tell you that you just activated some contrauthoritarian goals right here.
-
Look on the bright side, can you imagine if Liberator and Kazaan had seen this thread? ;)
-
el_magnificio, thanks for agreeing to tone it down - I would point out that I don't agree or disagree with you on your assertion that the Tea Party is dangerous for a democratic society, I'm just telling you that you should explain why that is and back it up with logic, rather than with a general assertion.
Actually, what I was trying to say is that anyone pointing a finger at any party/age group/religion/whatever and automatically stating "they are the problem! don't trust in them" is probably going to negatively impact society sooner or later (like, every xenophobic ideology, for example). I wouldn't judge Republicans, Democrats or Tea Party members as this or that, simply because I don't have the necessary knowledge. I haven't lived under their governments. Ask me about Radicals or Peronists, those I know.
In this particular case, I also wanted to point out how ridiculous and counterproductive the concept of "dangerous youth!" is.
-
In this particular case, I also wanted to point out how ridiculous and counterproductive the concept of "dangerous youth!" is.
Agreed, our youth are the biological product of the parent, and the phsychological product of the world they are bought into, societies with rigid, intolerant attitudes will produce people that are a mirror of that. If there were such a thing as 'evil youth', then the finger has to be pointed at the factors responsible for shaping that youth.
-
It's an open question as to whether American politics are actually growing more radical and polarized. The data I have available seem to suggest - IIRC - that there is definite and extreme polarization amongst the elites and the bare minority of the population that is politically active. I'm not sure right now whether that polarization spreads to the majority-moderate listless proles.
-
I think the fight is really going on at the level of interaction with the system, for example, in the more 'polarised' states, there is a big argument about teaching creationism as a science. This is nothing really to do with the factuality of Creationism, never has been, it's about feet in doors, or to use the American term, the slippery slope.
I'll agree that it's not the whole of American society, but the problem is, in my opinion, a sensationalism-led media combined with personalities that are more than willing to provide that sensationalism, and a viewing public who, in reaction to this sensationalism, feel they are expected to adopt equally polarised views on the matter.
-
I'm thinking our media, TV in particular, needs a major overhaul. Compared with what is was 10 years ago, it used to be that more often than not there were balanced and fairly sensible debates like Capital Gang. But now? Starting with Fox it just turned into pointless shouting matches. I'm saying Fox because they were the first to start this trend on TV and the other channels like CNN followed suit starting a race to the bottom. I'm not calling for regulation or anything like that, the root of the problem is that people are still watching it.
-
Are there any good news networks left in the USA? I can't think of any, but I also don't watch much TV, let alone TV from another country.
To be fair, Fox is freaking awesome to watch if you just want to see how stupid some things can get. Remember, Fox is NOT a news channel, it's registered under entertainment, which is why they're allowed to slip in some untruths.
-
I get my news from here. It's probably the least biased place for news I'm likely to find on the explored intarwebz.
-
Are there any good news networks left in the USA?
CNN is more or less straight with you, but a number of their reporters have an addiction to the sound of their own voice. (Wolf Blitzer, I'm looking at you.) The new Indian (that's Subcontinent, not Native American) guy CNN has is actually fit to stand in the same room as Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite, however, and it doesn't get much better than that even outside the US.
-
Are there any good news networks left in the USA?
CNN is more or less straight with you, but a number of their reporters have an addiction to the sound of their own voice. (Wolf Blitzer, I'm looking at you.) The new Indian (that's Subcontinent, not Native American) guy CNN has is actually fit to stand in the same room as Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite, however, and it doesn't get much better than that even outside the US.
Fareed Zakaria is awesome, but from what I recall CNN was decidedly inferior to the BBC. Maybe that has changed in the last few years.
-
this is the bee bee ceee
-
Fareed Zakaria is awesome, but from what I recall CNN was decidedly inferior to the BBC. Maybe that has changed in the last few years.
Does the BBC have better than Fareed? Because that was the actual context. :P
-
The BBC started going downhill when they started laying off people for being 'too old' to read the News. It meant that many of the most impartial and experienced News personalities left the BBC for not meeting the 'Glam-factor'. I sort of started going off the BBC at that point.
-
Fareed Zakaria is awesome, but from what I recall CNN was decidedly inferior to the BBC. Maybe that has changed in the last few years.
Does the BBC have better than Fareed? Because that was the actual context. :P
I wasn't referring to any specific anchor, I was reffering to the quality of the news content in general. But my info is several years out of date so things may have changed.
-
Keith Olbermann earlier tonight:
Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. We need to put the guns down. Just as importantly we need to put the gun metaphors away and permanently.
Left, right, middle - politicians and citizens - sane and insane. This morning in Arizona, this age in which this country would accept "targeting" of political opponents and putting bullseyes over their faces and of the dangerous blurring between political rallies and gun shows, ended.
This morning in Arizona, this time of the ever-escalating, borderline-ecstatic invocation of violence in fact or in fantasy in our political discourse, closed. It is essential tonight not to demand revenge, but to demand justice; to insist not upon payback against those politicians and commentators who have so irresponsibly brought us to this time of domestic terrorism, but to work to change the minds of them and their supporters - or if those minds tonight are too closed, or if those minds tonight are too unmoved, or if those minds tonight are too triumphant, to make sure by peaceful means that those politicians and commentators and supporters have no further place in our system of government.
If Sarah Palin, whose website put and today scrubbed bullseye targets on 20 Representatives including Gabby Giffords, does not repudiate her own part in amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics, she must be dismissed from politics - she must be repudiated by the members of her own party, and if they fail to do so, each one of them must be judged to have silently defended this tactic that today proved so awfully foretelling, and they must in turn be dismissed by the responsible members of their own party.
If Jesse Kelly, whose campaign against Congresswoman Giffords included an event in which he encouraged his supporters to join him firing machine guns, does not repudiate this, and does not admit that even if it was solely indirectly, or solely coincidentally, it contributed to the black cloud of violence that has envellopped our politics, he must be repudiated by Arizona's Republican Party.
If Congressman Allen West, who during his successful campaign told his supporters that they should make his opponent afraid to come out of his home, does not repudiate those remarks and all other suggestions of violence and forced fear, he should be repudiated by his constituents and the Republican Congressional Caucus.
If Sharron Angle, who spoke of "Second Amendment solutions," does not repudiate that remark and urge her supporters to think anew of the terrible reality of what her words implied, she must be repudiated by her supporters in Nevada.
If the Tea Party leaders who took out of context a Jefferson quote about blood and tyranny and the tree of liberty do not understand - do not understand tonight, now what that really means, and these leaders do not tell their followers to abhor violence and all threat of violence, then those Tea Party leaders must be repudiated by the Republican Party.
If Glenn Beck, who obsesses nearly as strangely as Mr. Loughner did about gold and debt and who wistfully joked about killing Michael Moore, and Bill O'Reilly, who blithely repeated "Tiller the Killer" until the phrase was burned into the minds of his viewers, do not begin their next broadcasts with solemn apologies for ever turning to the death-fantasies and the dreams of bloodlust, for ever having provided just the oxygen to those deep in madness to whom violence is an acceptable solution, then those commentators and the others must be repudiated by their viewers, and by all politicians, and by sponsors, and by the networks that employ them.
And if those of us considered to be "on the left" do not re-dedicate ourselves to our vigilance to eliminate all our own suggestions of violence - how ever inadvertent they might have been then we too deserve the repudiation of the more sober and peaceful of our politicians and our viewers and our networks.
Here, once, in a clumsy metaphor, I made such an unintended statement about the candidacy of then-Senator Clinton. It sounded as if it was a call to physical violence. It was wrong, then. It is even more wrong tonight. I apologize for it again, and I urge politicians and commentators and citizens of every political conviction to use my comment as a means to recognize the insidiousness of violent imagery, that if it can go so easily slip into the comments of one as opposed to violence as me, how easily, how pervasively, how disastrously can it slip into the already-violent or deranged mind?
For tonight we stand at one of the clichéd crossroads of American history. Even if the alleged terrorist Jared Lee Loughner was merely shooting into a political crowd because he wanted to shoot into a political crowd, even if he somehow was unaware who was in the crowd, we have nevertheless for years been building up to a moment like this.
Assume the details are coincidence. The violence is not. The rhetoric has devolved and descended, past the ugly and past the threatening and past the fantastic and into the imminently murderous.
We will not return to the 1850s, when a pro-slavery Congressman nearly beat to death an anti-slavery Senator; when an anti-slavery madman cut to death with broadswords pro-slavery advocates.
We will not return to the 1960s, when with rationalizations of an insane desire for fame, or of hatred, or of political opposition, a President was assassinated and an ultra-Conservative would-be president was paralyzed, and a leader of peace was murdered on a balcony.
We will not.
Because tonight, what Mrs. Palin, and what Mr. Kelly, and what Congressman West, and what Ms. Angle, and what Mr. Beck, and what Mr. O'Reilly, and what you and I must understand, was that the man who fired today did not fire at a Democratic Congresswoman and her supporters.
He was not just a mad-man incited by a thousand daily temptations by slightly less-mad-men to do things they would not rationally condone.
He fired today into our liberty and our rights to live and to agree or disagree in safety and in freedom from fear that our support or opposition will cost us our lives or our health or our sense of safety. The bullseye might just as well have been on Mrs. Palin, or Mr. Kelly, or you, or me. The wrong, the horror, would have been - could still be just as real and just as unacceptable.
At a time of such urgency and impact, we as Americans - conservative or liberal - should pour our hearts and souls into politics. We should not - none of us, not Gabby Giffords and not any Conservative - ever have to pour our blood. And every politician and commentator who hints otherwise, or worse still stays silent now, should have no place in our political system, and should be denied that place, not by violence, but by being shunned and ignored.
It is a simple pledge, it is to the point, and it is essential that every American politician and commentator and activist and partisan take it and take it now, I say it first, and freely:
Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence. Because for whatever else each of us may be, we all are Americans.
-
This man deserves something. I do not know what, but he does.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12144607
Little bit more information.
Part of me feels like a little light has finally come on, the question remains as to whether people choose to see it or not.
-
Are there any good news networks left in the USA?
CNN is more or less straight with you, but a number of their reporters have an addiction to the sound of their own voice. (Wolf Blitzer, I'm looking at you.) The new Indian (that's Subcontinent, not Native American) guy CNN has is actually fit to stand in the same room as Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite, however, and it doesn't get much better than that even outside the US.
CNN is also watched world wide. If they do not have a political bias because of this or they are watched world wide because they don't really have a political bias I wouldn't know.
-
Must admit, reading some comments on other sites makes me think that maybe people won't see the wood for the trees.
From :
"He was an atheist, therefore he was left-wing liberal scum!"
To :
"Sarah Palin has this womans blood on her hands!"
Some people never learn, that's all I can say...
-
I don't think he has anything to do with Palin, the Tea Party or any other political figure/organization:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09shooter.html?_r=2&hp
“He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in ’07, asked her a question & he told me she was ‘stupid & unintelligent,’ ”
So did he shoot Giffords to get some payback for being called an idiot?
-
Out of curiousity what question did he ask? I can't open the article since it demands a login.
-
yeah CNN that i watched at dinner with the parents made it seem like he was just a regular non-affiliated (libertarianish) nutcase
-
I'm not ready to blame the Tea Party for the actions of one person but I do really like Mr. Olbermann's speechothing.
-
Olbermann's speech is good and all, but the trouble is that the people who need to take it to heart the most will completely ignore it because of its source. It doesn't help that he singles out several right-wing individuals and then basically says, "Oh yeah, and that goes for the left too." If you ask me how I know that's what will happen, read this (http://www.descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?t=17822). And I wonder why I never visit that forum anymore...
(Honestly, I don't put Olbermann that much above Beck myself most days, but that was admittedly good reading.)
-
It doesn't help that he singles out several right-wing individuals and then basically says, "Oh yeah, and that goes for the left too."
Hey, if you've got prominent left-wingers who've been threatening violence or used violent terminology regarding their opponents on the right, I'm sure he'd like to hear it.
-
Well yeah, that's sort of the problem, but when you're trying to reach out to a group that implicitly mistrusts you and then explicitly list only people on their side of the aisle, you're not going to have much success. I feel like he would have been better to leave the personal references out entirely, since maybe then I could justify copypasta'ing it over to that banal excuse of an E&C board.
-
Aaaaannd the Westboro baptist church show again how they struggle to achieve the rank of 'Human'...
http://chicago.gopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/15739936/hate-church-plans-protest-at-funeral-of-9yearold-killed-in-az-shooting
Seriously, these people are indicative of everything that led up to this tragic event.
-
How fair is that? People get murdered for being gay, being black, being near a democratic congresswoman...
Where the hell are the violent nutcases when you need them, anyway? :(
-
I don't see how that link is relevant to this discussion Flipside. If it is please provide an argument for it. :)
-
because it is about the kid killed at the shooting that this thread is about?
-
The funeral they're protesting is for a nine year old girl killed by the gunman.
-
Ok, thank you, carry on. I didn't read enough of the linked article, and was not aware of where the shooting took place (apparently Arizona). My mistake.
-
Aaaaannd the Westboro baptist church show again how they struggle to achieve the rank of 'Human'...
You have sadly just summed up their entire existence I think, and not in a humorous way considering the stories Nathan and Mark Phelps have told about their father.
-
Sometimes I'm awestruck by the thickheadedness of some members of our species. I mean, it almost justifies dictatorships and ruling through brutality if an entire country is made up of these sorts of nutcases. (wooo Hobbes)
Ironically, oppressive dictatorships today often have nutcases in power.
-
Sometimes I'm awestruck by the thickheadedness of some members of our species. I mean, it almost justifies dictatorships and ruling through brutality if an entire country is made up of these sorts of nutcases. (wooo Hobbes)
Ironically, oppressive dictatorships today often have nutcases in power.
As a clarification for the discussion; are you suggesting that any country in particular is made of up of people who protest these funerals (I am assuming that is the sort of individual you are referring to)?
-
I suppose the way I look at it is this:
You have the right to Freedom of Speech. That's written down. You also have the Right to treat other people with respect and politeness and to be treated the same in return. If anything, you should be fighting harder for those, because they aren't specifically written down. Groups like Westboro exploit that fact for self-promotion.
-
Freedom of speech doesn't protect inciting panic or lying at certain times or slander or libel, and I personally believe that it absolutely does not protect what the WBC does, which is intentionally causing great emotional harm to already vulnerable groups of people.
-
iamzack, why do you personally believe that? What are your stated assertions that cause you to hold that belief? If I were to say that, following a court ruling on what you're saying, all speech that is considered harmful to vulnerable groups should be banned, would you be for it or against it? Would you be comfortable with the major ramifications of a belief such as that?
-
Ya know, with you moderating the everloving hell out of this topic, it feels less like a discussion and more like a lecture. :\
-
Seconded.
-
In fairness, that's not moderation, it's a question ;) And quite an interesting one too in context, because it's a question that is rattling around the US more and more, "What is Freedom of Speech? Where does it begin, where does it end, should it have an end-point?" etc.
If the people choose to physically remove the Westboro church from the loaction, is that not Freedom of Speech of the people as much as the fact the Church is there in the first place? Was Freedom of Speech designed purely for criticism of the Government, not the all over 'pass-card' it is interpreted as now?
These are all questions that do need examining more closely.
-
Ack, I posted this in response to Battuta and deleted it, then I remembered my motto of not deleting what I post. Here it is, my apologies.
Admittedly that last one was because I was specifically interested in keeping the discussion going in the direction that iamzack was talking about. I'm genuinely interested in the discussion going on here, and I was starting to interject because I saw it was going so well for the last 2, almost 3 pages without me posting anything. I don't believe there was anything wrong with me asking a question of iamzack specifically, as as my personal opinion I didn't see any interesting avenues of discussion pop up for a bit.
tl:dr; I thought the topic was functioning well but getting boring, so I decided to spur it on in something I was interested in and see if anyone bit. You're free to disregard what I just said.
-
Okay, that's fair. :yes:
-
iamzack, why do you personally believe that? What are your stated assertions that cause you to hold that belief? If I were to say that, following a court ruling on what you're saying, all speech that is considered harmful to vulnerable groups should be banned, would you be for it or against it? Would you be comfortable with the major ramifications of a belief such as that?
You left out the word "intentionally." And I assume you're going for a big slippery slope type deal here, but the fact is that in the vast majority of cases where someone would be accused of intending to harm someone via speech, it would be difficult to prove in court at best. There wouldn't be a huge onslaught of people being arrested over saying "**** you man" during a traffic jam to someone who turns out to be recently widowed or something.
The WBC on the other hand isn't exactly subtle in their intentions. They hurt people over and over again, people who are grieving over a lost friend or family member, and they do it intentionally and repeatedly. They bring their children along to join in telling grieving parents that it is good that their child is dead.
So yeah, IMHO, the spirit of the law does not sanction that kind of cruelty and anti-social behaviour.
-
Given Fred Phelps background as a civil-rights lawyer, I remember once hearing a semi-credible argument that he was actually an ultra-deep cover atheist trying to discredit the church. :p
-
It would certainly be undeniable proof of Poes law.
It kind of reminds me of another Far-Right lawyer, good ol' Jack Thompson, when he tried to announce he was going to prevent the release of Halo 3 the day after it had been released. That was nothing whatsoever to do with the content of Halo 3, and everything to do with the fact that the game was getting far more attention than he was, it didn't take a genius to work that one out.
Phelps works along much the same line, he's realised that the more offensive he is, the more attention he gets, and then he scampers off and hides behind Freedom of Speech when he gets caught, he's actually found a way to turn one of your main strengths into a weakness.
If he simply stated his opinion, it would be different, but to actually go to those funerals and attempt to incite anger is, to my mind, going beyond the freedom of having an opinion and into attempting to create anger and strife through physical activity.
-
Best solution to WBC is to ignore them: don't feed the professional trolls.
-
How does hate speech fit into all this? At least in Canada, I can't see anything this ridiculous being allowed to pass.
(Unknown: I'm not saying that there are countries full of nutcases in today's world. It was more of my musing that the sort of ignorance that this represents was consistent with Hobbes beliefs, and probably more likely to be found waaaay back when in dark ages or something like that)
-
Best solution to WBC is to ignore them: don't feed the professional trolls.
Oh, I agree, that would be the best way, but the problem is, if I were a father who had just lost my 9 year old daughter, and some old ****head and his family were at the funeral cheering the fact, I wouldn't give a damn about the law, or about Freedom of Speech, I'd be beating so many barrels of **** out of him that I could start my own fertilizer industry.
-
Found this in the comments section of the posted article:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=146050748782975&index=1
I'm glad that there's some "counter" organization going on in response to WBC. Restores a tad bit of my faith in humanity that there are people going out of their way to stop them.
-
Honestly, I'd be all for a law against the Westboro Baptist "Church" specifically. It steps neatly around all of the slippery-slope arguments. :p
(yes i realize the implausibility/idiocy of this but a man can dream)
-
Given Fred Phelps background as a civil-rights lawyer, I remember once hearing a semi-credible argument that he was actually an ultra-deep cover atheist trying to discredit the church. :p
A search of Fred Phelp's case history reveals that, as a civil rights lawyer, his history isn't history. It's myth. He would demand huge amounts of money and take out-of-court settlements for a fraction of a fraction. He lost roughly four out of five cases that actually went to trial.
Basically, if he were a civil rights lawyer, he would have been working for precedents, court judgments of fault, not settlements. This was clearly not the case. So it is unfortunate, but true: Fred Phelps is for real.
Honestly, I'd be all for a law against the Westboro Baptist "Church" specifically. It steps neatly around all of the slippery-slope arguments. :p
(yes i realize the implausibility/idiocy of this but a man can dream)
It's actually not a bad plan. The Phelps compound is listed as church property. They live, eat, and sleep in tax-free areas. This is clearly a violation of the spirit and probably the letter of the tax code.
-
Basically, if he were a civil rights lawyer, he would have been working for precedents, court judgments of fault, not settlements. This was clearly not the case. So it is unfortunate, but true: Fred Phelps is for real.
Unless his cover goes deeper than you think. :p
-
Unless his cover goes deeper than you think. :p
If his cover goes deep enough to have caused his sons deep-tissue and permanent cartilage damage with a mattock, the man has sold his soul, his humanity, to his cause either way.
Read all about it. Addicted To Hate is interesting, if somewhat horrifying, stuff. (http://www.blank.org/addict/)
-
There's no cause so right you won't find idiots following it.
Of course the most likely explanation is that he really is as ****ed up bat **** insane about religion as his words claim.
-
So... these WBC people... who apperently are a bunch of inbreeds... are going to a funeral of a 9-year old girl... who was shot by a crazy gunman trying to get at a politcal figure... to protest having the funeral... in front of the kid's family, friends, etc... the whole time, shouting stuff like 'fag', 'God wanted this to happen', and 'the guy who killed her was a divine missionary'...
...
You know what? **** this.
**** them too.
-
when will a crazed gunman go after them... :(
I mean it's only a matter of time.
-
Well, I wouldn't be miffed if at one of the military funerals they raid the 3-volley salute was accidentally a little low and accidentally live ammunition. It's was probably God's Will after all.
-
two words: gas chamber
really, you dont want to go to jail in arizona.
-
I keep hoping for one of those uncanny coincidences. How great would it be if the guy got struck by lightning at one of his so called protests? Or his whole clan got tornadoed or flash flooded off the face of the Earth?
-
Well, I wouldn't be miffed if at one of the military funerals they raid the 3-volley salute was accidentally a little low and accidentally live ammunition. It's was probably God's Will after all.
Except that the breakdown in rule of law this would represent if it actually occurred would be worse than the existence of the WBC in the first place.
-
I said accidentally. :P
-
They got maced in August, but Fred's been wearing a Kevlar vest for nearly a decade at his public appearances.
-
They got maced in August, but Fred's been wearing a Kevlar vest for nearly a decade at his public appearances.
Okay, so they don't accidentally aim quite so low. Problem solved. :P
-
They got maced in August, but Fred's been wearing a Kevlar vest for nearly a decade at his public appearances.
Okay, so they don't accidentally aim quite so low. Problem solved. :P
I dunno can Kevlar stop 7.62mm from an M-14?
-
Nope.
-
or a 42 cal sniper round aimed at the head
-
Kevlar has done quite well against point blank AK 47 hits. I wouldn't be so sure an M14 will be enough. But a headshot should do the trick.
-
My ballistics knowledge is pretty layman's but the M-14 is considered a 'battle rifle' rather than an assault rifle like the AK. I'm under the impression is punch is more substantial than the later.
-
Wat no.
It's the caliber that's important (and powder load, and materials used in the bullet and chamber, but whatever), not what you call the rifle.
That said, the M14 is a 150 gr, 7.62x51 mm cartridge, whereas the AK-47 is a 123 gr, 7.62x39 cartridge. Important to remember that grains (gr) is the weight of the entire bullet and cartridge, not the amount of powder in the cartridge.
That said, the M14 will indeed outperform the AK-47 against kevlar.
EDIT: It's called a 'battle rifle' instead of an assault rifle because assault rifles by definition have to be selective fire. The M14 is exclusively semi-automatic, unless you mess around with the feed mechanism.
-
"A battle rifle is a military service rifle that fires a full power rifle cartridge, such as 7.62x51mm NATO." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle)
-
"A battle rifle is a military service rifle that fires a full power rifle cartridge, such as 7.62x51mm NATO." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle)
Yeah pretty much this. Didn't the G3 have full auto?
EDIT: yeah it did, the BR/AR distinction is not based on stuff like that to my knowledge? Always got the sense it was more of a range and cartridge size thing.
edit2: oh the FN FAL too.
-
The M-14 was full auto when it originally entered US service. They wanted it to replace the BAR, Grease Gun and Garand, the thing was a beast to lug around though and military thought swung towards the lighter high rate of fire weapons like the M-16. Course with the desert/urban warfare today the DMR is getting traction the M-14s and its variants are coming back.
-
Okay, my definition was erroneous. :P
-
Good points. I think an armor piercing round fired at close range will penetrate the body armor of any lawyer, even with ceramic inserts.
-
Guys... stop. Now. Don't sink to their level. :rolleyes:
-
My ballistics knowledge is pretty layman's but the M-14 is considered a 'battle rifle' rather than an assault rifle like the AK. I'm under the impression is punch is more substantial than the later.
Having shot both an AK and an M-14, I can assure anyone who has any doubt:
The M-14 feels stronger than an AK.
Also, since the thread went from topic to guns:
(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1091/ammo002s.jpg)
Left to right: 9x19 mm Parabellum, 5.56x45 NATO (M4), 7.62x39 (AK-47), 7.62x51 NATO (M14), AA Battery (wireless mouse).
The 9 mm has about 0.7 kJ of muzzle energy, the 5.56 gets to about 1.8 kJ, the 7.62x39 has some 2 kJ, and the 7.62 NATO reaches up to 3.5 kJ
P.S. If anyone has a .50 cal BMG case or even a whole unfired round, feel free to post a pic next to an AA battery. Those are big f***ers.
-
Will you settle for an AA battery next to an expended 5"/54 casing?
-
Clearly a headshot would avoid the hassle entirely.
-
Will you settle for an AA battery next to an expended 5"/54 casing?
For the record, I'm not joking here, I could arrange that.
-
/me kind of wonders about a bullet discussion breaking out in a thread about a mass shooting
-
/me kind of wonders about a bullet discussion breaking out in a thread about a mass shooting
Your honor, I submit that we are evil, horrible, people here on The Internet.
Have the police made any progress on this supposed maybe sorta accomplice? I haven't been able to find any mention of him in more recent news postings.
-
Aw someone called the thread on it? I was rather enjoying the hilarious twist. :D
-
Well, back on topic, looks like the shooter was registered as an independent voter. He also believed the Government practiced Mind Control through Grammar.
Looks like this guy fell out of the mental tree hitting every branch on the way down....
Edit: Though I still suspect the barely veiled threats that certain quarters have made over the last few years encouraged him, people like that are looking for excuses to behave as they do, he would have found one sooner or later, but there was certainly an environment of "I don't condone violence (nudge nudge, wink wink)" from various angles that probably made it happen sooner rather than later.
-
Will you settle for an AA battery next to an expended 5"/54 casing?
While I have some doubts about people carrying 5 inch guns the way they do with 7.62 mm's, I'd sure like to see that. :p
-
So here's an update (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20110111/US.Congresswoman.Shot.Picketing/) regarding those vile picketing plans: apparently the Arizona state legislature unanimously rush-jobbed a law that makes it illegal to picket or protest within 100 yards of a funeral. Apparently a similar law in Ohio was upheld by a Circuit Court of Appeals, so there's a good chance that this will stand. Of course, people are still free to protest somewhere further away from the site, but at least this combined with the human shield should ensure that the girl's family doesn't have to see that filth. Good on the Arizona lawmakers for working together that quickly.
-
So here's an update (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20110111/US.Congresswoman.Shot.Picketing/) regarding those vile picketing plans: apparently the Arizona state legislature unanimously rush-jobbed a law that makes it illegal to picket or protest within 100 yards of a funeral. Apparently a similar law in Ohio was upheld by a Circuit Court of Appeals, so there's a good chance that this will stand. Of course, people are still free to protest somewhere further away from the site, but at least this combined with the human shield should ensure that the girl's family doesn't have to see that filth. Good on the Arizona lawmakers for working together that quickly.
That's amazing that they through together legislation that quickly. I'm actually quite impressed. :yes:
-
It's also another thing that people should hate Fred Phelps for, in his rush to abuse his First Amendment rights, he may well be damaging those rights for other people. That said, it's a very specific law, I don't see any real direct risk from it, but it's still annoying that, in abusing the tolerance America has shown them, they are causing tiny little chips to be knocked out of the very law the requires that tolerance.
-
Yeah, when you put it that way, the guy's even more of an asshole for driving things to this point. But at the same time, I don't see this specific law as being some sort of significant infringement on free speech. The concept of funerals or memorial services being very personal, respectful experiences is something that cuts across all cultures, and I'd like to think that pretty much any sane person would gladly give up the "right" to be an asshole at someone else's funeral so long as no one could b an asshole at theirs.
-
Oh, I agree, by itself it isn't a danger, I suppose it's just ridiculous to my mind that we would need a law telling people to respect the feelings of a murdered 9 year-old girl's family, I'm pretty sure that the Founding Fathers of the US expected people to exercise a certain level of self-control using their own intelligence and not just pointing blindly at the document and saying "But it says I have the right to!". That thinking risks turning the Constitution from a 'living, breathing document' into, almost, religious doctrine.
It's a Catch 22 situation, I've always respected the US Constitution, for all the arguments over interpretation, it's probably one of the best intentioned documents in the world, but I seem to recall that it mentions the 'Right to Dignity', and that, I think, is what people should be aiming at when dealing with the Westboro protests, protesting at a funeral is abusing the victims right to dignity.
-
I seem to recall that it mentions the 'Right to Dignity'
Not specifically, but it does mention this:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-
I seem to recall that it mentions the 'Right to Dignity'
You're thinking of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union most likely. Which definitely did include that right.
-
Ah, that could quite possibly be it.
It's a difficult situation, how do you defend the Rights of everyone involved in these sorts of situation? As far as I'm concerned, the Freedom of Speech should not only end at someone's chin, as the old saying goes, it should also end at someone's heart.
-
Have the police made any progress on this supposed maybe sorta accomplice? I haven't been able to find any mention of him in more recent news postings.
Yeah, he was just a taxi driver, they're ignoring him. In other news:
Shooting prompts surge in gun sales across America (http://www.theage.com.au/world/shooting-prompts-surge-in-gun-sales-across-america-20110112-19o6d.html)
America. **** Yeah. :blah:
-
That's just.....depressing :(
-
Really depressing, but expected.
It's like when the Obama administration was going in, the surge of gun sales because people worried that tighter gun control would be part of his platform.
-
I want a handgun when I eventually move into my own place. I wouldn't have any bullets, because I have poor hand-eye coordination, but I could use it to threaten an intruder, maybe. Anyway, if it didn't work, I'd make sure to get a nice heavy gun so I could just chuck it at somebody's head.
It's a terrible thing that someone like me is allowed to own a gun.
-
Have your cat trained in schutzhund
-
Well Zack, if you get a gun...
I'd suggest that you get a very large Smith & Wesson. That way, even if you have no bullets, you can at least bludgeon the intruder to death with a massive pistol.
:p
-
M1911A1. Large, heavy, and semi-automatic. Do I need to mention the amount of nearly-excessive overkill a .45ACP round will be? Rule #37 doesn't apply if you want to minimize or prevent collateral damage.
-
Again, no bullets for Zack.
A Smith and Wesson .50cal pistol will effectively double as a club, and its comparatively simple mechanisms (to that of an automatic pistol) mean that you can thrash, beat, and bludgeon with confidence.
-
Since actual performance as a projectile weapon is not necessary I tend to think a flintlock pistol would work pretty well for her since the thing was essentially meant to shoot once and then be used as a mace afterward.
(http://www.middlesexvillagetrading.com/images/PGERM_left.JPG)
-
Come on, no one takes those seriously anymore...
:p
-
You could always go with a broadsword. I know I'd crap my pants if I saw someone coming at me with one of those.
And yeah, Flipside, that's the ***** of it. I don't think the Framers of the Constitution ever would have imagined a group of assholes trolling someone's funeral when they devised the First Amendment.
-
High-caliber firearm beats broadsword. I mean, the gunslinger can just shoot the swordsman. What's the swordsman going to do, throw a broadsword?
-
We were taught that knife will beat gun inside 30 feet.
-
with proper cover.
-
Like this?
http://nerfnow.com/comic/214 (http://nerfnow.com/comic/214)
Read the artist's comment if you don't get it.
-
No, pretty sure Battuta was referencing V for Vendetta
-
We were taught that knife will beat gun inside 30 feet.
If you have to draw.
-
We were taught that knife will beat gun inside 30 feet.
If you have to draw.
This is correct indeed.
-
No, pretty sure Battuta was referencing V for Vendetta
nah, krav maga
-
So, I realize we passed the bullet caliber discussion a while back, but I just wanted to point out that bullet-resistant vests come in different 'classes'. There is no way in hell that a soft vest of only kevlar (like what police wear) is going to stop a rifle round. The stuff soldiers wear has fancy ceramic plates in addition to layers of kevlar, and those are only rated to stop like one 7.62x39 round, maybe two on a good day.
-
I've spoken to actual soldiers who've been hit multiple times while wearing that armor, so though it may start to fragment, it holds together better than you might think.
-
Huh, I didn't know. I was trying to be conservative with my estimation there. Maybe they've got newer better plates. Still my point is, kevlar is not magically impervious to all bullets.
-
Kevlar, in and of itself, no.
It's like any armor ever. One layer may not stop the intrusion, several might. There's a balance of armor weight and protection as well. And nothing will save you from a Ballista, or a 20mm; depending on the era.
-
I think redsniper and thaeris are both right in that the vest may stop more than one 762 but if you come home with even one in the plates you don't want to wear it again if possible.
-
Oh definitely. They dissipate the energy by shattering and are meant as a one-time thing IIRC. Granted the busted up fragments would help stop additional rounds, but the plates aren't meant to be reusable. Sorta like bike helmets now that I think about it.
-
Like vests they are designed to be replaced if damaged, it's true. But I've also spoken with people who've come back with multiple rounds having hit a plate. This isn't tested for formally however so I'm not sure anyone knows if it's a freak accident or typical. The acceptance tests depend on stopping one round.
-
Since actual performance as a projectile weapon is not necessary I tend to think a flintlock pistol would work pretty well for her since the thing was essentially meant to shoot once and then be used as a mace afterward.
http://www.middlesexvillagetrading.com/images/PGERM_left.JPG
I'd suggest going with a crossbow for showy home defence. Gun says "Person protecting their home", crossbow says "Dangerous psychopath planning to stuff and mount me" :p
-
Takes longer to reload, though. In that case, I'd suggest a crossbow fitted with a bayonet.
-
Vladimir Putin in a Pokemon Ball?
-
Takes longer to reload, though. In that case, I'd suggest a crossbow fitted with a bayonet.
Don't they make auto-crossbows?
-
Since Sun Tzu
-
Takes longer to reload, though. In that case, I'd suggest a crossbow fitted with a bayonet.
Takes even longer to reload a gun if you have no bullets. Remember that's where we entered this particular tangent. :p
-
Good call, sir!
May I thus suggest a mechanical boxing glove? Comedic anddeadly (when covered with poisonous barbs)!
-
Vladimir Putin in a Pokemon Ball?
I think you've finally found our nuclear option for personal defense.
-
Takes longer to reload, though. In that case, I'd suggest a crossbow fitted with a bayonet.
Don't they make auto-crossbows?
This happened on the best episode of Weapon Masters ever.
-
I want a handgun when I eventually move into my own place. I wouldn't have any bullets, because I have poor hand-eye coordination, but I could use it to threaten an intruder, maybe. Anyway, if it didn't work, I'd make sure to get a nice heavy gun so I could just chuck it at somebody's head.
It's a terrible thing that someone like me is allowed to own a gun.
But why would you need an handgun?
-
I mostly likely don't need a gun and should not be allowed to own one.
-
Here's an idea: Blast off one of his kneecaps to send a message. If he goes to another funeral, shoot him in the nuts. If he goes again, bring a sword and challenge him to the pain, ala Princess Bride. If he sends someone else and stays home, taser them, steal their shoes, and slash the tires on their ride. If he sends someone else again, molotov cocktail party at his house, and then TP the ashes.
Keep up the process until the problem is solved.
A second idea: Go up if he's at a funeral, and get his attention (politely). Ask him why. By all accounts, he acts like a reverend in public, at least towards those who aren't obviously gay/black/female/etc. Ask him why he does that. He'll reply like a good Christian, 'it is God's way'. Ask why God created people simply to hate them. He'll respond, 'God created man, but man must earn his place in heaven'. Tell him that honestly, God must be a sadistic asshole, and Heaven sounds like rather lonely and desolate place. He'll tell you you're going to hell. Tell him, Good. That means I get to hang out with all the rock stars and prostitutes. Stay in a polite, calm tone of voice at all times. Make reasoned arguments, and don't get phased by anything they say.
Continue the process until he maces you. Ignore the pain for the good of society. Continue questioning him in the same tone of voice until something else happens (one of them punches you, etc). Again, ignore the pain. Keep going until they're all wailing on you. Grin and bear it like a maniacal athiest.
Most important step to this plan: Have a friend hiding in a nearby tree with a camera. Present the case to court.
I'd do it :doubt:
-
And a video of you inflicting GBH to someone helps you in court how?
-
Read that again. :p
To be honest though Titan does have a workable plan. People are aching to throw the book at Phelps so you only need to get him to hit you to get him thrown in jail for a very long time.
Personally I think the best solution is to just send a bunch of gay people to stand behind Phelps and make out. :p
-
Here's an idea: Blast off one of his kneecaps to send a message. If he goes to another funeral, shoot him in the nuts. If he goes again, bring a sword and challenge him to the pain, ala Princess Bride. If he sends someone else and stays home, taser them, steal their shoes, and slash the tires on their ride. If he sends someone else again, molotov cocktail party at his house, and then TP the ashes.
Keep up the process until the problem is solved.
A second idea: Go up if he's at a funeral, and get his attention (politely). Ask him why. By all accounts, he acts like a reverend in public, at least towards those who aren't obviously gay/black/female/etc. Ask him why he does that. He'll reply like a good Christian, 'it is God's way'. Ask why God created people simply to hate them. He'll respond, 'God created man, but man must earn his place in heaven'. Tell him that honestly, God must be a sadistic asshole, and Heaven sounds like rather lonely and desolate place. He'll tell you you're going to hell. Tell him, Good. That means I get to hang out with all the rock stars and prostitutes. Stay in a polite, calm tone of voice at all times. Make reasoned arguments, and don't get phased by anything they say.
Continue the process until he maces you. Ignore the pain for the good of society. Continue questioning him in the same tone of voice until something else happens (one of them punches you, etc). Again, ignore the pain. Keep going until they're all wailing on you. Grin and bear it like a maniacal athiest.
Most important step to this plan: Have a friend hiding in a nearby tree with a camera. Present the case to court.
I'd do it :doubt:
have you seen any of the videos of people trying to annoy the Phelps family? These people are MASTERS of not listening to a word you say. Look at any clip of them on a news show. They just raise their voice and talk over everyone else, repeat everything over and over again.
As far as I'm aware, the only way to win against them at any of their stupid protests is to show up en masse and take away all the attention. Funny signs (as opposed to boring, and ineffective "no jesus is nice, rly, blah blah") are the best, as well as costumes and silly behaviour. As much viewership as making people angry creates, for the most part, journalists have a hard time focusing on the five or six assholes holding up the same signs they've been holding up for years when there's 300 people in crazy costumes with hilarious and creative signs right across the street.
-
Seriously, cut that **** out now.
And I still stand by my gay makeout idea. The side benefit is that even the media won't bother filming Phelps at all cause they're sure no one wants to see two guys kissing on the news.
-
When a group of ultra-conservative Christians came to our campus during Easter last year, a bunch of us just went over with signs that said things like "Honk if you like to beat off" or "honk if you like alcohol". End result: a lot easier to drown out idiots with a constant influx of carhorns than wearing out your voice. :D
-
There's approximately 392870235873298572 preachers loitering on my campus passing out bibles or just hanging around yelling scripture. They don't realize that they're mostly unintelligible. Occasionally there's some that will yell at students for various reasons. I wish people would just ignore them, but instead they end up with huge groups of students gathered 'round.
It's not like there's not 32095703298502958302975923874 different kinds of religious groups on campus. There are more religious groups than all the oter kinds of groups combined. I feel like someone should let the preachers know "hey, nobody here is ever more than six feet away from a bible. if they wanted to join a church, they would have by now. you can go ahead and do something useful with your life now. i hear there's several homeless shelters around here that could use volunteers."
-
For a time, there were some students (though just one guy in particular) preaching in a well-trafficked part of campus, talking about lakes of fire and other nasty stuff. Not sure if they really believed they were doing the right thing or were trying to get a rise out of people. Regardless, what's more important is that a couple days after they started their thing, I found a bunch of students in another well-trafficked area preaching the word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and handing out uncooked noodles. :yes:
-
they'd probably get beat up or something on this campus. gay bashing and race baiting are popular pasttimes around here. -.-
-
Still like my first idea better :doubt:
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12269266
This guy is more nuts than Nutty McNutcase...
-
Seriously. The only variable here is the insanity angle, given that dozens of people and several security cameras all saw him do it.
-
Thing is, I would have thought his lawyer would have added a diminshed responsibility stipulation to that NG plea, but it seems he genuinely feels he didn't do it, or he's hoping for a full trial for some other reason.
-
I'm...a little confused by that headline. Defendants usually enter a not guilty plea...
What I found interesting is that he managed to land the same lawyer who represented Rudolph and Kaczynski.