Mass Murderer Gets 98% Positive Feedback On Ebay

Post by **garyb** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:56 am

hmmm, close to a confession, but not quite.

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:09 am

garyb wrote:fine,
ignorance is bliss.

It's been a long time, since I have been called ignorant. But ok. We just have oposing opinions, and that often results in people finding each other ignorant.

it's a fact that the officil story doesn't hold water, look at the video clip i posted. the guy there is a criminologist with the university of florida who said that he originally thought there was a shotgun or a military assualt rifle involved. he said the type guns used were for shooting at tin cans ...

Well, I find it to be conspiracy theory too. It might be true, but at this moment it is still conspiracy theory. Here comes another one: That criminologist could be closely associated with the gun manufacturers. This could give him two reasons to say the "tin can" thing.

1) Telling anti-gun people, that 9mm guns are not a problem in society
2) Telling pro-gun people, that bigger guns needs to be legalised

Just as you don't just take the official storry for good (and indeed there are many examples of manipulated truths out there), I don't necesarily take the words of a criminologist (obvisously very familiar with his weapons seeing how he handles them) for good.

... and that it's almost inconceivable that a trained killer could get a 60% kill rate out of those guns, let alone some demented kid. this is just facts about the weapons that we're told were involved. the official story is not always correct or complete. that's my point in my post.

And it makes sense. Still you could be fooled as easily as anyone else. You choose to believe the guy who says the official storry (would I be wrong in guessing, that you have a tendensy towards defaulting to this choice?). Others believe in the official storry. Personally, I am still happy, that guns are not alowed in Denmark.

i go by logic, sense and what is in the public record in saying what i do. it's important to think things out for yourself, right? please don't hate me because you disagree with me.

I don't Gary. It takes much more to get me there. I still fully believe you are a man of good and positive intentions.

someday we may get some time, i might show you some things that might change your opinions on some things in this world.

As I said, your world could easily by means of history and constitution be quite different from my world. And by the way, having worked for Amnesty International, it is not like I always default to believe in official stories either.

we all live and learn, and i used to agree with most of the posters that disagree with me on many of these controversial topics. your mind might change or not, i still respect you even if you think i'm a crazy twit.

Often times, seeing things negatively is confused with being realistic. Still, your world may vary. And I don't doubt the respect goes both ways. Remembering some of your other posts throughout time here at Z, I might even understand, why you (in your world/neighbourhood) find it important to be allowed to cary guns. I just don't think it counts for my neighbourhood, and I don't think it has to count for anybodys neighbourhood ... though I know, that this view is overly simplified and kind of disattached to the actual situations in many parts of the world.

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:15 am

scope4live wrote:Just imagine this scenario Petal.

When I was five years old, we practiced nuclear bomb drills @ school. My oldest brother was killed in Vietnam that year.

Then " a lone gunman " takes out JFK when I was 7.

Then the best hopes in uniting a peaceful racial solution was gunned down by another " lone gunman ". The largest cities in the USA were on fire, and thousands were killed.

RFK was about to become President when I was young, and there again is the " lone gunman ".

What about brotha' man Malcolm X ? What about Cleophus Robinson ?

Do you see a pattern emerging?

Everytime someone wants to give me a statistic on gun control I gotta laugh. I AM MY OWN GUN CONTROL !!

What happened in New Orleans after the flood? Would there be less killing, if the tough guys didn't have guns and only had to scare or beat up their victims instead of going for the easy way - shooting at a distance?

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:56 am

Immanuel wrote:What happened in New Orleans after the flood? Would there be less killing, if the tough guys didn't have guns and only had to scare or beat up their victims instead of going for the easy way - shooting at a distance?

Actually many of the stories I read were simply beatings, for example a friend watched an old man get beat to death for simply crossing the street at the wrong time while walking his dog. And again, I'm willing to bet that the majority of the guns used there weren't 'legally owned' & purchased. Statistics are always so widely skewed that I hear them in either direction based on what sources are quoting them (this goes beyond gun control obviously). I'm using my own experience here as a judge.

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:03 am

garyb wrote:well said Valis, except that regardless of what some say about the line in the constitution:
1. a militia is the armed citizenry. always has been, always will be. it is NON-professional by definition.
2. "well regulated" in military parlance means "accurate and well adjusted". so a well regulated militia means, "citizens with accurate and good quality arms".
3. the line is not about a militia at all. the secion about "a well regulated militia" is a prepositional phrase. the subject is "the right of citizens to bear arms". the verb is "shall not" what "shall not" happen to the "citizen's rights" is infringement by the government. the reason given by the constitutional framers? the government can't be trusted, because the corrupt are drawn to power and power tends to corrupt.

once again, i'm not saying i want/have a gun, but i am not relinquishing my right to want/have/get one either.

Your reply might be somewhat pointed, but if you wish to be clear that's fine. To be clear myself,.I'm simply listing some the 'interpretations' I've come across. My loose wording in reference to the 2nd amendment was not the foundation of any argument on my part, merely to reference the *fact* that the interpretations I listed do exist in our country, and people do argue over them. Feel free to define it as you will, but it still stands that there is not 100% consensus. Of course there is little outside of basic mathematics that there is 100% consensus on so...

petal · Post by **petal** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:42 am

It's hard to pick which topic to discuss in this thread. Nevertheless I find all of them interesting.

1. Guncontrol. Should ownership of guns be allowed in the public?
2. Can we trust our government to be 'for' the people or not?
3. Where does all the guns in american society come from?
4. What makes people in america want a gun?
5. Can we trust the media to tell us the truth - if it is available?
6. Does economic interest interfear with which "truths" are made available to the public.
7. Are present day society in essence the same as it was when the constitution of america was written?

Theres probably even more than these topics I've listed here, but they all seem to be intervoven somehow, so please add to the list if you find more topics that needs to addressed in this discussion.

I see three sides beeing defended in this discussion.
1. Guncontrol are needed in order to avoid gunkillings in society
2. Guns are needed for personal security (This is even further divided. In everyday normal life, i disagree in this assumption. In times of anarchy this assumption does have merit - but the potential of anarchy breaking out in society, being the argument for the right to own your personal gun, seems to me to be more or less far fetched even though examples can and has been given in this thread)
3. Citizens needs the ability to be able to remove an unfair tyrant from the throne.

The third side of the coin, was a very valid point 200+ years ago in the days of revolution. Whether citizens situation in todays western society is the same as it was 200+ years ago seems to be pretty far fetched from my point of view.

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:03 am

You are right ... and ... because he was able to get a gun

The genie is out of the proverbial bottle at this point..
If you took guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, you'd still have plenty of guns.. Just not in the hands of people who could use them to denfed themselves.

Gary is correct, that violent crime rates do go down in cities where they have conceal carry permits.

I'm just trying to understand why you guys over there cling to your guns as you do

I am personally NOT a fan of guns. I do not, and likely never will own one.
However, the fact is, owning a gun is indeed a constitutional RIGHT.
It's not a privilage. The framers of our constituion obviously saw the issue as important enough to include along with things like the right to Life, Property, Privacy, etc..
I feel very uncomfortable with the notion of lawmakers taking a bottle of white-out to the constitution.
It's weird enough that we have to actually get a license now in order to excercise a RIGHT guartanteed by our consititution..

But give it time.. Eventually our consitution will be printed on rolls of toilet paper that you can buy at the dollar store.

Most gun owners are rural people. City people are more numerous yet rural people seem to have more power than they deserve.

Well, part of it is cultural, but I know part of it is also that some major citites have made it illegal to own firearms.
I have no idea how Chicago gets away with it, but it is not legal to own a firearm in the city of chicago.

You are not seriously thinking you are going to overthrow the government are you Gary?

I dont think it is about overthrowing a govt. per say..
But a govt would have to think long and hard about pulling some nazi-esq police state crap if they knew many of their citizens were packin heat..

sonolive · Post by **sonolive** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:05 am

hi all,
i have tried to follox this interesting thread ... the language problems let me understand the substance i think ...

What americans have to know is that is really not "thinkable" for us to let all citizens own a gun ...

And it IS like that .

We europeans can not judge this ... this is a fact, a societal fact ...

and not judge it, just peharps find some solutions to make it change ... slowly if needed !

I am pretty sure that lots of americans don't really like this situation ... and gary or jimmy told it !
they would be ok to change if ...

The most surprising thing i heard about this and not only on the forum but also listening to radio or tv here (in france) about cho's murders ... is this :

It seemes that you americans claim to have right to own a gun in order to protect you from gangstas, psymurderers , let's say foreign invaders ... (this poitnt is not clear for me ... who today should invade usa ??? mexicans ? canadians ? cubans ???) and also and this is what surprise me a lot : THE GOVERNMENT, i mean your own US POLICE, your own ARMY !!!

Are you so afraid of your government, police or army ?

here in europ, we don't like so much police or army , i mean in general ... but in no case are AFRAID of them ...
for sure we can be afraid of beeing caught if we drive drunk or smoked, we ccan be afraid of beeing brutalize during mass syndicalist manifestations ...

BUT IT'S NEVER BEEING AFRAID OF BEEING KILLED !!!

can you AMERICANS develop this point ? i am very curious of it !
thanks,
cheers
olive

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:08 am

Honestly, I see neither the problem nor the solution in politics, legislative changes, new weapon restrictions, different kinds of weapons, more police control in the streets, new and more sophisticated technology in airports to check the peasants, or anything external to mankind. There is no external solution to the terrible situation of mass killing, dishonesty, odium, paedophile, the use of drugs and alcohol as a means to feel full and better, mass divorce, prostitution, theft, falsehood and lies, lack of pity for those in poverty and disgrace literally swimming in sufferance and racism…

We tend to look and ponder about the problems in relation with the “format” of nations, in the way laws are created, implemented and used, in how population density there exist and many other “outdoor” factors that are not the REAL CAUSE of human problems…

If you take out all the weapons that there exist out there from the hands of individuals, people will find the way to kill each other anyway. If you infest the world of policemen, the situation will not change either because the problem is not weapons, politics, policemen, or anything else than people’s psychology! The problem is deep within the “state of mind” of humanity.

For me, mankind is deeply ill and this is the real problem. Change all the rules, change the accessories, change structures and ways, people will still have “rage”, “hate” and “violence” WITHIN themselves. Our problem is that we are psychologically ill, absolutely true all of us, for every single human being. Unless anybody of you consider to be perfect, or has the illusion that the surrounds do not impregnate his person with all this… All the extreme and unjustified violence in television, games, movies, internet, etc., are truly getting rot our children. All the pornography and drugs used to pull out the maximum of your body and energy in an unnatural way, is obviously and without doubt, harming us all.

The disappearance of most important, natural human values swallowed by the beast of false cultures based in power, competition, jalousie, extreme selfishness and the “money-god” behind it all, is the very reason of all this disasters we are experiencing. And I think they have just started, because is already too late to change it, the cat is already death.

The absolute lack of spirituality, the wrong goals that point to be the popular-super-important-guy, to be in the top of the influential line, to put yourself ALWAYS first against your neighbours and people that surrounds you… all this is causing the disaster in which we are immersed.

The only real hope I have is on those rare individuals that are ready to search within themselves all these defects and egos, and work hard to change the way they are, but I don’t trust the mass, because it is way too late already. My only hope in terms of “end of the violence” in the world, is in individuals, in guys that recognise they are based in false values and ready to change them for better ones. I believe in a revolution of our consciousness as the only way to get out of the mess, and the only way to put into practice is going back to the values that nurtured, thousands and thousands of years ago, the natural people that were into the earth.

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:24 am

Nestor is on the money here. Banning guns won't solve the situation IMHO. The problem really is the hate that springs from the self-centred capitalist society. Although I still think hunters should have to hunt unarmed.

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:43 am

i have to disagree to some extent. Although people are the problem take away guns and killing becomes very personal - imagine your only option was to strangle someone and you had to watch them gagging, their breath on your nostrils and eyes bulging - you have to have a certain brain pattern to lose empathy for another human being at that stage. Yes, there are many such unempathic beings on the planet; however, guns depersonalise the act of killing and make the action seem 'cool' through gangster culture etc. Also it allows a more spontaneous solution that one might later regret. How many people would think strangling was cool? i think guns make killing too easy - make it personal an visceral and see how many people can carry it through.

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:49 am

There was plenty of murder before guns were invented...

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:51 am

Mr. A - I agree but I think this is idealistic. As someone said earlier in the thread the 'genie is already out of the bottle'. The people who want them enough will still find a way to get them (recent events in the UK show that this is always going to happen, we've had our share of solo gun massacres here too - Hungerford, Dunblane etc). As the song said: "Police and thieves in the street... scaring the nation with their guns and ammunition"

Post by **garyb** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:04 am

it's so horrible what the european world(and is being pushed on the rest of the world) has been conditioned to think in this way:

"you can't trust the masses". and "What americans have to know is that is really not "thinkable" for us to let all citizens own a gun ..."

what this indicates is a complete lack of trust in themselves and fellow human beings. it indicates a complet dependance on an elite that is seen as being of a higher order. this is a very faulty position to be in, although it may look like wisdom at first, because-
1. the elite have been shown to be untrustworthy in the past(look at all the regimes that practiced arms control and how many they've murdered out right, including stalin, pol pot, mao, hitler...)

2.amongst all large groups of people it's been shown over and over that the majority are if not good and decent(after all conditioning takes it's toll), at least not ill intentioned towards each other. this is proven in the greaest times of trouble, when all kinds of people tend to band together and help out. mankind is very much a herd creature which is why advertising works. the herd is naturally predisposed to love each other, or at least tolerate each other and seek out each other's company.....

3. and this is the big one- the masses are YOU. each every one of you! if the masses can't be trusted, which is YOU, then the elite, who are false gods and are flesh and blood the same as anyone else, REALLY can't be trusted, as they have all the POWER( andsince they lie already in claiming their divinity).

this conversation began with the erroneous report of bullets purchased on ebay(actually it was empty magazines). the implication was that something was wrong with the fact that he could buy such stuff. my answer was that if guns were made at all, then they should be generally available to the public. if they could truly not be made, that would be better of course, but let's be real. the genii's already out of the proverbial bag. the bad guys already have plenty of guns. thankfully, MOST people are like you all, good people and there are many more of us than them. in times of crisis, when the elite want to kill millions(like ww1 and ww2 for instance) or when there's a riot or any other trouble, i'd feel much better knowing my neighbors and friends(all of you) are with me and armed. no mad max roving gangs messing around here(the world of mad max was made by and for the elite of that world. it's the common folk that always gets it)!

work with others, but trust and depend on yourself. learn how to be trustworthy. i'm not afraid of death, but i'm not jumping in a volcano without protection, either.

...and if you think there are no plans for attcking the ctizenry with soldiers, i refer you to the u.s. marine's very own urban warrior exercises(which of course the current exercises in the middle east are connected to, but are not the only point of):
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/urbanwarrior/
there was an article in the london gaurdian a few days ago about a british government study about the world of 2035, which includes police states in the west, riots and mass murder by the state. after all the bad things that the european leadership has done and the atrocities committed, i don't see how such blind trust in the elite could exist....

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:08 am

i think guns make killing too easy - make it personal an visceral and see how many people can carry it through.

I just googled murder rates..
It is estimated that in medieval europe the murder rate was about 23/100000 people.
As of 1997 the murder rate in the US was 6.9/100000 people.

So I think the notion that guns make the killing easier thus raising the crime rate doesn't really fly..
People have always sucked.

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:31 am

Yeah, they kept really good crime stats back in the medieval days didn't they

.

i think i may have to have a signature to the effect: "Just 'cos it's on Google, don't mean it's true."

petal · Post by **petal** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:46 am

Gary do you honestly believe that WWII could/would have been prevented if people had owned their personal gun?

If I remember correctly the German people elected Hitler in to power, and we all know the story about what then happened.

Also, the notion that most people are decent people that are to be trusted, even with guns and the likes, is not really valid, since even the sanest and wisest people do crazy things when feelings gets out of control.
Recently there was a story about an Astraunaut, which must have been deemed mentaly stable on many occations, before her feelings took hold of what she deemed to be the right thing to do. She didn't go out and kill people, but my point is that sane people some times do crazy stuff that noone could have foreseen when love, anger or other strong feelings takes a hold on them.

The scenario described above doesn't seem to be what you, Gary, are discussing though - actually it doesn't seem to concern you at all.
You choose to believe in what I would describe as a very unlikely situation, and then build your case pro-guns on that. The price you pay is a society with a lust for guns that the world has not really seen before. Even highschool kids seems to want guns for whatever purpose I don't know, but the interest to get them is there, as described in Valis's post. I wonder where they got their interest from, their parents? the society surrounding them?

If people in Denmark have a gun and start to defend their reasons for having it in the same way that you do Gary, most people would find them mentaly disturbed in one way or another.
This is not an insult, but a fact of the situation over here. I do realize that the situation is different in the US, and that the "geenie is out of the bottle". But accepting more guns into the worlds society should never be the path or the solution we seek in order to solve our problems.

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:57 am

Yeah, they kept really good crime stats back in the medieval days didn't they

Take it up with historians man. I'm just telling ya what I read.

i think i may have to have a signature to the effect: "Just 'cos it's on Google, don't mean it's true."

That would be an amusing signature, but it wouldn't be a very logical argument.

it's easy to discount everything someone tells you with a "well just cos they said so doesn't mean it';s true", but it's not a very effective way to debate you point is it?
Anyway.. You can take it or leave it.
Sounds like you are more interested in 'leaving' it however, for the simple fact that it doesn't jive with your "argument".

anyway.. if you are interested in the little article I found you are welcome to check it out:
Of course, the article is from the UK, and you know how they are with their statistics and facts!
Perhaps your skepticism is well founded after all!

http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCI ... geId=18134

oh, I did make one error.. it was 23/100000 not 26.

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:09 am

Given the fact that we were less civilised, less educated and had no centrally organised police force, i'm surprised the figure isn't much higher.

And no, i really don't believe any stats given out under this government, like i didn't believe in the 45 minute WMDs etc. Mind you, if you do believe crime is down in the UK, how did we manage it without everyone owning a gun? Crazy!

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:24 am

I really don't think that gun crime is a product of whether guns are available or not. It seems to me that the kid in the Virginia university simply hated 'jocks' and elitism (I'm not saying that his actions are a rational response). If you know anything about American universities' social hierarchies (elite fraternities and sororities for example) then this would be obvious. It's pretty widely held that educational establishments mirror society as a whole - they're designed to train young people to survive in our society. Therefore it is not surprising that such incidents occur at schools, universities and in the general community. It strikes me that there are serious socio-economic problems in America. Communities are heavily ghettoized and segregated, economic reality is unforgiving, elitism and discrimination are ingrained in every part of life. These are far bigger factors IMHO.

As I said, we have strict laws on firearm ownership here in the UK but people still can easily get hold of guns. The recent gun killings involving young people prove this, as does the fact that we've also had random massacres like Hungerford and Dunblane. It's the same with drugs - officially illegal, unofficially very easy to get hold of. Banning something solves nothing. The arms trade simply finds other means of supplying the demand. And if it's impossible to get hold of guns, there are plenty of other very disgusting weapons available - from carving knives and machetes to undiluted acids and alkalis. And of course let's not forget how easy it is to make a bomb with commonly available household and garden products. If someone wants to hurt/kill someone else badly enough, they will find any possible way to do it.