• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

teen goes on killing rampage in Minn. 10 dead

Status
Not open for further replies.
Teh Hamburglar said:
You actually think the people who SHOULDN'T have guns are going to follow the law? :lol

Silly, Robertsan.


no i dont but thats the problem USA does not have control of the guns that are floating around in the country.

if they did then it would be a whole diffrent thing!
it would be HARD to get a wepon, its not like that now. its easier to get a wepon than a pack of smokes man!
 
The thing that pisses me off is that people are shocked that a kid would go and kill some people he probably hated. That is completely normal and natural. Yeah, for the sake of order and everything else we have to try to stop that and keep these things at a minimum, but to say it is abnormal and unnatural is a little naive. Do you know what shocks people? What shocks people is when they see others do things that they themselves know they could do, but don't want to admit to.

Oh and I would love to see the blame for this go to the violence of the Iraq War brainwashing our kids to become suicide killers. They are seeing how well it works for Iraqi's and want to imitate it!
 

Gek54

Junior Member
BigGreenMat said:
Oh and I would love to see the blame for this go to the violence of the Iraq War brainwashing our kids to become suicide killers. They are seeing how well it works for Iraqi's and want to imitate it!

I agree lets blame everyone in the US, that supports the terrorist suicide bombers, for brainwashing our kids to thinking terrorists are cool.

WTF mate?
 

Dilbert

Member
Lil' Dice, I'm very sorry to hear about your cousin. How is he/she dealing with the situation?

Mashing said:
Concealed handgun licenses are a GOOD thing (look at Phoenix for an example, from what I hear they're crime rate is quite low). I guarentee you that if that happened here in Texas he would have been shot by someone else before things got totally out of control. Reading the article leads me to believe he was shot by someone else as it doesn't say the shot was self inflicted.
1) The shooter killed himself.

2) You're arguing that concealed handgun licenses would have helped the situation? I'm sorry, but that is really fucking dumb. Who exactly would be in a position to shoot this kid with a concealed handgun to stop the rampage -- another STUDENT? The first person gunned down was the security guard.

Private citizens should not own guns, period.
 
I kinda agree with robertsan. These weapons are designed for the sole purpose of killing.

I don't buy into to that "guns make you safe crap". You are ten times better of with a pitbull and a baseball bat in your household than some locked away gun on the top shelf in the closet.

Your own laws says you can't take lives and yet you have a multi-billion dollar industry designing and providing the tools.

You think the world would be a safer place if every country had the abillity to defend themselfs with nuclear bombs?
 

NWO

Member
robertsan21 said:
protect yourself??? against what man?

if US have had a gun law that stated that no civilian could own a firearm you would not have to protect yourself with guns!

look at the rest of the world, do we have any problems with kids shooting up schools?
do we have gun violence like you have in the states?

Maybe you should look at the stats of these "other countries" because banning guns sure is not stopping the crime and violence there.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15324

Since the introduction of Australia's sweeping gun bans, armed robberies rose a whopping 70 percent, from 6,256 in 1996 to 10,850 just two years later.
Unarmed robberies also rose by about 20 percent, from just over 10,100 to nearly 13,000 incidents.
In addition:
· Attempted murders rose from 335 in 1996 to 382 in 1998
· Manslaughter rose from 38 to 49
· Assaults were up from 114,156 to 132,967
· Sexual assaults rose slightly, from 14,542 to 14,568
· Kidnapping and abductions climbed dramatically, from 480 in 1996 to 662 in 1998
Some other highlights from the 1998 Australian government crime statistics report:
· Blackmail and extortion went from 268 cases a year to 298
· "Unlawful entry with intent (breaking into a home or business) involving the taking of property" rose by 30,000 cases, from 313,902 shortly after the ban was passed to 343,256 cases in 1998
· Other "unlawful entry" cases increased during the two-year period from 88,177 to 92,414
· "Motor vehicle theft" increased by 8,658 reported cases, and "other theft" rose to 565,214 from 521,762


So to everyone saying to ban guns then why did crime RISE in Australia after they banned guns????
 

kablooey

Member
Lil' Dice, is that really true about your cousin's son dying? If so, I'm terribly sorry to hear that. :(

While in principal I'm against the use of guns, I think the reason why crime rates are different in Europe are because the cultural norms are different there. Europe is generally more pacifistic than America is, and there isn't as much poverty, segregation, etc. I think we need to deal with those issues in this country before outlawing arms completely, though there definitely need to be some reforms to make them harder for criminals and such to obtain too.
 

cloudwalking

300chf ain't shit to me
Lil' Dice said:
Let's not forget that this asshole used the guns his grandfather had in his home, for his family's "protection".

that's exactly my point... i moved from a country that has stricter gun laws, where i knew not one single person who owned a gun, and i came to the USA, and here (at least in minnesota) it's like a "badge of honor" to own the most expensive, coolest guns! and openly talk about them to your friends.

if i had a dollar for every time i heard "yeah, i took my dad's gun out to the woods and shot some birds/targets yesterday, it was SO fun."
 

fallout

Member
Lil' Dice said:
Let's not forget that this asshole used the guns his grandfather had in his home, for his family's "protection".
Not that it's justification for the kid getting his hands on it, but his grandfather was a cop. I think he was more concerned with your "protection". Read the damn article.
 

xexex

Banned
top.weise.01.jpg

All Your Minn Highschool Kidz Are Belong To Us
 

SlickWilly223

Time ta STEP IT UP
Eh, that kids pretty young. His grandfather should have made sure that the kid couldn't get to his guns in the first place...

Anyway, I hate when people say that private citizens shouldn't own guns. Guns kill, I know, but there are so many people out there that own guns and are totally responsible with them, myself included. Besides, I think that kid could have killed more people with a knife than .22 if he really wanted to.

I own a few rifles and pistols, but I'm not a fucking idiot. I keep them locked up nicely, and I keep the ammo for them locked up in a seperate safe. No one will ever get their hands on my guns other than myself.

With that said, I think that if you ban guns and ammo then you should probably ban alcohol and cars too, they do more damage in this country than guns do.

Just remember, if you ban guns, people will still find a way to kill you.
 

mrkgoo

Member
Obviously this guy was aiming for certain people that may have heckled or troubled his school years and perhaps his grandparents mistreated him when he was younger.. the very old and tiring usual blame for violent games, music or movies is a load of bullshit. Just a shame to the victims that suffered and the murderer who died since no one will know the proper cause.

I know the exact cause. The kid was weaksauce. If there's something I've learnt about growing up and life, is that everyone (in the same sulture/society, at least), with the odd exception of course, goes through the same thing, espeically during those adolescent years. Their bodies develop, as do their minds. Teens begin to assert some kind of personality, and become obsessed with being an idividual. They strive to be 'different from everyone else'. Most go through some sort of rebellious phase, subconciously believing it's a way of developing identity. They begin thinking for themselves, demanding responsibilities as an 'adult', claiming they should be treated as such, yet still wildly behaving like a child. It's the same GOD damn thing I see in every teen. They think they know better, but they know NOTHING. Yes, it's a difficult time, struggling with the changes they think they see around them when actually, the only things that are changing are themselves. Who here, in their mid-twenties or later, can honestly say they are still the same person they were when they were in high school? That they think and behave in the same way? I'm not talking about their habits or videogame tastes or anyhting, but their actual philosophy on life.

Sure, I've seen people struggle on their journey, still desperately trying to figure out who they are well into their thirties. But this is life. It is all part of the journey. EVERYONE struggles through this part. Some more than others, some for longer than others. Noone has control over it, and that's what people find frustrating. And then there are those that THINK they are struggling more than others, that they have a life so bad, that control of their life is completely lacking, so they try to reclaim control in absurd ways. They are the true weaksauces of society who can't see. Given, nobody CAN see that this lies ahead of them. That crucial development phase is like a tunnel - you enter one end, it's dark, noone can see the other end - only those that have come through the other side can tell what it's like (and often it translates to "I was just like you at your age') -hindsight is wonderful. But those few people who struggle so much, they can't make it out - that's the shame. But it's more of a shame, when a in a bid of control, they bring others down with them, in their weakness.

I don't care if his Father committed suicide. Or his Mother is brain damaged or whatever. The strong make it through life. There's nothing wrong with being weak, so long as you can admit it. Those that can't and take others with them are scum.
 

Doth Togo

Member
http://wcco.com/localnews/local_story_075130445.html

"The state or the government has never been in good trust with Native people, ever. Not today, and never will," said Kim Baker, a member of the Red Lake tribe. "Pawlenty is using these tribes, and my tribe, to get money for him mismanaging his own state, where he thinks he's going to get money by using us. And I don't approve of that either."

(quoted from article)

- - - - -

An interesting wrinkle has surfaced in the "Minnesota Massacre." It turns out that the governor of the state has been trying to ram through state-owned gambling located on reservation lands. But the Red Lake tribe has been resisting.

Interesting how things've turned up. I highly doubt some 17 year old kid from bumfucknowhere would give a shit about Hitler or WWII. When they drag out Hitler as a distraction, that signals a rushed smear campaign. A classic sign of a cover-up.

Consider...

People...adults, kids especially, admire leaders who WIN their wars. Second, from the perspective of a teenager, WWII is ancient history, as relevant to a teen as WWI was to our parents.

This link to Hitler is too bogus to believe, IMO.
 

xexex

Banned
mrkgoo said:
I know the exact cause. The kid was weaksauce. If there's something I've learnt about growing up and life, is that everyone (in the same sulture/society, at least), with the odd exception of course, goes through the same thing, espeically during those adolescent years. Their bodies develop, as do their minds. Teens begin to assert some kind of personality, and become obsessed with being an idividual. They strive to be 'different from everyone else'. Most go through some sort of rebellious phase, subconciously believing it's a way of developing identity. They begin thinking for themselves, demanding responsibilities as an 'adult', claiming they should be treated as such, yet still wildly behaving like a child. It's the same GOD damn thing I see in every teen. They think they know better, but they know NOTHING. Yes, it's a difficult time, struggling with the changes they think they see around them when actually, the only things that are changing are themselves. Who here, in their mid-twenties or later, can honestly say they are still the same person they were when they were in high school? That they think and behave in the same way? I'm not talking about their habits or videogame tastes or anyhting, but their actual philosophy on life.

Sure, I've seen people struggle on their journey, still desperately trying to figure out who they are well into their thirties. But this is life. It is all part of the journey. EVERYONE struggles through this part. Some more than others, some for longer than others. Noone has control over it, and that's what people find frustrating. And then there are those that THINK they are struggling more than others, that they have a life so bad, that control of their life is completely lacking, so they try to reclaim control in absurd ways. They are the true weaksauces of society who can't see. Given, nobody CAN see that this lies ahead of them. That crucial development phase is like a tunnel - you enter one end, it's dark, noone can see the other end - only those that have come through the other side can tell what it's like (and often it translates to "I was just like you at your age') -hindsight is wonderful. But those few people who struggle so much, they can't make it out - that's the shame. But it's more of a shame, when a in a bid of control, they bring others down with them, in their weakness.

I don't care if his Father committed suicide. Or his Mother is brain damaged or whatever. The strong make it through life. There's nothing wrong with being weak, so long as you can admit it. Those that can't and take others with them are scum.


don't forget about the scum that dont kill others, but drive people crazy with their shit ways
 

Hero

Member
Making a law to ban firearms isn't going to magically make all of them disappear.

People who would go out and do crimes like this would still find a way to obtain one.

It's unfortunate to hear about what happened though. I just watched a Static Shock episode about guns too. Weird.
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
You actually think the people who SHOULDN'T have guns are going to follow the law?

Silly, Robertsan.

This argument doesn't hold because people aren't born criminals. Criminals start out like anyone with a clean slate. They'll buy a gun as a law abiding citizen. Then they decide to do something unlawful.

It's not like all criminals are part of a mafia that gets guns from a black market.

However in this case, gun control isn't the issue since it came from a cop.


Making a law to ban firearms isn't going to magically make all of them disappear.

People who would go out and do crimes like this would still find a way to obtain one.

Again, this is a dumb argument. It's as if you believe all criminals get guns from some black market.

Look at gun crime rates in other countries. You'll note they are way, way lower.
 

MC Safety

Member
kablooey said:
While in principal I'm against the use of guns, I think the reason why crime rates are different in Europe are because the cultural norms are different there. Europe is generally more pacifistic than America is, and there isn't as much poverty, segregation, etc.

You don't actually believe that, do you?
 
robertsan21 said:
if US have had a gun law that stated that no civilian could own a firearm you would not have to protect yourself with guns!

I'm sure laws are going to keep criminals from owning guns. Great logic there.
 

Mashing

Member
Believe me, I totally believe that unresponsible adults should not have concealed handguns. But you can't carry one until you have a CHL anyway which shows atleast some form of responsibility. I believe they are better used a deterrent to crime. I sure as hell wouldn't mug someone if I thought he had a concealed handgun under his jacket. Criminals aren't about taking risks, they take the easy way out of things. They'll go after an easy mark. It's just another thing they'd have to think about before the committed a crime and it would be in certain instances enough to dissuade them. I honestly believe that CHL's help lower the crime rate.
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
I'm sure laws are going to keep criminals from owning guns. Great logic there.

Dammit, it's as if you don't read.

ALL criminals start out as law abiding citizens. ALL criminals obtain a gun before commiting the crime that warrants them as a criminal. I'd argue the MAJORITY of criminals obtain their guns as a law abiding citizens prior to their crime.

Sure there may be a few cases where someone gets robbed that could have protected themself. But there are several more cases where innocent people die.

But these cases would be short lived. Eventually it'll become hard for your ordinary criminal to obtain a gun, and we'd have far less deaths just like other countries that have much tighter gun control/bans.

Bringing up the second Amendment is begging the question -- "We should have guns cuz." The Constitution was created in a different time. A time of survival on the frontier.

The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew that people still own guns for the sake of "sport" or "protection" and that many innocent people are dieing because of it.
 

mrkgoo

Member
teh_pwn has a point. Making something illegal will NOT stop criminals from obtaining whatever it is, but that's not the point. It will be more difficult, and crimes related to whatever will be lessened. If smoking were to be outright illegal, sure people will still find ways to buy cigarettes, but you won't find them in stores, and obtaining them will be harder, thus the number of smokers will decrease, and they certainly won't be doing it in public.

Surely, if a=guns obtained from legal means, and b=guns from illegal means:

Crimes with guns from a + b < crimes with guns from just a (even if a increases because of lack of b, it won't be enough to completely compensate).

Or something.

In other words, something legal will always be more prevalent than if the same thing were illegal. And the argument about criminals using guns, what do we have to protect ourselves with is bollocks. One might say if guns were illegal you wouldn't have a better way to defend youself, so you need guns? It doesn't make sense to make it legal for possession of a weapon simply becasue criminals are always going to have access to it. If they had rocket launchers, do you want rocket launchers to defend yourselves? "One day they'll make a board with a nail through it SO big..."
 
D

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member
teh_pwn said:
Bringing up the second Amendment is begging the question -- "We should have guns cuz." The Constitution was created in a different time. A time of survival on the frontier.

The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew that people still own guns for the sake of "sport" or "protection" and that many innocent people are dieing because of it.

Stop making so much sense please.
It's really disturbing when you see a 'guns for everyone' person on the television screaming 'they are trying to take away what makes america great! FREEDOM" and then starts waving a flag etc. All those people having all those guns means lots more people die. Americas gun related deaths are ludicrously higher than just about any other country, it's a no brainer when everybody has them.
 
teh_pwn said:
Bringing up the second Amendment is begging the question -- "We should have guns cuz." The Constitution was created in a different time. A time of survival on the frontier.

The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew that people still own guns for the sake of "sport" or "protection" and that many innocent people are dieing because of it.

Just because you can type the phrase "Founding Fathers" doesn't mean your opinion is anything like theirs. We don't have the right to own guns to protect ourselves from criminals (or savages on the frontiers). We don't have it merely for sport. The purpose of owning guns is to allow the people to rise up and overcome an overly oppressive government, should one ever subjugate them. The second amendment served as the means to enforce the Constitution, the purpose of which was to bind the government, to keep it from becoming all powerful.
 

mrkgoo

Member
Everdred said:
Just because you can type the phrase "Founding Fathers" doesn't mean your opinion is anything like theirs. We don't have the right to own guns to protect ourselves from criminals (or savages on the frontiers). We don't have it merely for sport. The purpose of owning guns is to allow the people to rise up and overcome an overly oppressive government, should one ever subjugate them. The second amendment served as the means to enforce the Constitution, the purpose of which was to bind the government, to keep it from becoming all powerful.

I agree - things like that are only meant to be representative of certain rights and freedoms, not the actual ownign itself. But having said that, I don't have the right to own a gun in this country (outside of hunting, or something), and I don't feel one iota oppressed.

Delaying Minish cap in NZ, though...there needs to be an uprising...
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
The purpose of owning guns is to allow the people to rise up and overcome an overly oppressive government, should one ever subjugate them.

Yea, maybe back in the 1700s. You've got to be kidding yourself if you think some people with handguns could stand a chance against our military.
 

mrkgoo

Member
teh_pwn said:
Yea, maybe back in the 1700s. You've got to be kidding yourself if you think some people with handguns could stand a chance against our military.

This made me smile.
 

MC Safety

Member
teh_pwn said:
Yea, maybe back in the 1700s. You've got to be kidding yourself if you think some people with handguns could stand a chance against our military.

That's almost to the word what the British said about the colonists in 1775. Only they used the word "pitchforks" instead of handguns.
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
Ok, that's different. As if the pitchfork:musket::handgun:tanks/fighters/bombers/artillery/etc.

Where are all these citizens going to get all this military craft?

Ok, suppose they do. Now what again was the point of handguns needlessly killing people today?
 

Hero

Member
Somebody needs to start a Political-Ages forum.

A lot of things in this thread made me laugh and just shake my head afterwards.

So, to those people who say that we don't need guns anymore since the founding fathers had no idea what it would be like today, does that mean the freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet? Surely the Founding Fathers never imagined that, so obviously it shouldn't apply!

The Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written in the history of the world and was made in a way that due to the changing times the people could ratify the amendments or add more as they saw fit. So if you think guns are bad and nobody should have them, do something about it.
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
So, to those people who say that we don't need guns anymore since the founding fathers had no idea what it would be like today, does that mean the freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet? Surely the Founding Fathers never imagined that, so obviously it shouldn't apply!

Ugh, what a silly argument.

The right to bear arms is no longer needed today as I explained above.

How exactly did you conclude that Freedom of Speech doesn't apply today for the Internet?
 

MC Safety

Member
teh_pwn said:
Ok, that's different. As if the pitchfork:musket::handgun:tanks/fighters/bombers/artillery/etc.

Where are all these citizens going to get all this military craft?

Ok, suppose they do. Now what again was the point of handguns needlessly killing people today?

First of all, do not assume I support gun proliferation. My opinions on gun ownership and violence in American society have nothing to do with my disagreement as to your statements.

The fact is, there are -- give or take -- about 290 million Americans. Assume that the majority of them were to revolt. Even greatly outgunned, I suggest that any revolt 200-million determined people were to make would have a good chance of succeeding against a technologically superior force.

It's not as if numbers haven't prevailed against technology before.

And now that we're woefully off-topic, I suggest we return to the matter at hand.
 

Hero

Member
teh_pwn said:
Ugh, what a silly argument.

The right to bear arms is no longer needed today as I explained above.

How exactly did you conclude that Freedom of Speech doesn't apply today for the Internet?

A silly argument? If you read my post, that specific part was addressed to the people who said that the second amendment doesn't apply to today's world since the Founding Fathers didn't envision it or whatever you want to argue.

The right to bear arms is needed. You're just so short-sighted that you can't even see the other point of view. I bet you'd change your tune if someone who was bigger and stronger than you was attacking you or threatening your family. A gun would come in handy then, huh?
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
A silly argument? If you read my post, that specific part was addressed to the people who said that the second amendment doesn't apply to today's world since the Founding Fathers didn't envision it or whatever you want to argue.

The right to bear arms is needed. You're just so short-sighted that you can't even see the other point of view. I bet you'd change your tune if someone who was bigger and stronger than you was attacking you or threatening your family. A gun would come in handy then, huh?

It doesn't apply today for reasons that I mentioned above. It has nothing to do with what the Founding Fathers envisioned or lacked seeing.

I made points as to why there shouldn't be the right to bear arms above, and then I mentioned that if the Founding Fathers knew what was happening, they'd be rolling in their graves.

You made the faulty conclusion that the Founding Father's lack of envisioning gun control was the basis of my argument.

They already made way for a process to change laws, as you mentioned above. What am I doing to do something about it? Explaining why it's not needed. It's not like I'm going to storm up to Congress and protest or anything.

While we're going on with hypothetical scenarios, I'd bet you'd change your tune if some kid took your gun, supposing you had one, and killed someone with it.

This seems much more likely than someone threatening my family.


It's not as if numbers haven't prevailed against technology before.

I understand what you're getting at, but if that large of a civil uprising occured, they'd have access to production facilities to make real weapons, and it's likely many soldiers would rebel from the army to support their families. Again, there's no reason to have handguns accessible for accidents and common thugs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom