Mass shooting @ Sikh temple near Milwaukee

[Marinus 0]

Quote

You're obviously not familiar with how easy it is to get a driver's license in the US!

I don't even have to look at the statistics to know how that's working out for you guys.

Quote

But honestly, guns aren't that hard. Much easier than driving in a city like San Francisco or Paris. You can get by with just a handful of rules that should be pretty fucking obvious (ie, don't point at friends, don't point and friends and pull trigger, even if you think it's empty). Training for hours doesn't change that. Screwups are screwups, or they're drunk, or they really didn't have an accident. Meanwhile, the vast majority of other shooters were intentional acts by criminals and no amount of training is going to stop them.

I know how hard guns are, but despite the facts that it's all pretty fucking obvious, it takes some time to learn to handle them safely anyway. Especially the part were you always are aware where the business part is pointing, takes a bit of time to get used to. And there's some routines you want to get right every time. And there's even some stuff that's not so pretty fucking obvious. You can give me a gun and you can be 100% sure that I'll not accidentally shoot you. I'm not sure about you though. "Screwups are screwups" You don't screw up [period]

Quote

So in the end, you're just putting up a big barrier for those who wish to exercise a constitutional right.

It's a barrier, yes, and I think there should be one. Mind you that I don't really care how the US regulates guns, but don't expect "Why, oh god ,why?" from me every time fire-arm related happens in the US.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

In speaking of this particular incident, I would say that could not possibly apply.
He was former military, he clearly understood and knew that guns are not toys in any way.

True, that, but that's not the point of what I said.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"Screwups are screwups" You don't screw up [period]

I'm referring to people, not actions. Some people are just screwups, fuckups. You can't educate away this tendency. Though maybe in this case, if the story pans out, the guy wouldn't have shot the Sikhs had he knew they weren't actually Muslims. Of course he would have picked someone else instead...maybe some Buddhists?

Quote

Quote

So in the end, you're just putting up a big barrier for those who wish to exercise a constitutional right.

It's a barrier, yes, and I think there should be one. Mind you that I don't really care how the US regulates guns, but don't expect "Why, oh god ,why?" from me every time fire-arm related happens in the US.

And what did you think after Norway? What you suggest would have made no difference there, and no difference here.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

"Screwups are screwups" You don't screw up [period]

I'm referring to people, not actions. Some people are just screwups, fuckups. You can't educate away this tendency. Though maybe in this case, if the story pans out, the guy wouldn't have shot the Sikhs had he knew they weren't actually Muslims. Of course he would have picked someone else instead...maybe some Buddhists?

Quote

Quote

So in the end, you're just putting up a big barrier for those who wish to exercise a constitutional right.

It's a barrier, yes, and I think there should be one. Mind you that I don't really care how the US regulates guns, but don't expect "Why, oh god ,why?" from me every time fire-arm related happens in the US.

And what did you think after Norway? What you suggest would have made no difference there, and no difference here.

The stories I am reading about this guy suggest it would not have mattered even if he did or did not understand their religion

It seems he had it is for any minority group.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Marinus 0]

Quote

I'm referring to people, not actions. Some people are just screwups, fuckups.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't want to share my society with screw-ups that have access to guns. If people can't handle guns, they shouldn't have access to them.

Quote

And what did you think after Norway? What you suggest would have made no difference there, and no difference here.

I refer you to my earlier statements that you can't prevent everything. But in the end you're much less likely to be killed by a bullet in Norway than you are in the US. So it's possible to prevent a lot.

[Hermes70 0]

Quote

The first retaliation for 9/11 was a white guy who shot a Sikh outside his gas station a few days after 9/11, assuming he was a Muslim.

If Americans are really this stupid, is there justification for allowing them to have guns? I mean really?

Are Americans stupid enough to use the actions of a few madmen as justification for taking away the constitutional right of everyone else who exercises that right responsibly?

If skydivers are really stupid enough to fly themselves into the ground at high speed and kill themselves under perfectly functioning canopies, is there justification for allowing them to have parachutes? I mean really?

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

The first retaliation for 9/11 was a white guy who shot a Sikh outside his gas station a few days after 9/11, assuming he was a Muslim.

If Americans are really this stupid, is there justification for allowing them to have guns? I mean really?

Are Americans stupid enough to use the actions of a few madmen as justification for taking away the constitutional right of everyone else who exercises that right responsibly?

So what would you propose to keep guns from the hands of madmen while allowing sane law abiding gun owners to exercise their rights? Or do you consider a few mass shootings like Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora and Milwaukee to be of little consequence?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,130]

>If skydivers are really stupid enough to fly themselves into the ground at high speed
>and kill themselves under perfectly functioning canopies, is there justification for
>allowing them to have parachutes?

Right now, yes, because they only kill themselves.

However, if swoopers occasionally killed half a dozen people when they swooped - but themselves survived the experience - there would be a lot more discussion over what training they'd need before being allowed to jump parachutes that could do that.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

The first retaliation for 9/11 was a white guy who shot a Sikh outside his gas station a few days after 9/11, assuming he was a Muslim.

If Americans are really this stupid, is there justification for allowing them to have guns? I mean really?

Are Americans stupid enough to use the actions of a few madmen as justification for taking away the constitutional right of everyone else who exercises that right responsibly?

If skydivers are really stupid enough to fly themselves into the ground at high speed and kill themselves under perfectly functioning canopies, is there justification for allowing them to have parachutes? I mean really?

Really, I mean you should go back to your Texas desert and think about it again (especially about the "few"...).

Skydivers have to prove their skills permanently - at least, here in Germany with a minimum jump number per year to keep licence valid.

What are you gun kissing folks doing to prove your shooting skills? I mean, except bringing your little kids to the shooting range to make you feel proud if that 5 y/o is killing a coke can

Your "right to exercise ..." is killing more and more people in your country. Do you think, that was your *founding fathers'* intention?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So what would you propose to keep guns from the hands of madmen while allowing sane law abiding gun owners to exercise their rights? Or do you consider a few mass shootings like Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora and Milwaukee to be of little consequence?

when did the Milwaukee shooter get classified as a madman?

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

So what would you propose to keep guns from the hands of madmen while allowing sane law abiding gun owners to exercise their rights? Or do you consider a few mass shootings like Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora and Milwaukee to be of little consequence?

when did the Milwaukee shooter get classified as a madman?

When he killed a bunch of people? I mean, it doesn't seem like a particularly friendly or well-adjusted course of action.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

So what would you propose to keep guns from the hands of madmen while allowing sane law abiding gun owners to exercise their rights? Or do you consider a few mass shootings like Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora and Milwaukee to be of little consequence?

when did the Milwaukee shooter get classified as a madman?

Mmmm, the second he, as a member of a white-supremacist group decided to kill people?

Ok, probably earlier and there were probably signs, but that second he decided to pack up his guns, drive to a church and open fire, he was at the minimum a crazy person.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Ok, probably earlier and there were probably signs, but that second he decided to pack up his guns, drive to a church and open fire, he was at the minimum a crazy person.

Every killer is crazy? Even for your simplistic notions on mental health, this is ridiculous.

Racist driven violence does not equate to insanity. Some killers are simply killers. In a recent thread, someone asked (presuming a conclusion I don't agree with) that shootings in the US tend to be mental health related, but elsewhere in the world are politically driven. But your statement here has a new conclusion - they're all crazy. Sorry, not the case.

[Born2Late 0]

Quote

Quote

Sikhs are the Indians who are allowed to fight (& booze, etc...).

Their religion forbids drinking or any intoxicants.

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Introduction_to_Sikhism

I guess not all of them follow that. All I know is what some Indian friends told me about them a few years back.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Ok, probably earlier and there were probably signs, but that second he decided to pack up his guns, drive to a church and open fire, he was at the minimum a crazy person.

Every killer is crazy? Even for your simplistic notions on mental health, this is ridiculous.

Racist driven violence does not equate to insanity. Some killers are simply killers. In a recent thread, someone asked (presuming a conclusion I don't agree with) that shootings in the US tend to be mental health related, but elsewhere in the world are politically driven. But your statement here has a new conclusion - they're all crazy. Sorry, not the case.

So, you think he was justified in his actions?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ok, probably earlier and there were probably signs, but that second he decided to pack up his guns, drive to a church and open fire, he was at the minimum a crazy person.

Every killer is crazy? Even for your simplistic notions on mental health, this is ridiculous.

Racist driven violence does not equate to insanity. Some killers are simply killers. In a recent thread, someone asked (presuming a conclusion I don't agree with) that shootings in the US tend to be mental health related, but elsewhere in the world are politically driven. But your statement here has a new conclusion - they're all crazy. Sorry, not the case.

So, you think he was justified in his actions?

What does that have to do with being insane? If everyone wh murdered was insane, we would not put them to death. As I recall, you support the death penalty in some cases.

[billvon 3,130]

>So, you think he was justified in his actions?

"Justification" does not equal "sane" (or "legal".) An insane man can be perfectly justified in refusing to pay for a product he did not buy. A perfectly sane man can decide that he hates his wife so much that he would rather she be dead, no matter what the consequences.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ok, probably earlier and there were probably signs, but that second he decided to pack up his guns, drive to a church and open fire, he was at the minimum a crazy person.

Every killer is crazy? Even for your simplistic notions on mental health, this is ridiculous.

Racist driven violence does not equate to insanity. Some killers are simply killers. In a recent thread, someone asked (presuming a conclusion I don't agree with) that shootings in the US tend to be mental health related, but elsewhere in the world are politically driven. But your statement here has a new conclusion - they're all crazy. Sorry, not the case.

So, you think he was justified in his actions?

It's a pity forum rules and your inappropriate level of authority prevent me from answering such an insipid question, Quade. The best you can do is troll, I see.

[quade 4]

Hey, I'm just trying to get a handle on your thinking here.

You said he wasn't nessasarily crazy, just that some killers are just killers.

Maybe he was "just" racist. I know a number of people who are, but I don't think that means they're crazy enough to pick up a gun and start shooting unarmed people in a church.

I'm just curious why you're even attempting to say this guy wasn't mentally disturbed. What about him do you believes justifies his actions?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 902]

So what would you propose to keep guns from the hands of madmen while allowing sane law abiding gun owners to exercise their rights?

[quade 4]

Quote

A perfectly sane man can decide that he hates his wife so much that he would rather she be dead, no matter what the consequences.

I challenge this claim.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 902]

Why is stating he not be sane translated into justified?
I don't understand why you connected those.
He was full of hatred and killed because of that hate is what I understand. Hate doesn't necessarily make you insane does it?
Neither could ever be considered justified imo.

[quade 4]

Quote

He was full of hatred and killed because of that hate is what I understand. Hate doesn't necessarily make you insane does it?

So, being filled with hate, enough to make you kill people who have done you no harm is sane?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,130]

>I challenge this claim.

OK. Throughout history there have been people willing to kill because they really, really hated someone or something. Their justification is that their beliefs justify the killing, and are willing to accept the penalties if caught (or feel that they will not be caught.) Typically we consider whether they are really justified or not based on whether we agree with the killing.

US revolutionaries killing British troops because they hate English rule? (or Iraqi rebels killing Hussein's minions because they hate him?) Justified heroes!

Woman who kills her husband because he's an abusive SOB who has terrorized her for years, and she hates his guts? Yay! Boo! She'll need a good lawyer . . . .

Man who kills his wife because she's a nagging bitch who makes his life a living hell? Boo! Evil! Unjustified! Insane!

Are all of the above insane? You'd have to stretch the definition of insane very, very far to cover all of the above.

[quade 4]

Starting a war is not the fault of the people, but of those insane people who rule them.

A woman killing an abuser might be justified by self defense.

A man who kills his wife simply because she's a nag is insane.

Your claim is still invalid in my mind.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver