Re: Shooting at Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee.
"Broken Link Guy"? Is he a villain from Legend of Zelda?
This guy approves of your post.
"Broken Link Guy"? Is he a villain from Legend of Zelda?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Shooting at Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee.
- Thread starter bronconick
- Start date
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Granted, without the gun(s) this bigot would've had to cut his way through all those people to get his "raghead" quota. Or sissy slap them to death.
The old "guns don't kill people" argument is only true insofar as a gun needs someone crazy enough to point at a person before he pulls the trigger. Guns kill. It's why they were invented and it's why we keep using them.
No doubt that the primary culprit is the maniacal bigot behind the gun, and its **** near impossible to legislate the crazy out of people. Even if you could, there are too many guns out there on the black market to stop the truly dedicated nutjob. But let's not pretend that these horrible events would be no less deadly if he only had access to tasers and machetes.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Shooting at Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee.
It was supposed to be the big dude from Happy Gilmore.
It was supposed to be the big dude from Happy Gilmore.
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Shooting at Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee.
What's going to stop him from making a pipe bomb, if he had no access to guns? Nothing. Regulating guns isn't going to do anything to prevent the crazy people from doing their killing. They'll find a way.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Shooting at Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee.
Then don't say that guns are the problem. Say that people are bat**** crazy and work that problem.
Then don't say that guns are the problem. Say that people are bat**** crazy and work that problem.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Shooting at Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee.
Heck, maybe fresh coconuts should be banned from the produce aisle because you can use the oil and make a bomb, like Steven Seagal did in Under Siege 2.
Heck, maybe fresh coconuts should be banned from the produce aisle because you can use the oil and make a bomb, like Steven Seagal did in Under Siege 2.
Re: Shooting at Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee.
I swear I've tried, and I can't unwind this sentence. Are you saying he'd kill less people or just as many people with no guns?
I swear I've tried, and I can't unwind this sentence. Are you saying he'd kill less people or just as many people with no guns?
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Shooting at Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee.
1. Guns
2. Enclosed Trailers (when used for fertilizer bomb transportation)
3. Galvanized Pipe
4. Coconuts
On 9/11 the ragheads killed how many thousand people, using only boxcutters...so they have to go on the list.
5. Boxcutters
6. Water
Very good point. Add that to the list.
1. Guns
2. Enclosed Trailers (when used for fertilizer bomb transportation)
3. Galvanized Pipe
4. Coconuts
On 9/11 the ragheads killed how many thousand people, using only boxcutters...so they have to go on the list.
5. Boxcutters
6. Water
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Shooting at Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee.
And how about the dude that threw the little girl into the river to drown... add water to the list.
And how about the dude that threw the little girl into the river to drown... add water to the list.
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Undoubtedly. Youre right 100% on that point. I suppose the real question would be: why aren't they using homemade pipe bombs already? They cheaper and easier to obtain, when you think about it. Yet it's usually guns for this type of thing.
All the same: the argument that they'd just go to pipe bombs begs the question of why we would still make it relatively easy to get firearms. Are guns simply preferable to homemade explosives or maniacs with machetes?
Re: Shooting at Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee.
Say my wife had something called "coconut water", could I just throw that out or would I have to call the FBI, hypothetically, if it was true?
Say my wife had something called "coconut water", could I just throw that out or would I have to call the FBI, hypothetically, if it was true?
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
I'm saying that the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument seems to imply that the gun didn't play a role in killing 6 and wounding others. That the same psycho would still do the same thing if he only had access to [insert other deadly weapon here]. I'm posing the question: if he only had access to a pipe bomb, or a drums of gas or a machete, do we still have 6 dead and more wounded? Would we have more or fewer casualties? How can we say the gun doesn't play a role if those numbers would change?
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Shooting at Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee.
Well, I don't think we'll get anywhere trying to get into the mind of someone crazy enough to massacre people, but I'm guessing a pychiatrist (sp?) would be able to. I'm guessing that it has something to do with the image they have in their mind of how it goes down. Setting a bomb and walking away isn't as "heroic" (heroic in their warped mind, not in any way a sane person would use it) as using a gun and facing down the "enemy" one on one. Its a mindset thing.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Shooting at Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee.
Guns don't require too much brain power. Load the bullet, close the barrel, pull the trigger. Making bombs takes some ingenious.
Here's one thing that is on the same wavelength, although hopefully not too much of a tangent: With the war on drugs, people have been turning to cough syrup and even bath salts. Perhaps we should take a look at that, too?
Guns don't require too much brain power. Load the bullet, close the barrel, pull the trigger. Making bombs takes some ingenious.
Here's one thing that is on the same wavelength, although hopefully not too much of a tangent: With the war on drugs, people have been turning to cough syrup and even bath salts. Perhaps we should take a look at that, too?
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
I'd believe that.
All the same, lets take that at face value: we know why a madman would prefer a gun, but why would we prefer for that madman to have a gun instead of whatever he would drift to if guns were too hard/much of a hassle to get?
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Shooting at Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee.
I think it would change, depending on what his alternative weapon is. If he goes to a bomb, there could easily be many more casualties, if he has a machete, it could go either way. If the guy is attacking old women and children with a machete, I don't see it being much different than a gun.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Shooting at Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee.
The argument isn't getting anywhere because everyone's focused on the madman. Perhaps we should look at the other factors involved in this scenario. Instead of trying to create a disadvantage for the aggressor, why not create an advantage for the victims?
The argument isn't getting anywhere because everyone's focused on the madman. Perhaps we should look at the other factors involved in this scenario. Instead of trying to create a disadvantage for the aggressor, why not create an advantage for the victims?
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Shooting at Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee.
What kind of advantage? Manditory combat training for all citizens about the age of 18? Short of that, I don't know how to give the victims an advantage, since people seem dead set against the idea that arming people with concealed weapons is good.
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Concealed carry? It's tough enough for trained professionals to handle these kind of situations. And that's in situations where it's obvious who's the aggressor and who's the victim. Throw in a bunch of amateur vigilantes into the mix, and I don't know how much safer things become. Especially in a situation like Aurora. What are the odds of an amateur being able to handle THAT situation?
I suppose you have value in a criminal never knowing who's packing, but beyond that you're likely taking a wild scenario and making it even crazier, Wild West style.