Quote :

"DEKALB, Illinois (CNN) -- The man who shot 21 people and himself Thursday in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University was a former graduate student who had an excellent record as an undergraduate, the university's president said Friday. A law enforcement source familiar with the investigation identified the gunman as Steve Kazmierczak. Seven people, including the 27-year-old gunman, were dead Friday morning in the wake of the rampage. At least four of the wounded were in critical condition."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/15/university.shooting/index.html

Ah, America! Land of the free! How long before NCSU gets in on this kind of celebration of the right to bear arms?

2/15/2008 10:07:22 AM

Gun control may have been able to limit his death count, but someone like this is likely to go off their rocker and kill at least one person anyway.

2/15/2008 10:11:53 AM

and what's the difference between 1 and 5 6 people really?

[Edited on February 15, 2008 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2008 10:14:49 AM

I'd rather take my chances with crazy people going on a rampage once in a while than live in a police state where we citizens are completely unarmed.

People are far too obsessed with safety and are way too willing to sacrifice their liberty in order to gain a false sense of security.

2/15/2008 10:21:21 AM

lol, I love this stupid point of view....if the kid wanted to do this bad enough, he would have found guns, legal or illegal.....all gun bans will do is keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, the criminals will still get theirs.

2/15/2008 10:22:09 AM

ibtl




seriously though, grow up

suggesting that the legal ownership of guns is responsible for an individual act of violence

is as stupid as suggesting that the legal ownership of alcohol is responsible for individual acts of excess


dude, you don't like guns, we get it

but what is your fucking problem?

what the fuck does this have to do with the 2nd amendment?

do you actually think that restrictions or bans on gun ownership would eliminate guns or gun abuse?

have restrictions or bans eliminated drugs or drug abuse?

why are you so fucking stupid? do you just do it for people's reactions?

STOP FUCKING DREAMING, YOU FUCKING IDIOT



Jerry Garcia would not like you

2/15/2008 10:22:46 AM

the difference is: people can grow drugs in their backyard. they can't grow guns.

is there some glut of gun violence in countries like japan or england? no. there's plenty of violence. but it's with knives or swords apparently. i like my chances against a guy with a knife a lot better than a guy with a gun.

2/15/2008 10:26:14 AM

^^Chill, mate. Your right to bear arms is not under threat. You can be proud to live in a country where mass murder has become routine.

USA! USA! USA! USA!

[Edited on February 15, 2008 at 10:28 AM. Reason : slow]

2/15/2008 10:28:07 AM

Maybe our redneck friends who are so vocal on there love for guns and preservation of the 2nd amendment rights should also take an active voice and speak up about their GOP heroes shitting on there 1st and 4th amendment rights. Especially when it comes to this FISA bill.

"yee can tukk errr freedum, eavesdrop on me callin sallie may in tha trailo park but yee can yall will have ta tukk err guns from our cold dead fingers!!!!!!!!!! USA #1 "

^^dude all banning guns will is ensure that law abiding citizens are not armed. People interested in committing acts of violence or working outside the law will still possess guns. I think banning guns would only have any effect on crimes of passion (i.e. 2nd degree murder and various conflict escalated violence). Whereas any other acts would find ways to circumvent the laws. You do not think Marlo and G running the local corner selling heroin actually walk into Dick's sporting goods and fill out a permit to possess a pistol do you???

[Edited on February 15, 2008 at 10:32 AM. Reason : aa]

2/15/2008 10:29:26 AM

Should we ban cars now since that one guy plowed all those people down in Chapel Hole?

Seriously, would you have felt better if he would have pushed them off of a bridge?

As stated time and time again, why should the rest of us who are law abiding and decent people suffer because of the actions of a few? Most individuals are responsible people who respect and follow the law, and should be allowed to excercise their rights accordingly...

2/15/2008 10:31:46 AM

USA #1

2/15/2008 10:33:04 AM

Does that fact pain you?

2/15/2008 10:33:34 AM

Quote :

"You can be proud to live in a country where mass murder has become routine."

Quote :

"I'd rather take my chances with crazy people going on a rampage once in a while than live in a police state where we citizens are completely unarmed."

2/15/2008 10:33:46 AM

^^^^because people go off and kill multiple people like this it seems like once a month these days.

it's just easy to kill people with guns. that's the point.

[Edited on February 15, 2008 at 10:34 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2008 10:34:35 AM

its easy to kill people by strapping on a bomb and blowing yourself off too. I highly doubt IDEs and bombs are legal in Iraq. This does not mean that wrongdoers can not get them. Banning guns is fucking retarded.

2/15/2008 10:36:46 AM

Quote :

"Jerry Garcia would not like you"

+1

Quote :

"1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.1 2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions. * Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2 * Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3 * England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4 * Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5 3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States: * In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States. * "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7 * The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8 "

2/15/2008 10:37:30 AM

So if we go on your frequency of once a month, that's what, 12 people a year? So you want to suspend and usurp the rights of 300 million people because of a handful of crazies?

2/15/2008 10:39:04 AM

gun restrictions would not do wonders overnight. it would likely take a generation to see the results.

and i'm talking about mass murders like the one mentioned in the original post. no doubt there are far more isolated murders.

[Edited on February 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2008 10:39:04 AM

perhaps we should ban alcohol since a few morons get behind the wheel and kill two people driving.

2/15/2008 10:40:47 AM

no. for that i think we should actually enforce our current laws. (ie jailing lots of fuckwads that drive while drunk -- plenty are on tww)

2/15/2008 10:41:55 AM

Quote :

"it's just easy to kill people with guns. that's the point...."

....of ensuring that everyone has access to them for self defense.

how else could an old lady stop a mugger? with a fucking sword?

Quote :

"Maybe our redneck friends who are so vocal on there love for guns and preservation of the 2nd amendment rights should also take an active voice and speak up about their GOP heroes shitting on there 1st and 4th amendment rights."

easy there buddy

I might be vocal on my love of liberty and the preservation of 2nd amendment rights, but I am in no way a "redneck"

also, I have never owned a gun nor tolerated "shitting on 1st and 4th amendment rights"

(try to refrain from such prejudice in the future )

2/15/2008 10:43:08 AM

Quote :

"You can be proud to live in a country where mass murder has become routine."

If you look at history. The biggest instances of routine mass murder on a larger scale was carried out by gov'ts which had disarmed their citizenry.

2/15/2008 10:49:19 AM

gun free zones are actually the culprit here. If i were allowed to pack when I went to class, I would've shot the mother fucker when he whipped the gun out.

2/15/2008 10:55:43 AM

Quote :

"If you look at history. The biggest instances of routine mass murder on a larger scale was carried out by gov'ts which had disarmed their citizenry."

Perfectly stated.

2/15/2008 10:56:20 AM

So, to repeat an earlier question: How long before NCSU gets in on this kind of celebration of the right to bear arms? Anyone care to offer odds on a multiple slaying @ NCSU in the next five years?

2/15/2008 10:56:24 AM

what the fuck is wrong with you? It's like you want this to happen so in a sick and twisted way, your point gets reaffirmed.

2/15/2008 11:00:57 AM

Quote :

"I might be vocal on my love of liberty and the preservation of 2nd amendment rights, but I am in no way a "redneck" also, I have never owned a gun nor tolerated "shitting on 1st and 4th amendment rights""

my bad i was just over generalizing the NRA types. I do agree though I will be damned if i have to leave my safety as well as my familes in the hands of the police or the mercy of any potential criminal. If someone breaks into my house it is my right to be allowed the use of lethal force if necessary for protection.

Not sure i agree with ouerve on the elimination of gun-free zones. I think having half my classmates packing heat in my business agriculture class would cause more problems then solve.

2/15/2008 11:07:42 AM

I think this guy is likely to do something like this himself just to prove his own point.

2/15/2008 11:08:53 AM

I don't want a shooting spree to happen, but I'm interested to know what you think the chances are. It looks like NCSU is probably a pretty good candidate for one: plenty of guns, more than a few unstable people, and a culture where this sort of thing is just accepted as part of campus life. I figure the chances are about 5% over the next five years.

2/15/2008 11:08:53 AM

gun free zones are where I would want to be if I wanted to kill a lot of people.


Think about it, it ushers in criminals. That's exactly where they want to be. Criminals aren't stupid. They're rational when it comes to maximizing the damage they want to do.

What better place than an auditorium full of unarmed people.


And not everyone in your business ag class will have guns. Probably NO ONE will... but the thought that someone might will be enough to deter most people who want to do a copy cat.

[Edited on February 15, 2008 at 11:10 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2008 11:09:47 AM

the school shootings are part of the liberal conspiracy to end the 2nd amendment and to ban guns

2/15/2008 11:10:04 AM

Quote :

" I figure the chances are about 5% over the next five years."

Please show your work. I'd like to see the math behind that figure.

or did you pull it out of your ass?

2/15/2008 11:10:51 AM

Quote :

"I don't want a shooting spree to happen, but I'm interested to know what you think the chances are. It looks like NCSU is probably a pretty good candidate for one: plenty of guns, more than a few unstable people, and a culture where this sort of thing is just accepted as part of campus life. I figure the chances are about 5% over the next five years."

RESPECT for guns are a part of campus life. Ask any of those people you stereotype and they do everything by the books. They have the permits. They've gone through the classes. They had the extensive background checks. THE LACK OF RESPECT FOR FIREARMS IS WHAT CAUSES PROBLEMS. These people who go to schools and shoot people DID NOT RECEIVE THEIR GUNS LEGALLY. Which, by your conjecture, banning guns would do what to deter them?

2/15/2008 11:12:47 AM

^ you are 100% right.

but a lot of the NRA types do not even think we should have any kind of training or procedure for getting a gun. Basically they argue any ignorant baboon regardless of experience should be able to walk into the gun store and outfit their own personal armory.

2/15/2008 11:16:00 AM

Quote :

"These people who go to schools and shoot people DID NOT RECEIVE THEIR GUNS LEGALLY."

in many cases they did

2/15/2008 11:18:53 AM

^^ Yes and I think any sane and rational person would disagree with that. I'm all for the background checks, as I believe 95% of the populous is as well.


I pulled that number out of my ass like that dumbass Jerry Garcia


^ Not heard this. Got the documentation?

[Edited on February 15, 2008 at 11:19 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2008 11:19:27 AM

Quote :

"Not heard this. Got the documentation?"

viriginia tech anyone?

2/15/2008 11:20:55 AM

So he had his gun legally? Not doubting you, but I haven't heard that.


That's still 1 of the shootings. The high school shootings, especially, the guns were not obtained legally.

[Edited on February 15, 2008 at 11:22 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2008 11:21:53 AM

Jerry Garcia would prefer people die of heroin-induced heart failure like he did instead of guns

2/15/2008 11:27:04 AM

Quote :

"Please show your work. I'd like to see the math behind that figure"

Well, figure that at current rates there are mass shootings of this sort approximately four times a year on a college campus (though frequency definitely seems to be increasing). Projecting out, I expect twenty incidents in the next five years -- some big (like Va Tech last April) some small (like LSU last week), some mid-sized (Northern Illinois yesterday). NCSU is a fairly large campus, which probably increases the chances of an incident (reasoning that more people means more likely whackos). There are about 2500 colleges in the US, but NCSU is among the 100 largest. If the events were randomly distributed across all campuses, the odds are about .8%, but factoring in the larger size of the place raises the probability considerably, I'd guess something like 5%. I'm pretty comfortable offering odds of 19-1 against a shooting spree at NCSU in the next five years.

2/15/2008 11:29:14 AM

Perspective.

Quote :

"Well, figure that at current rates there are mass shootings of this sort approximately four times a in the past year on a college campus"

OMG THERE WAS A CAMPUS SHOOTING ONCE IN THE PAST TWO DAYS.... I PROJECT 180 INCIDENTS THIS YEAR

[Edited on February 15, 2008 at 11:31 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2008 11:31:02 AM

yes he obtained the guns legally in va. tech.

the columbine guns obviously weren't legally obtained in that they were owned by minors. but it's not like those guns were stolen or anything. adults just sold them to minors.

i'm pretty sure the amish gun shootings were with legally purchased guns though i can't find evidence of it now i remember reading that when it happened.

pretty sure the university of texas shootings were with legally obtained firearms.

it really seems that most that i look at are legally purchased weapons. perhaps with modifications that make them "illegal" but they weren't stolen or gotten on the black market generally.

2/15/2008 11:31:48 AM

well most firearms used in non-college slayings and shootouts are stolen

just cause something that happens at a university involves legally purchased firearms, doesnt mean the majority of gun crimes are committed with legally purchased firearms

2/15/2008 11:45:38 AM

I'll bet the guy had some history of mental illness, which as of now isn't something that can be checked before purchasing a handgun...imo that's the root of the problem as most cases of these mass shootings involve someone with issues.

i'm all for tough restrictions on handguns (and mental history checks) but an outright firearm ban isn't the way to go.

btw, if the alternate access doors were locked as they should have been, he wouldn't have been able to get in the back in the first place.

2/15/2008 11:45:42 AM

So out of curiosity Jerry, which gun law would have prevented this one?

The gun registration laws?

The one that forbids possession of guns on college campuses?

How about the laws banning concealed (and for that matter open) carry?

2/15/2008 12:30:45 PM

this is the fallacy that always comes up in these discussions. solutions won't come immediately. but if handguns/assault rifles etc were taken out of the hands of most citizens over a period of time then after decades, guns will be much harder to come by.

2/15/2008 12:34:04 PM

Perhaps we should ban camp fires since people have died and billions of dollars in property damages occur when a few morons forget to put the fire out or do not follow proper fire safety.

2/15/2008 12:40:33 PM

Quote :

"At Columbine, the pair met near Harris' car and armed two 20 pound (9 kg) propane bombs before entering the cafeteria a few minutes before the 'A' lunch shift began and placed the duffel bags carrying the bombs inside. Each bomb was set to explode at approximately 11:17 a.m."

Quote :

"The bombs had enough explosive power to destroy the entire cafeteria and bring the library above crashing down."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_shooting

Okay--propane tanks have gotta go. Get Schumer on the phone--we need a bill.

PS: Swimming is hereby outlawed:

Quote :

"Drowning By the Numbers The following statistics demonstrate the need for action: * #1 Cause of death for children under five. * 2nd Leading cause of injury-related death among children under the age of 15. * 2.6 Number of times African-American children age 5-19 are more likely to drown than white children in the same age group. * 9 Number of people who drown in the United States every day. * 70 Percent of all preschoolers who drown who are in the care of one or both parents at the time of drowning. * 5,000 Estimated number of children age 14 and under who are hospitalized annually due to near-drowning. * 6,000 Approximate number of annual drownings in the United States."

http://swimming.about.com/od/safetyinthewater/a/usa06watersafe_2.htm

[Edited on February 15, 2008 at 12:48 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2008 12:41:34 PM

swimming pools should be banned b.c a few children horse playing have accidentally caused someone to die.

An ideal society is where big nanny gov't regulates and bans anything that could possibly hurt or kill Little Johnny that way we can be free and live happily ever after.

2/15/2008 12:50:29 PM

This shitty stupid thread is actually a copy of an earlier shitty stupid thread by the same user.

http:///message_topic.aspx?topic=505053

2/15/2008 12:59:43 PM