On 12/23/2012 3:34 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 23, 6:42 am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 12/22/2012 11:25 PM, Homo Gay wrote:









Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to
lose (from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT
make / announce that their property is a "gun-free" zone.

Rarely have I seen such an announcement in any business.

Do some / many / most / all public schools in the US have signage
declaring they are a gun-free zone?

We know that many public-sector facilities (schools, libraries,
gov't offices, court buildings, DMV, airports, etc)
are probably gun-free zones even if they are not signed as such.

Have you ever been to one of those places? I've seen some rather
strong armament at airports, especially in Europe. Courts and many
government buildings have armed guards.

I wasn't counting any "duly-deputized" members of the law-enforcement
community, nor anyone hired as armed security in those places (airports,
courts and gov't buildings).

We are talking about civilians carrying personal firearms in public in
this thread.

The shooter made no attempt to hook into any social networks
or leave behind anything that would give the world a statement
or make him famous.

You think killing 26 people they would not put his name in the
paper?

He wasn't even carrying his own ID at the time.

Did he kill those kids because he wanted to be famous (or infamous) ?

Or did he kill them *regardless* the media coverage that would result?

I know a lot of right-wing AM-radio talking heads have put forward the
idea that the liberal media is facilitating and fostering these
mass-murders because their coverage of the event is showing the next
mass-murderer how he can be famous, but I don't buy that argument, and
I'm sure a lot of other sane, rational people don't either.

Clinically-sane, rational people (which, by the way, includes right-wing
AM-radio talking heads) are be definition incapable to know what drives
insane, irrational people to do what they do. We are applying our own
idea of why we might want to commit such acts (mass murder = become
famous).

He did not have to leave a Facebook message to get notoriety.

As I said above, we can't even pretend to know why he killed those
kids. It's a foregone conclusion that when something shocking and
disturbing happens, that the media is going to report it.

If he was driven by a voice in his head that told him to kill those kids
- do you think he gave any consideration to this so-called "fame" that
you keep talking about?

The solution to this problem lies in the product itself - not in
laws that govern who can sell them or who can obtain them, nor
in laws that govern how consumers handle them.

That is part of the solution. We also have to find what causes
this type of behavior. Fifty years ago no one was shooting up
schools that I'm aware of.

Fifty (even 10 or 20) years ago, divorced single women with kids also
probably didn't own an arsenal of guns like this woman did.

I'm sure there were troubled boys 50 years ago. The difference being
their moms pantry didn't double as an armory.

Homo Gay, typical of Liberal morons to use the word "arsenal" to
describe a small number of firearms owned by a civilian. I imagine
if the woman owned a bag of wheat sitting in a 50gal drum, those
of your ilk would describe it as a grain silo. If you understood
history at all, you would know that there is a generation of kids
emerging into adulthood who have been loaded with behavior modifying
drugs since they were small children at the behest of the Liberal
infested educational system. Little boys are drugged because they
behave like little boys and they grow up to become psychotic adults.
That didn't happen 50 years ago when firearms were more likely to be
handled by children under adult supervision and approval. 50 years
ago, even in cities which now have severe restrictions on people's
right to own firearms, there would be a rifle team in many of the
high schools where children were exposed to those evil guns and taught
how to fire them. The damage done to a population by drug use is best
demonstrated by the morons they vote into office who are drug addled
themselves. O_o

TDD

Funny (not ha ha) non of these things happen in the UK.

You can put most of it down to Hollywood and the violent video games
now circulating.
Eg the Arnie/Clint moveis
They affect the brains of the simple minded.

We have the simple minded over here but they can't get hold of these
weapons.


Are British schoolchildren pumped full of Ritalin to control their
behavior or have the more Conservative humans kept control of the
government run schools? O_o

TDD