Mass Shooting, Dark Knight Rises, 14 dead

[Saya]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/james-holme...ry?id=16908862

Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist, who is being reported as reporting to the school that he was a possible threat, before he dropped out.

We won't know for sure until after the trial, it seems.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Versus

Do you think it's intellectually lazy to address gun control because of this, rather then mental health?

Guns are not inanimate objects. They are vehicles that take people to purposes not otherwise possible to such a signicant degree. Nobody has ever personally killed close to a hundred people in a few hours with anything less then a gun.

Bullshit.

Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people using home made explosives consisting of fertilizer and other substances that are easily available to anybody. No guns were involved.

There are plenty of ways to kill dozens of people in a short period of time that do not involve any kind of gun. Explosives can be built from materials found in any hardware store and anyone who actually wants to do so can figure out ways of doing so. Making guns illegal will not prevent nut jobs from taking out a movie theater full of people, or a restaurant full of people, or a shopping mall, or any other public area, if that's what they want to do. A car can be used to kill dozens of people, if that's what someone wants to do. Bleach and ammonia, when combined create a toxic gas that will kill you pretty quick. Should we make bleach and ammonia illegal as well?

Making guns illegal won't remove them from the black market either, as they will still make their way into the hands of criminals who want them - often supplied by people in military and armed services with direct access to such weapons - regardless of whether or not private citizens are legally capable of obtaining them.

Making guns illegal is not the answer. All that does is make it more difficult for an individual to protect themselves.

[Versus]

Can you read? I said with anything less then a gun. I think it goes without saying that motherfucking bombs are more then a gun.

Also, you're an idiot. I've already addressed every single point you're trying to make because I've heard it all before.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Versus

Can you read? I said with anything less then a gun. I think it goes without saying that motherfucking bombs are more then a gun.

Also, you're an idiot. I've already addressed every single point you're trying to make because I've heard it all before.

Fertilizer is less than a gun. Bleach is less than a gun.

You're the one being an idiot. You haven't addressed those points, you only try to imply that gun control will somehow eliminate gun crimes, when every statistic on the issue proves the exact opposite. Gun control will not prevent gun crimes. It will not prevent people from wanting to kill other people. They'll just come up with other ways of doing so. It has been proven repeatedly, that in areas where citizens own guns, crime is lower. You may not agree with that but it doesn't change the facts.

So either you're an idiot, or you want a police state, where the only people armed are government.

[Alan]

I want to know how people carrying guns stops anyone from making a bomb out of fertilizer.

[Versus]

Alan is good.

Deviant, I didn't say you're being an idiot. I say you are an idiot.

Discuss.

[x-deviant-x]

simple question. Are you in favor of a police state or not?

Alan is an idiot as well, but we all know he's a marxist in favor of a police state, so there's no guessing at that.

[Alan]

Only you 'know' that because you're the only one who believes they can make up shit and people will eat it.

How ironic that you'd bitch about Versus not responding to your questions which have been asked already, but you don't have the balls to respond yourself to one simple new question.

[Versus]

I love Americans that think they can violently resist their military. It's kind of cute, really.

[x-deviant-x]

Point out where I'm making anything up.

No one said or even implied that people carrying guns will stop people from making bombs out of fertilizer.

Bombs made out of fertilizer is just an example of how people can kill large numbers of people by other means that do not require guns.

No one is silly enough to think that a small group of individuals is much of a match against an entire military either. However a number of militia in the US consist of current and former military service members. Some join the service just to get the training in order to form their own militia. There are generations of families that exist that have done exactly that, and don't think there aren't a number of well armed militia in the US.

Since versus refuses to answer the question, I'm free to assume he's in favor of a police state.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Point out where I'm making anything up.

The part where Marxism means a police state, and even worse that I would be in favor of a police state.
Sure man, that's why I risk my ass every day opposing the Mexican government and the militarization of my city. You're just a whiner that has to build straw men because you'd break your pussy wrists if you actually had to fight something real.

[Versus]

Well armed with explosivey formed penetrators and theater missle defense systems or well armed with pedestrian stuff like body armor and machine guns?

Honestly, I won't even mention tanks and gunships and cruise missles. A millitia would last about as long as the flight time of a hellfire missle launched from an unmanned air vehicle.

[Versus]

Having established that the American people could not violently resist their military, can you tell me how exactly disarming civilians is necessary for the establishment of a police state? Because I'm pretty sure that if I was that government and you were my people, I wouldn't need your permission to disarm you.

Just what I heard.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Alan

The part where Marxism means a police state, and even worse that I would be in favor of a police state.
Sure man, that's why I risk my ass every day opposing the Mexican government and the militarization of my city. You're just a whiner that has to build straw men because you'd break your pussy wrists if you actually had to fight something real.

You've made it repeatedly clear that you are in favor of government control on every level, as opposed to individual freedoms. In order to establish such a control you would have to establish a police state.

Just because you blog against the current state of your government does not make you any less in favor of a police state, you're just trying to swap one for the other that you like better. Marxism is not freedom, it is pure government control, no matter how pretty you want to paint the picture.

Originally Posted by Versus

Honestly, I won't even mention tanks and gunships and cruise missles. A millitia would last about as long as the flight time of a hellfire missle launched from an unmanned air vehicle.

And what purpose would that serve the military? They'd only be hurting themselves in the long run.

That is a pretty stupid statement especially coming from someone who's supposedly a member of the US military. Do you really want to debate that issue? What the hell do they teach you in basic training anyway?

Have you ever really thought about it or are you just going off your spoon-fed liberal bullshit about how bad guns are and how weak a militia would be against "the big bad military that could totally pwn any militia with their "toy guns""?

How well did Russia fair against the Afgans during the 11 years they tried to take them over? At a time when Russia was the 2nd strongest military force on the planet and the Afgans had little more than sticks, stones and some camels to fight them with? What else did the Afgans have going for them?

Originally Posted by Versus

Having established that the American people could not violently resist their military, can you tell me how exactly disarming civilians is necessary for the establishment of a police state? Because I'm pretty sure that if I was that government and you were my people, I wouldn't need your permission to disarm you.

Disarming the people is the only way the government would be able to establish a police state. Maybe you should think on that and the reasons why before you continue.

Here's some pointers for you to ponder during the process.

How large is the US military? You should be able to answer that question.

How large is the US population?

What percentage of that population is armed?

And for extra credit, what is the reason Japan gave as to why they didn't invade the US when they took out Pearl Harbor and had every opportunity to send their forces in? There was no military to give them much resistance at the time.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

You've made it repeatedly clear that you are in favor of government control on every level, as opposed to individual freedoms. In order to establish such a control you would have to establish a police state.

Prove it; show me one single instance where I advocate government control.
Also I don't blog, so when are you going to stop making up lies just because you're too uncreative to think people do more than your clichés?

[Versus]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

And what purpose would that serve the military? They'd only be hurting themselves in the long run.

We're talking about if, not way. Stay on topic.

That is a pretty stupid statement especially coming from someone who's supposedly a member of the US military. Do you really want to debate that issue? What the hell do they teach you in basic training anyway?

I like that my job is a question, now.

Have you ever really thought about it or are you just going off your spoon-fed liberal bullshit about how bad guns are and how weak a militia would be against "the big bad military that could totally pwn any militia with their "toy guns""?

Here's a better question: Do you know anything about military science, history, or doctrine? At all?

How well did Russia fair against the Afgans during the 11 years they tried to take them over? At a time when Russia was the 2nd strongest military force on the planet and the Afgans had little more than sticks, stones and some camels to fight them with? What else did the Afgans have going for them?

Oh, you mean this war where the Mujahideen were supported with weapons and equipment and billions of dollars from Britain. Iran, Eygpt, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, to include state of the art man-portable surface-to-air missile launchers which were used against helicopters, which were the Soviet's main form of logistics and quick reaction.

You mean the same war that the Mujahideen suffered 75,000–90,000 killed, 75,000+ wounded, 600,000–2,000,000 civilians died and had their country literally blown to the stone age, while the soviets whose military doctrine could be boiled down to "They're not very good, but we have so many of them!" had 14,453 killed and 53,735 wounded?

I'd say the Russians did pretty well.

Disarming the people is the only way the government would be able to establish a police state. Maybe you should think on that and the reasons why before you continue.

Here's some pointers for you to ponder during the process.

How large is the US military? You should be able to answer that question.

How large is the US population?

What percentage of that population is armed?

Have you ever heard of the terms "combat multiplier" or "force multiplier?"

It might have something to do with why the U.S. military is the most powerful while being very small. Just something I heard.

And for extra credit, what is the reason Japan gave as to why they didn't invade the US when they took out Pearl Harbor and had every opportunity to send their forces in? There was no military to give them much resistance at the time

Actually, the Japanese were afraid that the U.S. would get involved with their push into Britain's south east Asia territory, so they disabled most of our pacific fleet. They had no interest in the American mainland whatsoever.

[BourbonBoy]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Have you ever really thought about it or are you just going off your spoon-fed liberal bullshit about how bad guns are and how weak a militia would be against "the big bad military that could totally pwn any militia with their "toy guns""?

How well did Russia fair against the Afgans during the 11 years they tried to take them over? At a time when Russia was the 2nd strongest military force on the planet and the Afgans had little more than sticks, stones and some camels to fight them with? What else did the Afgans have going for them?

The Afgans had a log going for them. For instance, financial backing and extra man power courtesy of the oil barons of the Middle East, anti-aircraft weapons supplied by the U.S., firearms supplied by China, training courtesy of Pakistan.

Remember Bin Laden? Yep, he was a veteran of that war and we trained, funded and supported him in any way possible because he opposed the evil Commies.

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Disarming the people is the only way the government would be able to establish a police state. Maybe you should think on that and the reasons why before you continue.

Actually, if you look at history, time and again, it was the ones who overthrew the government who enacted the police state, not the government. Idi Amin ring a bell? No? How about Augusto Pinochet?

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Here's some pointers for you to ponder during the process.

And for extra credit, what is the reason Japan gave as to why they didn't invade the US when they took out Pearl Harbor and had every opportunity to send their forces in? There was no military to give them much resistance at the time.

Where's your source for that one? LMAO! They didn't have the manpower or materials for such an operation as to land on the mainland U.S. since they were strongly committed to their war in Asia. Now, some Japanese troops did land in U.S. territory, but it was so remote no one thought of it until after they landed, check out the Aleutian Islands Campaign from June 1942 until August 1943.



In 1941 Japan had 2,250,000 men under arms with 1,250,000 in Manchuria and Northern China the rest being divided between Korea, Japan, and Formosa. Japan also had 4,500,000 trained reserves.

At the close of the war:
Japan – 2,115,000
N. China/Korea/Manchuria – 1,310,000
SE China/Malay/Burma/Indochina – 953,000
Formosa/Philippines/Indonesia- 772,000.
Various Pacific Islands - 2,880,000

Source: http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaIJAc2.htm

U.S.

In other words, THEY WERE SPREAD TO THIN. With the exception of the home islands, the largest concentration of troops was spread throughout the Pacific, 165.2 million square km (64.1 million square miles) in area; for perspective, the U.S. is only 9,826,675 km (3,794,101 miles). All it took was a couple major battles and their naval forces were kaput so most of their ground troops were either abandoned in the Pacific (ever heard of the term Island Hopping? Nimitz's brainchild) or were tied down in Asia fighting the Chinese army, British - Indian forces, and various guerrilla forces throughout SE Asia (Ho Chi Minh ring a bell?)

You don't have to be a mathematical genius to see that they had zero chance of committing a major force to assault, land and occupy any part of the West Coast without it being labeled one of the biggest military blunders in military history.

[Versus]

Not even looking at force deployments, that would have been a logistical nightmare for Japan, especially considering what force projection meant during the period, and that the U.S. was their main source of oil.

But hey. Maybe Deviant is right. Maybe they were just scared of civilian gun owners.

[Renatus]

"I venture to say no war can be long carried on against the will of the people"
- Edmund Burke, British author, philospher, and political theorist

[Versus]

Mr. Burke died in the 18th century. Something tells me he hadn't imagined what railroads and automatic weapons in world war 1, mechanization and aircraft in world war 2, or lasers, rocketry, nuclear fission, and the computer in the 21st century would do to change warfare.

[Versus]

Alright, so I've decided that Deviant has reached Deadman status. I couldn't really see it before because of the subject matter that was a little out of my purview, but now that he's babbling about something I know, I finally realize how ass backwards he is.

And I can't help but think "Has it been like this the whole time?"

[BourbonBoy]

Originally Posted by Versus

Not even looking at force deployments, that would have been a logistical nightmare for Japan, especially considering what force projection meant during the period, and that the U.S. was their main source of oil.

But hey. Maybe Deviant is right. Maybe they were just scared of civilian gun owners.

Exactly. Few things in the world piss me off more than the ignorance of history. We never single handedly fought the Japanese, nor did the Germans have the only high ranking officers put on trial for crimes against humanity when the dust settled after WWII. They pretty much wrote the book on what not to do in times of war, not to mention a ton of our chemical and biological weapons were based on what the Japanese had developed.

There's a lot of stuff they did, but I don't want to derail the thread any further than it has been despite Dumbass X's and Deadbrain's attempts.

Hopefully that nutcase goes away for a long time and he'll just be another footnote in books regarding idiots who have no respect for life.

And Dumbass is on the same level of strange as his country counterpart.

[outletdeadsea95]

Dead Sea Spa Products Co presents the first complex,specializing selling products of" sea of spa", based on a scientific combination of Dead Sea minerals with natural vitamins, plant extracts and aromatic oils. It works in harmony, creating a dual cosmetic effect and maintaining the optimal balance of your skin.

sea of spa

[vservicejobs24]

vService24 is the fast growing online jobs corner where you can hire freelancers,web developers,content writers,data entry & more at a fraction of the cost on the World's largest outsourcing marketplace.

work from home