INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: El on January 20, 2007, 08:43:44 AM
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/20/ap/national/mainD8MONSA00.shtml
-
AS: 1 NT:0
That might be in such poor taste it doesnt even matter that I meant it in good humor, but oh well. ;D
-
AS: 1 NT:0
That might be in such poor taste it doesnt even matter that I meant it in good humor, but oh well. ;D
In reality it's more like AS:1 NT:1,000 god knows how many of us have been vitimized.
-
I am counting kills, not annoyances. And the count is probably higher, but I didn't feel like expanding it beyond that one story.
-
I don't find this especially funny, but wonder is AS will become stigmatized as a "violent" disorder.
-
Hopefully enough NT's will shoot up their schools to keep the body count even.
-
I'm sure it will happen. High schools are now fucking war zones instead of just sucky places to be.
BTW, Nomaken, have you ever played the columbine video game with sprites? It was voted 2nd worst game of all time (ot it was in the top ten anyway and it lost to ET) for its sheer tastelessness. I have no desire whatesoever to play it but it strikes me as something you'd be twisted enough to find intriuging.
-
I heard this story right after it happened, but I did not know about the AS.
I wonder where the long knife came from, because if John Odgren brought it to school with him, that is going to support the prosecution's theory of premeditation. Some people who have AS are violent, but it seems that the ones who make the news are more often violent, maybe because their defense attorneys are more likely to bring it up as a mitigating factor after they have commited a crime.
-
Here's a study that investigates AS and murder:
Sources of data for all three cases were legal records, hospital records, interviews of defendants, interviews of family members, and consultations. The first case involved a 22-year-old Hispanic male who was charged with the capital offense of murder of an 8-year-old boy. The defendant had a prior diagnosis of pervasive developmental disorder beginning at the age of 5 years. His family was in the military, and they moved often. Each time the defendant attended a new school, his teachers became aware of his impaired functioning and sent him for evaluation. His parents did not follow up with any treatments, although they were recommended. He was in special education classes in school and was often taunted by peers. Diagnosis was based on numerous medical records, an interview of the defendant, an interview of the defendant’s family, neuropsychological testing, consultation with a psychologist specializing in the treatment of Asperger’s disorder, and a neurologist experienced in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with autism. The defendant had average intelligence. He had stereotyped interests, including Game Boy games, weapons, and Legos. At the time of the crime, he was homeless. Three months prior to the incident, he was hospitalized with a Tylenol overdose. His parents did not allow him to return home. Unbeknownst to them, he slept in their backyard in a tool shed. He was employed at a local sandwich shop before the incident and he worked on the day of the incident. After work, he walked to a nearby grocery store and purchased two beers. He drank them while walking. As he neared an area where he planned to stay for the evening, he was approached by an 8-year-old on a bicycle who asked him about Game Boy games. He stated that he asked the boy to leave him alone and that the boy ran over his foot with his bicycle. He remembered pulling out his gun (which he always kept on his person for protection) and shooting the boy.
The second case involved a 35-year-old Pakistani male who was charged with murdering a neighbor who entered his apartment while the defendant was on the telephone with a friend, who overheard the ensuing argument. The defendant attempted to reason with the neighbor, who was alleging the defendant owed him money for a grill. The victim struck the defendant about the face, hitting his glasses. The defendant retreated to his bedroom where he kept guns. The victim followed. The defendant shot the victim repeatedly, emptying a .38-caliber revolver. He then got another gun from his bedroom and fired another shot into the victim’s head. The defendant had no prior diagnosis of any pervasive developmental disorders. When he was a child, his parents had taken him to neurologists and psychiatrists, who failed to render a diagnosis. Yet his parents maintained that something was wrong with him. Diagnosis was based on interviews with the defendant, his family, neuropsychological testing and a consultation from a Neurologist experienced with the diagnosis of autism. The defendant was a "savant" in mathematics. He had numerous stereotyped, repetitive interests, including collecting items in multiples of two such as: health club memberships, bicycles, refrigerators, textbooks for his classes, guns, and jobs. He spent numerous hours studying World War II and knew many esoteric facts about Adolf Hitler. He was often taunted by others and had very few friends.
The third case involved a 20-year-old Spanish-American who was charged with murdering his girlfriend’s father. The victim had phoned the defendant and asked him to pick up personal belongings left at the victim’s beach house. The defendant stated that he had forgotten a belt and that the victim walked to his car to return the belt. The defendant pulled a shotgun out of the trunk as the victim approached and shot him. The defendant had not had a previous diagnosis of an autistic spectrum disorder, although he had undergone numerous psychiatric treatments and was given a diagnosis of and treated for Schizoaffective Disorder by a psychiatrist at the time of the offense. The diagnosis was based on an interview of the defendant and his parents and consultation with a psychiatrist specializing in the research, diagnosis, and treatment of autism. Neither neuropsychological testing nor neurological examination confirmed the diagnosis.
-
Last week I noticed that on coverage of the trial of a man with AS who killed a young girl they were describing him as mentally ill - I've not been able to find out if it was the AS they were calling a mental illness or if he had another condition that they just didn't mention in that report.
-
Thanks but if I feel like senselessly killing people, I play GTA. Seriously, that game is theraputic at times.
-
Last week I noticed that on coverage of the trial of a man with AS who killed a young girl they were describing him as mentally ill - I've not been able to find out if it was the AS they were calling a mental illness or if he had another condition that they just didn't mention in that report.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/3958699.stm
-
"Another group of monster teenagers shot up their school today. what makes them do it?
video games? Mmmmarilyn Manson?
Oh it can't be the parents. Or the fact that school sucks.
Or that the jocks DO get patted on the head every time they beat up the weirdos.
Or that the jobs you get when you graduate from school are stupid, dumb, boring and a dead end to INSANITY!!!"
IMO they should have public service announcement type films in the first year of high school targeted at bullies and other fuckups - 'COLUMBINE: it could happen to you' :evillaugh:
Misanthropic? Me? :angel:
-
Last week I noticed that on coverage of the trial of a man with AS who killed a young girl they were describing him as mentally ill - I've not been able to find out if it was the AS they were calling a mental illness or if he had another condition that they just didn't mention in that report.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/3958699.stm
Thanks Peter I did a search on the BBC site but I only got the three from last year.
-
IMO they should have public service announcement type films in the first year of high school targeted at bullies and other fuckups - 'COLUMBINE: it could happen to you' :evillaugh:
Misanthropic? Me? :angel:
If we didn't had had these cowardly gun laws here, I'd probably made my own Columbine in my upper teens, even before there ever was a Columbine in the US. :evillaugh:
-
Misanthropic? Me? :angel:
You are on the right track, no doubt.
-
IMO they should have public service announcement type films in the first year of high school targeted at bullies and other fuckups - 'COLUMBINE: it could happen to you' :evillaugh:
Misanthropic? Me? :angel:
If we didn't had had these cowardly gun laws here, I'd probably made my own Columbine in my upper teens, even before there ever was a Columbine in the US. :evillaugh:
your thoughts are ahead of their time.
-
IMO they should have public service announcement type films in the first year of high school targeted at bullies and other fuckups - 'COLUMBINE: it could happen to you' :evillaugh:
Misanthropic? Me? :angel:
If we didn't had had these cowardly gun laws here, I'd probably made my own Columbine in my upper teens, even before there ever was a Columbine in the US. :evillaugh:
your thoughts are ahead of their time.
I know. I was just 8 when I first thought of killing bullies buy shooting them in their eyes with my automatic air gun, but I decided that it wouldn't work. By 15 I considered making TNT and blowing up the school, but I couldn't get hold of the strong acids needed for the reaction...
-
I'm reserving my judgement until I find out the AS kid's motivation. Did he kill his bully? Or was he acting randomly because he was a nut?
-
If we didn't had had these cowardly gun laws here, I'd probably made my own Columbine in my upper teens, even before there ever was a Columbine in the US. :evillaugh:
Well I'm glad we have them, then. Are you implying that somehow it was a good thing that happened?
-
I want them to make a study, based on time and the number of high schools in the country and the number of them that got shot up during that time, to explain what percentage chance you have of happening to you. Because people get struck by lightning.... it could happen to you.... just not damn likely.
-
If we didn't had had these cowardly gun laws here, I'd probably made my own Columbine in my upper teens, even before there ever was a Columbine in the US. :evillaugh:
Well I'm glad we have them, then. Are you implying that somehow it was a good thing that happened?
I don't know the whole story, so I don't know if the victims deserved it or not.
-
I want them to make a study, based on time and the number of high schools in the country and the number of them that got shot up during that time, to explain what percentage chance you have of happening to you. Because people get struck by lightning.... it could happen to you.... just not damn likely.
i wonder if the violence in schools has anything to do with legislated parenting.
basically taking parenting tactics, and control away from the parents, and giving the control to the children.
hmmmmm.
-
If we didn't had had these cowardly gun laws here, I'd probably made my own Columbine in my upper teens, even before there ever was a Columbine in the US. :evillaugh:
Well I'm glad we have them, then. Are you implying that somehow it was a good thing that happened?
I don't know the whole story, so I don't know if the victims deserved it or not.
Basically, these kids shot at everything in their way. Under what circumstances would any one of their targets "deserve" it?
-
Basically, these kids shot at everything in their way. Under what circumstances would any one of their targets "deserve" it?
Other children who for instance had bullied these kids for years, making their lives living hell, would probably have deserved it. You're not innocent because you're under 18 or how old the bullies might have been.
-
In few cases when you question whether someone deserves something, if you consider all of the contributing factors to them doing what they did to put whether they deserved it in question, does the blame rest entirely on them. So, I think people generally mean when they say someone deserved it, they look at only the most obvious and direct reasons. (Which I support entirely in non serious issues, it isn't as much fun when you're totally fair.)
-
Sorry but I don't think bullying is an offense punishable by death.
-
Sorry but I don't think bullying is an offense punishable by death.
what about rape?
the psychological damage done to either victim is hoorendous.
they literally kill a portion of a person that is the most worth while; confidence, optimism and trust.
what kind of a future do these victims generally have?
-
Sorry but I don't think bullying is an offense punishable by death.
Not according to the law, no. But, as Hjalmar Söderberg wrote in Doktor Glas when about to poison that disgusting old pastor who legally (yes it was legal to do that in Sweden then) raped his young wife every night: "The law is ridiculous". That's my opinion too.
-
Sorry but I don't think bullying is an offense punishable by death.
what about rape?
the psychological damage done to either victim is hoorendous.
they literally kill a portion of a person that is the most worth while; confidence, optimism and trust.
what kind of a future do these victims generally have?
Same tought just 39 seconds before...+ McJ
-
Sorry but I don't think bullying is an offense punishable by death.
what about rape?
the psychological damage done to either victim is hoorendous.
they literally kill a portion of a person that is the most worth while; confidence, optimism and trust.
what kind of a future do these victims generally have?
Same tought just 39 seconds before...+ McJ
I'd be inclined to call it suicide, much as repeatedly slapping a hungry rottweiler until it shreds you is suicide. At the very least, death by misadventure.
-
Sorry but I don't think bullying is an offense punishable by death.
what about rape?
the psychological damage done to either victim is hoorendous.
they literally kill a portion of a person that is the most worth while; confidence, optimism and trust.
what kind of a future do these victims generally have?
Same tought just 39 seconds before...+ McJ
I'd be inclined to call it suicide, much as repeatedly slapping a hungry rottweiler until it shreds you is suicide. At the very least, death by misadventure.
Amen! The creeps got their justful punishment, no matter the fucking law.
-
Going on a killing spree in a school, shooting everyone in your way, isn't about justice. It's about insanity.
And no, I don't believe in capital punishment, McJ. I don't believe in the eye for an eye kind of "justice".
-
that guy was a nut. AS doesn't make anyone stab someone, nor does bullying. nor does school sucking. nor does loneliness or boredom. i've suffered from all those and i did not stab anyone. when you are capable of stabbing someone, you'd got something seriously wrong INSIDE. the outside "reasons" count not.
-
I don't find this especially funny, but wonder is AS will become stigmatized as a "violent" disorder.
Yeah, I worry about that too. :-\
-
I am capable of stabbing someone.
-
um, that's nice, Nomaken... *steps back* :P
-
that guy was a nut. AS doesn't make anyone stab someone, nor does bullying. nor does school sucking. nor does loneliness or boredom. i've suffered from all those and i did not stab anyone. when you are capable of stabbing someone, you'd got something seriously wrong INSIDE. the outside "reasons" count not.
Of course they had something seriously wrong inside them. The bullies are usually smart enough to go after pussycats, not rottweilers, but sometimes they fuck up, and pick on someone with psychotic tendencies until the person snaps.
-
Going on a killing spree in a school, shooting everyone in your way, isn't about justice. It's about insanity.
Shooting people randomly is of course wrong. I'm totally against that. But if they purposely had killed or mutilated the bullies, I would have cried out of triumph.
And no, I don't believe in capital punishment, McJ. I don't believe in the eye for an eye kind of "justice".
I do, at least an eye for an eye. Capital punishment is too easy in my opinion. The bastards don't suffer enough.
-
You gonna tell me that if you are getting attacked by someone who means to kill you obviously, and you are holding a knife, that you drop it, because you are incapable of stabbing someone?
-
that guy was a nut. AS doesn't make anyone stab someone, nor does bullying. nor does school sucking. nor does loneliness or boredom. i've suffered from all those and i did not stab anyone. when you are capable of stabbing someone, you'd got something seriously wrong INSIDE. the outside "reasons" count not.
Of course they had something seriously wrong inside them. The bullies are usually smart enough to go after pussycats, not rottweilers, but sometimes they fuck up, and pick on someone with psychotic tendencies until the person snaps.
well said, Petey. + :)
-
You gonna tell me that if you are getting attacked by someone who means to kill you obviously, and you are holding a knife, that you drop it, because you are incapable of stabbing someone?
whos this question aimed at?
-
You. Or anyone else who wants to confirm my point that not only fucked up people are technically capable of stabbing other people.
-
anyone of us is capable, i'm sure. but the thing is, over what? for self protection, or over bullying? people have different limits, some have more stretchy limits than others. the real nutty ones might snap very easily.
-
Going on a killing spree in a school, shooting everyone in your way, isn't about justice. It's about insanity.
And no, I don't believe in capital punishment, McJ. I don't believe in the eye for an eye kind of "justice".
i have always believed that the holy bible is chock full of common sense in how to live ones life well.
an eye for an eye
and spare the rod and spoil the child are two of the common sense teachings of the holy book.
do unto others, is, the golden rule.
-
Sorry but I don't think bullying is an offense punishable by death.
what about rape?
the psychological damage done to either victim is hoorendous.
they literally kill a portion of a person that is the most worth while; confidence, optimism and trust.
what kind of a future do these victims generally have?
Same tought just 39 seconds before...+ McJ
i just assumed that you were quicker since you are 9 hours ahead of me. ;)
-
i have always believed that the holy bible is chock full of common sense in how to live ones life well.
an eye for an eye
and spare the rod and spoil the child are two of the common sense teachings of the holy book.
do unto others, is, the golden rule.
:agreed:
-
Sorry but I don't think bullying is an offense punishable by death.
what about rape?
the psychological damage done to either victim is hoorendous.
they literally kill a portion of a person that is the most worth while; confidence, optimism and trust.
what kind of a future do these victims generally have?
Same tought just 39 seconds before...+ McJ
i just assumed that you were quicker since you are 9 hours ahead of me. ;)
Haha, yes, might be. ;)
-
I think he was a fairly normal kid. And the biggest difference between him and another kid is that he was able to ignore that doing this would fuck up his life just enough to actually allow him to do it. Either exposure to that reality hadn't been extensive enough to put the fear of god into him about the justice system in this country or he just managed to make himself ignore that reality while doing it.
-
Sorry but I don't think bullying is an offense punishable by death.
what about rape?
the psychological damage done to either victim is hoorendous.
they literally kill a portion of a person that is the most worth while; confidence, optimism and trust.
what kind of a future do these victims generally have?
Same tought just 39 seconds before...+ McJ
i just assumed that you were quicker since you are 9 hours ahead of me. ;)
Haha, yes, might be. ;)
since i am at such a disadvantage i have learned to think very quickly in order to remain competitive. 8)
-
If we didn't had had these cowardly gun laws here, I'd probably made my own Columbine in my upper teens, even before there ever was a Columbine in the US. :evillaugh:
Well I'm glad we have them, then.
Me too, and I still wish we had those laws here.
-
Sorry but I don't think bullying is an offense punishable by death.
:agreed:
-
that guy was a nut. AS doesn't make anyone stab someone, nor does bullying. nor does school sucking. nor does loneliness or boredom. i've suffered from all those and i did not stab anyone. when you are capable of stabbing someone, you'd got something seriously wrong INSIDE. the outside "reasons" count not.
Ditto.
-
I think he was a fairly normal kid. And the biggest difference between him and another kid is that he was able to ignore that doing this would fuck up his life just enough to actually allow him to do it. Either exposure to that reality hadn't been extensive enough to put the fear of god into him about the justice system in this country or he just managed to make himself ignore that reality while doing it.
i disagree. even if i could get away with stabbing someone, i wouldn't do it unless someone had totally pushed me over the edge and driven me insane. but i don't go around not stabbing people because i am afraid of god, i don't stab people because i would not want to cause pain to someone. not even the bullies at school.
-
I'm with Milla. I too was bullied enough to be psychologically effected by it, but I don't wish death on any of the people who bullied me. I never even fantasized about killing them or harming them in any way. If I wished anything on them, it would be the loneliness and isolation I felt, not death. For them to learn a lesson and change, not die. And people do change. Someone who bullied me and made my life miserable when I was a young kid actually gave me a hug after our high school graduation.
-
I said fear of god as a figure of speech, like the level of fear that those that have the fear of god in them have. And he probably did get so pissed people put him over the edge. Not to insanity, but to a point where he didn't mind that the rest of his life would be ruined, he needed to thrash out. If you have never experienced anger so intense you actually, for even a moment, say 'fuck the consequences, this mother fucker deserves whats coming to him', you are far from experiencing the heights of human anger.
-
I'm with Milla. I too was bullied enough to be psychologically effected by it, but I don't wish death on any of the people who bullied me. I never even fantasized about killing them or harming them in any way. If I wished anything on them, it would be the loneliness and isolation I felt, not death. For them to learn a lesson and change, not die. And people do change. Someone who bullied me and made my life miserable when I was a young kid actually gave me a hug after our high school graduation.
yet the psychological effects on you remain in your adult life.
you suffer with depression likely due to:
it would be the loneliness and isolation I felt
you have thoughts of suicide, at times.
what have they taken from you? is it fair?
-
it's not fair but that doesn't mean they should die...and there were other factors that also contributed to my depression anyway
-
I was seriously bullied at school for all of my school life. I only once retaliated, and that was when I was not eating and some girl called me fatso, even though I was not eating and was losing weight. I just kicked her as hard as I could and ran out. But my thoughts when someone upsets me can be highly violent and vicious. Although I don't think I could ever carry anything out, I have had horrible thoughts..when I am in a rage, I am in a major rage and I do end up feeling guilty for the things I say and think when in the midst of a rage. I remember many an occasion where I would smash things in my rage, often things my mother had given me, when she misunderstood me. I can well believe some with AS are capable of all kinds, but then, so are non AS people who have other issues that might cause a lack of anger control.
-
Going on a killing spree in a school, shooting everyone in your way, isn't about justice. It's about insanity.
And no, I don't believe in capital punishment, McJ. I don't believe in the eye for an eye kind of "justice".
i have always believed that the holy bible is chock full of common sense in how to live ones life well.
an eye for an eye
and spare the rod and spoil the child are two of the common sense teachings of the holy book.
do unto others, is, the golden rule.
Turn the other cheek?
-
Going on a killing spree in a school, shooting everyone in your way, isn't about justice. It's about insanity.
And no, I don't believe in capital punishment, McJ. I don't believe in the eye for an eye kind of "justice".
i have always believed that the holy bible is chock full of common sense in how to live ones life well.
an eye for an eye
and spare the rod and spoil the child are two of the common sense teachings of the holy book.
do unto others, is, the golden rule.
Turn the other cheek?
7 times 77 times, yes.
but when it is incessant, what is a person to do on the 540th time?
-
I don't believe that Jesus meant it in that way.
-
I don't believe that Jesus meant it in that way.
i see.
since you have a direct line?
-
I don't believe that Jesus meant it in that way.
i see.
since you have a direct line?
No. I wish I had a decent line, but I do believe that was his point when dying for us. Otherwise, he would have had it, about the 540th time or so, instead of stepping up to that cross.
If you have information on how many times one is supposed to turn the other cheek before giving in, however, I'd be more than happy to hear it, preferably with a pointer to the relevant passages.
-
I don't believe that Jesus meant it in that way.
i see.
since you have a direct line?
No. I wish I had a decent line, but I do believe that was his point when dying for us. Otherwise, he would have had it, about the 540th time or so, instead of stepping up to that cross.
If you have information on how many times one is supposed to turn the other cheek before giving in, however, I'd be more than happy to hear it, preferably with a pointer to the relevant passages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek
this gives a fairly unbiased argument, since it gives several interpretations.
-
I was rather hoping for a pointer to the Bible since you said it yourself that the first few times are OK but the 540th is probably not, after previously discussing the advantages of an eye for an eye. You weren't implying a figurative interpretation of the Bible then, as far as I could see.
Didn't Jesus also mention forgiveness when dying on that cross?
Oh, and by the way: When we had a discussion on Islam, many were quick to mention, and condemn, Sharia law. Why is the Old Testament's ideas about an eye for an eye OK when Sharia laws are not?
-
that you will have to take up with Litigious.
i am nbever opposed to an eye for an eye.
i do believe in some patience, but every man has his point.
-
might i add that during my readings on the subject, i found this quote:
Professional pacifism may be mere cowardice.
-
I was rather hoping for a pointer to the Bible since you said it yourself that the first few times are OK but the 540th is probably not, after previously discussing the advantages of an eye for an eye. You weren't implying a figurative interpretation of the Bible then, as far as I could see.
Didn't Jesus also mention forgiveness when dying on that cross?
Yes, forgiveness is my favorite lesson that Jesus taught. Gotta admit it feels better to forgive people rather than letting the anger of what they did to you dwell inside.
-
that you will have to take up with Litigious.
i am nbever opposed to an eye for an eye.
i do believe in some patience, but every man has his point.
Yes they do, especially if you ignore them :P or try and help them. ;D
-
I said fear of god as a figure of speech, like the level of fear that those that have the fear of god in them have. And he probably did get so pissed people put him over the edge. Not to insanity, but to a point where he didn't mind that the rest of his life would be ruined, he needed to thrash out. If you have never experienced anger so intense you actually, for even a moment, say 'fuck the consequences, this mother fucker deserves whats coming to him', you are far from experiencing the heights of human anger.
oh i am no stranger to anger. i spent about half my child and teenhood screaming at the top of my lungs. i've felt blinding anger. i've felt like killing everyone slowly anger. i've felt suicidal anger. rage. but i NEVER ever ever actually wanted to kill someone. in the moment you can be swallowed by the desire to destroy something, but the difference between an insane person and a sane person, is the power to control that desire, and to replace it with love.
sides, they said this was premeditated, which makes it much more than just a fit of anger.
-
I was rather hoping for a pointer to the Bible since you said it yourself that the first few times are OK but the 540th is probably not, after previously discussing the advantages of an eye for an eye. You weren't implying a figurative interpretation of the Bible then, as far as I could see.
Didn't Jesus also mention forgiveness when dying on that cross?
Yes, forgiveness is my favorite lesson that Jesus taught. Gotta admit it feels better to forgive people rather than letting the anger of what they did to you dwell inside.
can you honestly say that you have forgiven (let go) of the anger that you endured from YOUR persecutors?
-
yes i can
-
I was rather hoping for a pointer to the Bible since you said it yourself that the first few times are OK but the 540th is probably not, after previously discussing the advantages of an eye for an eye. You weren't implying a figurative interpretation of the Bible then, as far as I could see.
Didn't Jesus also mention forgiveness when dying on that cross?
Yes, forgiveness is my favorite lesson that Jesus taught. Gotta admit it feels better to forgive people rather than letting the anger of what they did to you dwell inside.
can you honestly say that you have forgiven (let go) of the anger that you endured from YOUR persecutors?
Kind of simple when you think about how people act the way they do for a reason, and its this reason that is your revenge.
-
That's true, flo. They often do it because they have their own issues.
-
Surely people are smart enough to see AS people get violent because they're fucking sick of being victimised. God, they must be dumb if they think we are naturally violent.
-
OK, I have been following this story since it broke.....and like other stories of a similar nature. Asperger's makes a nice simple phrase that the media can latch onto. This subhumanoid dork obviously has more issues than a porn mag. BUT, Asperger's is what the media is latching onto and running with. Like other newscasts like it, the AS storyline will fall by the wayside as his other mental health problems come out. This kid was a sociopath or psychopath like the columbine high school subhumanoids. It's already coming out that he has a very severe form of ADHD and has been obsessed with violence for some time now. His victim was in the wrong place at the wrong time, may he rest in peace. OY
-
+ for you Ozy 8)
-
might i add that during my readings on the subject, i found this quote:
Professional pacifism may be mere cowardice.
Then cowardice is a good thing.
-
I used to want to kill people, and fantasize about hurting or killing them. It sickens me to think that if I had been more resourceful I may have gone Columbine, myself. I'm certainly not proud of it and I don't think it's right. Now, there's a couple of people out there I'd like to harm, but I'd settle for non-violent endings for either of them, too- there are other forms of justice. Hurting them would also solve nothing, and either of them could flatten me, probably, so it wouldn't be a good idea, aside from the moral issues.
I don't think bullies deserve to die. Be punished, yes. I wish the kids could be prosecuted, and put in juvie or something. Not death.
-
Surely people are smart enough to see AS people get violent because they're fucking sick of being victimised. God, they must be dumb if they think we are naturally violent.
Not necesarrily so, It's easy to take incidents like these and use them to paint a false picture.
-
If we didn't had had these cowardly gun laws here, I'd probably made my own Columbine in my upper teens, even before there ever was a Columbine in the US. :evillaugh:
Well I'm glad we have them, then.
Me too, and I still wish we had those laws here.
You two seem to have missed some simple and brutal facts about life. But I just think you're naïve and I hope that you never will have to discover that the hard way, like facing an armed criminal or some authority abusing its power.
-
but i don't go around not stabbing people because i am afraid of god, i don't stab people because i would not want to cause pain to someone. not even the bullies at school.
I would. My only reason not getting even on the bullies is that I don't want to spend a decade or so of my life in prison or a nuthouse. I have no sympathy or mercy whatsoever with bullies. They know damned well what they do, when they hurt and destroy people physically and mentally.
-
but i don't go around not stabbing people because i am afraid of god, i don't stab people because i would not want to cause pain to someone. not even the bullies at school.
I would. My only reason not getting even on the bullies is that I don't want to spend a decade or so of my life in prison or a nuthouse. I have no sympathy or mercy whatsoever with bullies. They know damned well what they do, when they hurt and destroy people physically and mentally.
i am not so sure that the children or teens who bully are really aware of the damage they cause.
the school years are mostly about image. they do it because they get patted on the back for it.
however, if a few more kids with guts were to stand up to them (by any means necessary) and the media would portray it for what it is, then, i suspect that people who would bully, would think twice.
like you would think twice litigious. because you fear the consequence.
i am not condoning violence. i am just saying that there are actions that require reactions to make for change.
you never know what that will be.
-
I don't think bullies deserve to die. Be punished, yes. I wish the kids could be prosecuted, and put in juvie or something. Not death.
Put them in jail and let some adult murderers and sexual abusers beat and rape them. That would put them in contact with reality...
-
I don't think bullies deserve to die. Be punished, yes. I wish the kids could be prosecuted, and put in juvie or something. Not death.
Put them in jail and let some adult murderers and sexual abusers beat and rape them. That would put them in contact with reality...
poetic justice?
-
I don't think bullies deserve to die. Be punished, yes. I wish the kids could be prosecuted, and put in juvie or something. Not death.
Put them in jail and let some adult murderers and sexual abusers beat and rape them. That would put them in contact with reality...
Unfortunately, it would put them into contact with reality in a bad way. Most bullies are abused kids themselves. Many of thier parents also push them into being bullies.
-
You two seem to have missed some simple and brutal facts about life. But I just think you're naïve and I hope that you never will have to discover that the hard way, like facing an armed criminal or some authority abusing its power.
Lit, I think you're the naive one here. You are missing a lot, and you just won't see it, no matter how we try to explain it to you.
Incidentally, I've faced an armed criminal, and I've also faced an authority abusing its power. More than once on both accounts, I should add. Consider the possibility that you're the one missing the simple facts about life; consider the possibility that one could experience all those things and yet arrive at another conclusion.
Give peace a chance, man. All you need is love.
-
......Give peace a chance, man. All you need is love.
You would make a good candidate for a British policeman. "Stop!! Or I'll say stop again!!!"
-
......Give peace a chance, man. All you need is love.
You would make a good candidate for a British policeman. "Stop!! Or I'll say stop again!!!"
i thought....
stoner!
-
I don't think bullies deserve to die. Be punished, yes. I wish the kids could be prosecuted, and put in juvie or something. Not death.
Put them in jail and let some adult murderers and sexual abusers beat and rape them. That would put them in contact with reality...
poetic justice?
Yep. There were four subhuman scums that raped and beat up two young girls here some year ago. They either got free or got some ridiculous "punishment". One of them ended up in a mental institution, though. There he happened to meet another rapist, who raped him anally on the toilet. It's said that the guards knew about it and purposely let it happen. That's what I call poetic justice. >:D 8)
-
what ever became of the rapist who was raped?
-
what ever became of the rapist who was raped?
I heard that he had a total collaps snd had to have intense psycological treatment. 8)
-
......Give peace a chance, man. All you need is love.
You would make a good candidate for a British policeman. "Stop!! Or I'll say stop again!!!"
i thought....
stoner!
hehehe that too!!!
-
what ever became of the rapist who was raped?
I heard that he had a total collaps snd had to have intense psycological treatment. 8)
what about his initial victims; the girls. how are they?
-
what ever became of the rapist who was raped?
I heard that he had a total collaps snd had to have intense psycological treatment. 8)
what about his initial victims; the girls. how are they?
Not very well, I think. :(
-
......Give peace a chance, man. All you need is love.
You would make a good candidate for a British policeman. "Stop!! Or I'll say stop again!!!"
I'd like to reply with something you would be good at, but I can't think of anything.
-
If we didn't had had these cowardly gun laws here, I'd probably made my own Columbine in my upper teens, even before there ever was a Columbine in the US. :evillaugh:
Well I'm glad we have them, then.
Me too, and I still wish we had those laws here.
You two seem to have missed some simple and brutal facts about life. But I just think you're naïve and I hope that you never will have to discover that the hard way, like facing an armed criminal or some authority abusing its power.
No, you're the one who seems to have missed that fighting hate with hate doesn't improve anything. Facing an armed criminal wouldn't make me want a gun; it would just make me dislike guns more than I already do. I've faced authority abusing their power many times, but that doesn't mean I want to shoot them.
-
......Give peace a chance, man. All you need is love.
You would make a good candidate for a British policeman. "Stop!! Or I'll say stop again!!!"
I'd like to reply with something you would be good at, but I can't think of anything.
:laugh: Pwn3d
-
......Give peace a chance, man. All you need is love.
You would make a good candidate for a British policeman. "Stop!! Or I'll say stop again!!!"
I'd like to reply with something you would be good at, but I can't think of anything.
Then perhaps thinking isn't your forte. ::)
:laugh: Pwn3d
pwned 2 times back. :laugh:
-
i pwn myself all the time, but not when it comes to this issue
-
Never mind Scrap, QC. He's mostly target practice. ;)
-
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_8_5.gif)
-
;)
-
No, you're the one who seems to have missed that fighting hate with hate doesn't improve anything. Facing an armed criminal wouldn't make me want a gun; it would just make me dislike guns more than I already do.
If you meet an armed criminal unarmed and have bad luck, you will never more like or dislike anything...
I've faced authority abusing their power many times, but that doesn't mean I want to shoot them.
I've been and I would. If I ever get lethal cancer or get tired of life, some power-abusing cowards will wish they'd never been born.
-
i appreciate honesty.
:popcorn:
-
Well, Lit is true to his ideals but they are some very fucked-up ideals. ;)
-
No, you're the one who seems to have missed that fighting hate with hate doesn't improve anything. Facing an armed criminal wouldn't make me want a gun; it would just make me dislike guns more than I already do.
If you meet an armed criminal unarmed and have bad luck, you will never more like or dislike anything...
I'm not gonna get a gun to "protect" myself when there's a very tiny chance of something like that happening. Cowards protect themselves with guns. A better solution is to make it harder for the criminals to get the guns. And wouldn't it be embarassing if someone owned a gun to protect themselves and still got shot first by the criminal? :laugh:
-
Well, Lit is true to his ideals but they are some very fucked-up ideals. ;)
Yes indeed. Those are the kind of ideals that destroy the world rather than save it.
-
Well, Lit is true to his ideals but they are some very fucked-up ideals. ;)
Why? People aren't God because they are authority people. Not in a democracy. If they think that they are God just because have got some power, they need to be taken down on Earth. >:D
-
Well, Lit is true to his ideals but they are some very fucked-up ideals. ;)
Why? People aren't God because they are authority people. Not in a democracy. If they think that they are God just because have got some power, they need to be taken down on Earth. >:D
There, there. You should listen to John Lennon some more. The song I have in mind right now is "Power to the People". ;)
-
ley me know lit, if you need an assist. i am here for you.
-
:LMAO:
-
I'm not gonna get a gun to "protect" myself when there's a very tiny chance of something like that happening.
It might be a very tiny chance where you live and it actually is a very tiny chance where I live too, but there are places in both your country and mine where people can count on that to happen. The difference is that in most part of your country people have the precious gift to get guns like free men and use them for protecting their property and the lives of themselves and their loved ones. We don't have that right.
Even the few who actually have a license to have a gun in their homes here, which is the only place where a gun is legal to have except for at hunting and in shooting clubs, risk jail if they use the gun against burglars breaking into their homes...
Cowards protect themselves with guns.
How could it ever be cowardly to protect yourself with the same means that those who might attack you have? ???
A better solution is to make it harder for the criminals to get the guns.
A person convicted for a felony will never get a gun legally in our country. Yet they have them anyway, while most law abiding people don't even try to get a license, becuase it's too difficult and expensive and they don't know how to get a gun illegally...
And wouldn't it be embarassing if someone owned a gun to protect themselves and still got shot first by the criminal? :laugh:
I wouldn't feel embarassed if I were dead, and I'd rather have a reasonable chance to protect myself then being a slaughter sheep. Slaughter sheeps don't have guns...
-
ley me know lit, if you need an assist. i am here for you.
Thanks, man! + 8)
-
Well, Lit is true to his ideals but they are some very fucked-up ideals. ;)
Yes indeed. Those are the kind of ideals that destroy the world rather than save it.
No. What destroys the world is good people passively letting the bad people do what they want, like criminals and authority people who think they're God and can tread on the little man just because they're in charge.
-
So the argument as to why people should have guns is that other people have guns... ::)
The more people that own guns, the more people will get hurt by guns. You said yourself you would have pulled a Columbine if you'd had the means. How productive would that have been? All violence does is spread more hate and pain, and the less violence there is, the better off the world is.
Well, Lit is true to his ideals but they are some very fucked-up ideals. ;)
Yes indeed. Those are the kind of ideals that destroy the world rather than save it.
No. What destroys the world is good people passively letting the bad people do what they want, like criminals and authority people who think they're God and can tread on the little man just because they're in charge.
And guns aren't ever going to resolve that.
-
i would agree that gun powder is clearly the most influential invention in human history.
-
On a more light-hearted note, I think if I did wind up getting shot to death by a criminal, I'd pull a Patrick Swayze in Ghost...haunt the fucker and make his life miserable. ;D
-
So the argument as to why people should have guns is that other people have guns... ::)
Yes, it sounds paradoxal, but the thing is that guns will never completely go away from this planet. Therefore, decent people should always have the right to have guns, to be able to defend themselves against criminals and power-abusing governments. You see, the criminals and governments will never give up their guns voluntarily. Gun laws just disarm honest and decent people. But you and Odeon don't seem to realize that.
The more people that own guns, the more people will get hurt by guns. You said yourself you would have pulled a Columbine if you'd had the means. How productive would that have been? All violence does is spread more hate and pain, and the less violence there is, the better off the world is.
The world would have been a few bullies shorter. That's a good thing in my book. Surely the bullies' parents would feel hate and pain, but did they ever care about my pain, even if they knew about it? No.
And guns aren't ever going to resolve that.
Maybe not, but pacifism certainly won't. The USA didn't become an independent nation by some cowards sitting and talking peacefully to the Brits.
-
Never mind Scrap, QC. He's mostly target practice. ;)
Unfortunately for you, you couldn't hit the flat side of a barn from the inside with the doors closed!! :LMAO:
-
Never mind Scrap, QC. He's mostly target practice. ;)
Unfortunately for you, you couldn't hit the flat side of a barn from the inside with the doors closed!! :LMAO:
I actually saw in an old thread that he has never even fired a real gun. I at least have fired a .22 calibre rifle and a double barrel shot gun a couple of times, so I at least have the slightest clue what guns are like.
-
Lit, do you really think that was what Columbine was about? You're a sad case. Read up on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre).
-
Never mind Scrap, QC. He's mostly target practice. ;)
Unfortunately for you, you couldn't hit the flat side of a barn from the inside with the doors closed!! :LMAO:
You're far easier than that, Scrapheap, but please, try again.
*yawn*
-
i would agree that gun powder is clearly the most influential invention in human history.
In Europe it was invented by a Swede too. ;D
-
Lit, do you really think that was what Columbine was about? You're a sad case. Read up on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre).
No, maybe not Columbine, but if I had had the means to perform a school massacre I would really have tried not to kill or wound innocent people. Just the bullies who made my life a living hell would have gotten what they deserved.
-
i would agree that gun powder is clearly the most influential invention in human history.
In Europe it was invented by a Swede too. ;D
Yep, smokeless gunpowder was infact invented by Alfred Nobel. But that was before gun laws and shit. Even dynamite was free to buy for anyone. 8)
-
i would agree that gun powder is clearly the most influential invention in human history.
In Europe it was invented by a Swede too. ;D
Wait that was TNT.
-
Never mind Scrap, QC. He's mostly target practice. ;)
Unfortunately for you, you couldn't hit the flat side of a barn from the inside with the doors closed!! :LMAO:
Only because Odeon has never fired a gun, Scrapheap. ;)
-
i would agree that gun powder is clearly the most influential invention in human history.
In Europe it was invented by a Swede too. ;D
Wait that was TNT.
Dynamite. TNT was invented by a German-American named Hildebrand. 8)
-
Never mind Scrap, QC. He's mostly target practice. ;)
Unfortunately for you, you couldn't hit the flat side of a barn from the inside with the doors closed!! :LMAO:
Only because Odeon has never fired a gun, Scrapheap. ;)
All real men have fired a gun at least once in their lives. Even in Sweden. 8)
-
Did you want that flower or not, Lit? ;D
-
Lit, do you really think that was what Columbine was about? You're a sad case. Read up on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre).
The guns used by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were illegaly obtained. How does this prove any point at all??
-
Cowards protect themselves with guns.
I wasn't aware of the fact that brave people are impervious to bullets. ::)
A better solution is to make it harder for the criminals to get the guns.
I believe I've aready made this point before. How can you make it harder for CRIMINALS to get guns through a black market when we can't control our border with Mexico?? Gun smuggling from across the border would become a very lucrative market.
And wouldn't it be embarassing if someone owned a gun to protect themselves and still got shot first by the criminal? :laugh:
Emabarasing? No, Tragic? Yes
-
Never mind Scrap, QC. He's mostly target practice. ;)
Unfortunately for you, you couldn't hit the flat side of a barn from the inside with the doors closed!! :LMAO:
Only because Odeon has never fired a gun, Scrapheap. ;)
He misses with his comments as well. ;)
-
So the argument as to why people should have guns is that other people have guns... ::)
Yes, it sounds paradoxal, but the thing is that guns will never completely go away from this planet. Therefore, decent people should always have the right to have guns, to be able to defend themselves against criminals and power-abusing governments. You see, the criminals and governments will never give up their guns voluntarily. Gun laws just disarm honest and decent people. But you and Odeon don't seem to realize that.
The more people that own guns, the more people will get hurt by guns. You said yourself you would have pulled a Columbine if you'd had the means. How productive would that have been? All violence does is spread more hate and pain, and the less violence there is, the better off the world is.
The world would have been a few bullies shorter. That's a good thing in my book. Surely the bullies' parents would feel hate and pain, but did they ever care about my pain, even if they knew about it? No.
And guns aren't ever going to resolve that.
Maybe not, but pacifism certainly won't. The USA didn't become an independent nation by some cowards sitting and talking peacefully to the Brits.
Gun laws make it harder for everyone to get guns, including whack jobs who want to shoot up their schools. Why should bullies be punished by death? The punishment should fit the crime. And why should humans have the right to play God and decide who lives and dies?
I'm not talking about pacifism here. The honest truth is guns aren't doing the US any good, right now. Look at how corrupt it is right now, with Bush and his minions in power.
-
If guns get taken away, more focus will be on some other weapon. I think non lethal force should be used instead if the need for protection arises, at all times.
-
Gun laws make it harder for everyone to get guns, including whack jobs who want to shoot up their schools.
That's where you're wrong. I tell you again and again that European criminals get guns illegally easier than law abiding people get guns legally. Do you think that I'm simply lying to you or what is it that you don't understand? Yes, the stupidest criminals won't get hold of guns, but for the smarter ones--the really dangerous--it's a piece of cake. Do you find that in order? How can something be easier to get for a criminal that isn't supposed to have it at all than a law abiding person, who at least is allowed to have it on certain conditions, if even restricted? Don't you see a contradiction here? Don't you see that gun laws don't and can't work the way they're supposed to?
Why should bullies be punished by death? The punishment should fit the crime. And why should humans have the right to play God and decide who lives and dies?
The bullies destroy the minds and spirits of their victims, their self esteem, often their whole future. They don't care if their victims are mentally "dead" inside. Why do you pity the evil guys?
I'm not talking about pacifism here. The honest truth is guns aren't doing the US any good, right now. Look at how corrupt it is right now, with Bush and his minions in power.
Ehrm, GWB didn't make up your right to keep and bear arms, your Founding Fathers did.
-
If guns get taken away, more focus will be on some other weapon. I think non lethal force should be used instead if the need for protection arises, at all times.
That would be great, but sometimes non lethal force won't do.
-
If guns get taken away, more focus will be on some other weapon. I think non lethal force should be used instead if the need for protection arises, at all times.
That would be great, but sometimes non lethal force won't do.
Excuse me, I am worried about lots of things now, so I mess up.
-
"Common sense, is not very common. It is in fact quite rare." --Voltaire ::) And you people make about as much sense as a one legged man in a butt kicking contest! Fucking emo's............on both sides!
-
Violence is cowardly, especially when you use a weapon. If people are going to be violent, they should at least use kung fu or something. Even that is cowardly though. The world would be much better off if guns had never existed. Since they do, I think the best we can do is just have stricter gun laws. The screening the US has obviously isn't good enough, since a lot of crazy people and murderers are still passing them and acquiring guns legally. The more guns a country has, the more gun-related deaths. Look at New Zealand. They have what, like 4 deaths a year due to gunshot? That sounds like better protection to me.
-
Ok, and aliens are going to come kick our asses with guns and we
Violence is cowardly, especially when you use a weapon. If people are going to be violent, they should at least use kung fu or something. Even that is cowardly though. The world would be much better off if guns had never existed. Since they do, I think the best we can do is just have stricter gun laws. The screening the US has obviously isn't good enough, since a lot of crazy people and murderers are still passing them and acquiring guns legally. The more guns a country has, the more gun-related deaths. Look at New Zealand. They have what, like 4 deaths a year due to gunshot? That sounds like better protection to me.
How many other weapon deaths do they have?
-
Gun laws make it harder for everyone to get guns, including whack jobs who want to shoot up their schools.
That's where you're wrong. I tell you again and again that European criminals get guns illegally easier than law abiding people get guns legally. Do you think that I'm simply lying to you or what is it that you don't understand? Yes, the stupidest criminals won't get hold of guns, but for the smarter ones--the really dangerous--it's a piece of cake. Do you find that in order? How can something be easier to get for a criminal that isn't supposed to have it at all than a law abiding person, who at least is allowed to have it on certain conditions, if even restricted? Don't you see a contradiction here? Don't you see that gun laws don't and can't work the way they're supposed to?
Why should bullies be punished by death? The punishment should fit the crime. And why should humans have the right to play God and decide who lives and dies?
The bullies destroy the minds and spirits of their victims, their self esteem, often their whole future. They don't care if their victims are mentally "dead" inside. Why do you pity the evil guys?
I'm not talking about pacifism here. The honest truth is guns aren't doing the US any good, right now. Look at how corrupt it is right now, with Bush and his minions in power.
Ehrm, GWB didn't make up your right to keep and bear arms, your Founding Fathers did.
litigious, the columbine kids among (a lot of other crazy people) have gotten guns legally in the US and caused harm. And don't give me that crap about bullies destroying mind and spirits of their victims. That's only if the victims let them. Killing the bullies will do no good. They can't learn their lesson if their dead. It's better to find other ways to make them miserable, if you're the kind of person who does that.
Bullying is something just about everyone faces. If every bully was killed, there wouldn't be many people left. Furthermore, by killing bullies, people are just stooping to the level of the bullies, if not even lower. By letting bullies destroy your spirit, by plotting to do harm to them, you are letting the bullies win. Not to mention plotting people's deaths or even just wishing it on people isn't healthy. And I don't "pity the evil guys", I just think they deserve to learn their lesson another way.
I don't really regret what my bullies did to me as much as how I reacted because of it. I shouldn't have listened to them, and I shouldn't have let them bring me down. I do think that I'm stronger now because of my past though.
You misunderstood what I meant about the Bush thing. I know the founding fathers are the ones that gave the US the right. My point is that having guns hasn't protected the US from Bush.
-
Ok, and aliens are going to come kick our asses with guns and we Violence is cowardly, especially when you use a weapon. If people are going to be violent, they should at least use kung fu or something. Even that is cowardly though. The world would be much better off if guns had never existed. Since they do, I think the best we can do is just have stricter gun laws. The screening the US has obviously isn't good enough, since a lot of crazy people and murderers are still passing them and acquiring guns legally. The more guns a country has, the more gun-related deaths. Look at New Zealand. They have what, like 4 deaths a year due to gunshot? That sounds like better protection to me.
How many other weapon deaths do they have?
I don't know, but it's easier to hurt somebody with a gun than another weapon.
-
......The honest truth is guns aren't doing the US any good, right now. Look at how corrupt it is right now, with Bush and his minions in power.
Vocabulary word for QuirkyCarla: Non Sequitur
-
You're far easier than that, Scrapheap,......
My sex life has nothing to do with this!! :evillaugh:
-
......The honest truth is guns aren't doing the US any good, right now. Look at how corrupt it is right now, with Bush and his minions in power.
Vocabulary word for QuirkyCarla: Non Sequitur
That wasn't a non sequitur. The people who are pro-guns have stated that they need guns in case the government gets out of hand and they need to fight it. Seeing as no one has done this even with all the damage the Bush administration is causing, the guns haven't done any good.
-
......The honest truth is guns aren't doing the US any good, right now. Look at how corrupt it is right now, with Bush and his minions in power.
Vocabulary word for QuirkyCarla: Non Sequitur
That wasn't a non sequitur. The people who are pro-guns have stated that they need guns in case the government gets out of hand and they need to fight it. Seeing as no one has done this even with all the damage the Bush administration is causing, the guns haven't done any good.
This has 2 large holes in it.
Having guns to fight an oppresive Gov. is ONE of MANY reasons to own a gun. What the Bush Admin has done is bad, but not to the point of armed insurection. That would be reckless to fight the Gov. at the drop of a hat like that. Can you provide something besides shrill histrionics to back up the claim that we should?? If not, why are you bothering making this point..... it's just a red herring. It's an inapropriate course of action to any reasonable thinking person.
Second, the Americans who DO own the guns don't oppose him nearly as much as those who don't. Why are you bitching about the fact that those who DO have guns aren't doing what Queen, Lord God QuirkyCarla want's them to?? If you want them to go after Bush, you know how the saying goes, If you want something done, you have to do it yourself. ::)
Really that's a silly argument....you were better off with a non sequitur.
-
Lit, do you really think that was what Columbine was about? You're a sad case. Read up on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre).
The guns used by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were illegaly obtained. How does this prove any point at all??
Did you actually read it? Lit was implying bullying as a cause.
-
Never mind Scrap, QC. He's mostly target practice. ;)
Unfortunately for you, you couldn't hit the flat side of a barn from the inside with the doors closed!! :LMAO:
Only because Odeon has never fired a gun, Scrapheap. ;)
He misses with his comments as well. ;)
You just can't stand getting pwned. ;)
-
You're far easier than that, Scrapheap,......
My sex life has nothing to do with this!! :evillaugh:
Don't flatter yourself. ::)
-
Here's what I don't understand about Lit's and Scrap's stance on guns: They both know that guns kill. They both know that it's the only reason for their existence. Fewer guns means fewer deaths. Stricter gun laws means it's harder to get guns (that includes getting them illegally because a good gun law will restrict more than just buying guns or ammo over the counter). There are enough incidents in the US and elsewhere to demonstrate that easy access to guns will result in tragedies. Witness Columbine and many, many others.
I don't know how many times Lit and Scrap have been faced with armed criminals but judging from their posts here, it would seem like it happens just about every day. I doubt it, though; I'm not sure if either of them has actually faced an armed criminal, at all. I know Lit found use for guns, taking out his anger on road signs. He also confessed that in younger years, he could well have created a Columbine incident himself, right here in Sweden, had he had easier access to guns. In all likelihood, innocent people would have been killed or seriously hurt.
As for Scrap, I don't know. I have no idea if he shoots road signs in anger or plans to "defend" himself against bullies. I hope not.
I'm very glad that none of these two gentlemen are in any position of power here or elsewhere in the world.
-
......The honest truth is guns aren't doing the US any good, right now. Look at how corrupt it is right now, with Bush and his minions in power.
Vocabulary word for QuirkyCarla: Non Sequitur
That wasn't a non sequitur. The people who are pro-guns have stated that they need guns in case the government gets out of hand and they need to fight it. Seeing as no one has done this even with all the damage the Bush administration is causing, the guns haven't done any good.
This has 2 large holes in it.
Having guns to fight an oppresive Gov. is ONE of MANY reasons to own a gun. What the Bush Admin has done is bad, but not to the point of armed insurection. That would be reckless to fight the Gov. at the drop of a hat like that. Can you provide something besides shrill histrionics to back up the claim that we should?? If not, why are you bothering making this point..... it's just a red herring. It's an inapropriate course of action to any reasonable thinking person.
Second, the Americans who DO own the guns don't oppose him nearly as much as those who don't. Why are you bitching about the fact that those who DO have guns aren't doing what Queen, Lord God QuirkyCarla want's them to?? If you want them to go after Bush, you know how the saying goes, If you want something done, you have to do it yourself. ::)
Really that's a silly argument....you were better off with a non sequitur.
Meh. I'd elaborate further on what I mean, but no matter what I say, you're just going to twist it around.
-
Here's what I don't understand about Lit's and Scrap's stance on guns: They both know that guns kill. They both know that it's the only reason for their existence. Fewer guns means fewer deaths. Stricter gun laws means it's harder to get guns (that includes getting them illegally because a good gun law will restrict more than just buying guns or ammo over the counter). There are enough incidents in the US and elsewhere to demonstrate that easy access to guns will result in tragedies. Witness Columbine and many, many others.
I don't know how many times Lit and Scrap have been faced with armed criminals but judging from their posts here, it would seem like it happens just about every day. I doubt it, though; I'm not sure if either of them has actually faced an armed criminal, at all. I know Lit found use for guns, taking out his anger on road signs. He also confessed that in younger years, he could well have created a Columbine incident himself, right here in Sweden, had he had easier access to guns. In all likelihood, innocent people would have been killed or seriously hurt.
That's what I was trying to get across before, but they don't get it.
-
Yeah, I know. :wallbutt:
-
Violence is cowardly, especially when you use a weapon. If people are going to be violent, they should at least use kung fu or something. Even that is cowardly though. The world would be much better off if guns had never existed. Since they do, I think the best we can do is just have stricter gun laws. The screening the US has obviously isn't good enough, since a lot of crazy people and murderers are still passing them and acquiring guns legally. The more guns a country has, the more gun-related deaths. Look at New Zealand. They have what, like 4 deaths a year due to gunshot? That sounds like better protection to me.
That's the way anti-gunners falsely argue. In 2002 only 15 people were killed in crimes with guns in Sweden. On the other hand 174 Swedes blew their brains out with guns the same year, most of them did it with a legal gun. If you count suicides too in the statistics, the death rate related to guns in Sweden is about 50% of the death rate in the US, despite the fact that it's about 100 times harder to get a gun here!!! What do you say about that? That's how good gun laws "work" in reality. And, by the way, 50% more Swedes kill themselves every year all in all compared with the US, despite the fact that the American society is much tougher than the Swedish. But do you hear any authority people or reporters hysterically crying that we must get the suicide rate down? No.
-
But do you hear any authority people or reporters hysterically crying that we must get the suicide rate down? No.
But you do. Read the news--there's nothing hysterical about it, but real concern.
-
Here's what I don't understand about Lit's and Scrap's stance on guns: They both know that guns kill. They both know that it's the only reason for their existence. Fewer guns means fewer deaths. Stricter gun laws means it's harder to get guns (that includes getting them illegally because a good gun law will restrict more than just buying guns or ammo over the counter). There are enough incidents in the US and elsewhere to demonstrate that easy access to guns will result in tragedies. Witness Columbine and many, many others.
This is why, and I quote myself: --guns will never completely go away from this planet. --- the criminals and governments will never give up their guns voluntarily. Gun laws just disarm honest and decent people.
Are you so naïve that you don't realise that really gross criminals will always get guns, even if private guns are totally banned from every country on the planet? Are you even more naïve, thinking that the governments will be willing to give up their guns, once the people did? Or are you even that naïve that you think that the governments will act properly and never abuse their power, if they're the only ones allowed to have guns?
I don't know how many times Lit and Scrap have been faced with armed criminals but judging from their posts here, it would seem like it happens just about every day. I doubt it, though; I'm not sure if either of them has actually faced an armed criminal, at all. I know Lit found use for guns, taking out his anger on road signs. He also confessed that in younger years, he could well have created a Columbine incident himself, right here in Sweden, had he had easier access to guns. In all likelihood, innocent people would have been killed or seriously hurt.
If you had read my post carefully, you would have seen that it was a homemade bomb, not a gun. I blew that road sign up, because the cops were standing on the motorway fining otherwise law abiding people for violating the speed limit instead of doing their job and catching real criminals, like rapists, blackmailers, drug dealers, white slave traders etc. That road sign will cost the state at least 5 times more than I had to pay for violating the speed limit. 8) And if my dad had been a hunter or a member of a shooting club, I might have tried to make my own Columbine, yes, but I would never had shot people randomly, never.
As for Scrap, I don't know. I have no idea if he shoots road signs in anger or plans to "defend" himself against bullies. I hope not.
He has told me that he scared some low-lives trying to rob him, using his .45. What would you have done against three robbers? Sung "Give peace a chance" or "We shall overcome"?
I'm very glad that none of these two gentlemen are in any position of power here or elsewhere in the world.
I would let you arm yourself like a man, if I were in power, like they do in Vermont; you just go in and buy the gun. No licenses are needed, not even for concealed carrying. And I'm sure that Scrap would certainly make 100 times better a president than mr Bush.
-
But do you hear any authority people or reporters hysterically crying that we must get the suicide rate down? No.
But you do. Read the news--there's nothing hysterical about it, but real concern.
But whenever someone shoots someone with a gun, even an air gun, they cry hysterically, like the pussies they are. Those hypocrites wet their pants just by the thought of armed citizens.
-
If you had read my post carefully, you would have seen that it was a homemade bomb, not a gun.
I rest my case. You missed the whole point of my post, didn't you? ::)
-
If you had read my post carefully, you would have seen that it was a homemade bomb, not a gun.
I rest my case. You missed the whole point of my post, didn't you? ::)
No, you think I'm a maniac, but I'm not. If that had been the case, I would have smashed that motorcycle cop with my car when he stopped me or blown up a road sign in the middle of town instead of far out on the countryside.
-
I don't think you're a maniac, Lit. Severely misguided is more like it. ;)
-
Quit arguing about this and start arguing about something I care about. :green: ;)
-
Quit arguing about this and start arguing about something I care about. :green: ;)
OK. What do you care about? ;D
-
Quit arguing about this and start arguing about something I care about. :green: ;)
OK. What do you care about? ;D
Manga porn, young girls with cum on their faces, skin picking and biting?
-
I dunno, the value of life(human or otherwise), think of your feelings on abortion, stem cell research, veal, vegetarianism, ect.
Mostly I want you to put your enthusiastic disagreeing to some other subject because it seems like you arent getting anywhere with this issue, and i wanna read about you not getting anywhere with another issue for a while.
-
:laugh:
But... but... I just had him cornered. Not fair!
OK. Abortion, yes. Stem cell research, yes. Vegetarianism, sure, for those that prefer it. I don't.
-
:laugh:
But... but... I just had him cornered. Not fair!
OK. Abortion, yes. Stem cell research, yes. Vegetarianism, sure, for those that prefer it. I don't.
You didn't have me cornered. Explain how 174 persons could commit suicide with legal guns in Sweden 2002, if the gun laws stop instable people from getting guns. If we re-count the American figures, the victims for gun crimes (11000) would be about 360 in Sweden. The victims for gun crimes in Sweden are 10-15, maybe at most 20 a year, but the people committing suicide with legal guns are just about half the percentage of those killed in gun crimes in the US. What is your response? Total gun ban? Suicides are OK? I'm a lier? And should the governments give up their guns if all citizens did? If not, why?
-
Violence is cowardly, especially when you use a weapon. If people are going to be violent, they should at least use kung fu or something. Even that is cowardly though. The world would be much better off if guns had never existed. Since they do, I think the best we can do is just have stricter gun laws. The screening the US has obviously isn't good enough, since a lot of crazy people and murderers are still passing them and acquiring guns legally. The more guns a country has, the more gun-related deaths. Look at New Zealand. They have what, like 4 deaths a year due to gunshot? That sounds like better protection to me.
That's the way anti-gunners falsely argue. In 2002 only 15 people were killed in crimes with guns in Sweden. On the other hand 174 Swedes blew their brains out with guns the same year, most of them did it with a legal gun. If you count suicides too in the statistics, the death rate related to guns in Sweden is about 50% of the death rate in the US, despite the fact that it's about 100 times harder to get a gun here!!! What do you say about that? That's how good gun laws "work" in reality. And, by the way, 50% more Swedes kill themselves every year all in all compared with the US, despite the fact that the American society is much tougher than the Swedish. But do you hear any authority people or reporters hysterically crying that we must get the suicide rate down? No.
Since I don't live in Sweden nor have I ever been there, I don't know why the suicide rates are so high. There must be other factors contributing to that. It doesn't make sense to blame the gun restrictions for people committing suicide though.
-
:laugh:
But... but... I just had him cornered. Not fair!
OK. Abortion, yes. Stem cell research, yes. Vegetarianism, sure, for those that prefer it. I don't.
You didn't have me cornered. Explain how 174 persons could commit suicide with legal guns in Sweden 2002, if the gun laws stop instable people from getting guns. If we re-count the American figures, the victims for gun crimes (11000) would be about 360 in Sweden. The victims for gun crimes in Sweden are 10-15, maybe at most 20 a year, but the people committing suicide with legal guns are just about half the percentage of those killed in gun crimes in the US. What is your response? Total gun ban? Suicides are OK? I'm a lier? And should the governments give up their guns if all citizens did? If not, why?
I am wondering how stable these people can be if they are committing suicide?
-
Lit, I was letting it go. I was joking. We aren't really getting anywhere; you can't convince me, at all. Your arguments are hollow at best.
But OK; fewer guns will take care of both problems. If there weren't for the current restrictions, more people would commit suicide, more people would be killed by firearms. I don't understand the point with your comments. Do you think the numbers are OK? Do you find them acceptable? Are they an acceptable price to pay? I don't know if your statistics are correct; I can't be arsed to check them right now, but the exact numbers are not the point.
Did you know that the US states in the highest quartile of firearm ownership had overall homicide rates 60 per cent higher than states in the lowest quartile? Guns kill, Lit, and that fact is hard to avoid, even for you.
-
Since I don't live in Sweden nor have I ever been there, I don't know why the suicide rates are so high. There must be other factors contributing to that. It doesn't make sense to blame the gun restrictions for people committing suicide though.
No, of course it isn't the gun restrictions causing the suicides, but the suicide rate is high despite the fact that it's harder to commit suicide in a painless way in Sweden than in the US, and also despite the fact that the American society is much tougher and more brutal. But if the authorities are concerned that much about peoples lives, why do they always yell higher about the sheer fact that people own guns at all, but not over the suicide rate?
The suicide rate is much more alarming than the gun violence, but yet they are always hysterical when a single gun crime is committed, and yell about even harder restrictions or a total ban. It doesn't seem like their main concern is to protect people from hurting themselves but to prevent people from getting guns. Therefore it can be assumed, that the real reason for gun restrictions isn't care about the citizens' lives and health but merely to control that the citizens have no means of real power whatsoever vs the authorities. See what I mean?
-
I am wondering how stable these people can be if they are committing suicide?
No, of course they're not stable, and that shows that gun laws are ridiculous. A stable person can always become unstable and an unstable person can be stable enough to get a gun in a legal way. Restrictons will never stop anything and a total ban will never work.
-
Since I don't live in Sweden nor have I ever been there, I don't know why the suicide rates are so high. There must be other factors contributing to that. It doesn't make sense to blame the gun restrictions for people committing suicide though.
No, of course it isn't the gun restrictions causing the suicides, but the suicide rate is high despite the fact that it's harder to commit suicide in a painless way in Sweden than in the US, and also despite the fact that the American society is much tougher and more brutal. But if the authorities are concerned that much about peoples lives, why do they always yell higher about the sheer fact that people own guns at all, but not over the suicide rate?
The suicide rate is much more alarming than the gun violence, but yet they are always hysterical when a single gun crime is committed, and yell about even harder restrictions or a total ban. It doesn't seem like their main concern is to protect people from hurting themselves but to prevent people from getting guns. Therefore it can be assumed, that the real reason for gun restrictions isn't care about the citizens' lives and health but merely to control that the citizens have no means of real power whatsoever vs the authorities. See what I mean?
Maybe for the authorities it is about control, but I'm not the authorities. With a suicide rate that high though, Sweden definitely shouldn't make it easier to get guns.
-
I am wondering how stable these people can be if they are committing suicide?
No, of course they're not stable, and that shows that gun laws are ridiculous. A stable person can always become unstable and an unstable person can be stable enough to get a gun in a legal way. Restrictons will never stop anything and a total ban will never work.
Of course the restrictions help. If Sweden didn't have the restrictions, gun crimes and suicides would go up.
-
Lit, I was letting it go. I was joking. We aren't really getting anywhere; you can't convince me, at all. Your arguments are hollow at best.
Because I don't agree with you?
But OK; fewer guns will take care of both problems. If there weren't for the current restrictions, more people would commit suicide, more people would be killed by firearms. I don't understand the point with your comments. Do you think the numbers are OK? Do you find them acceptable? Are they an acceptable price to pay? I don't know if your statistics are correct; I can't be arsed to check them right now, but the exact numbers are not the point.
No, you can't be arsed, because your sister once was nearly killed by a gun, and that day you decided that guns are evil and should be restricted or, if possible, totally banned. You haven't even fired yourself one in your whole life. I say that restrictions don't stop the ones who want to kill themselves and are already in possess of a gun. Neither do they stop criminals who are just the slightest advanced. They only stop law abiding people who want to protect themselves from doing it legally and easily. And yes, for the sake of freedom, the numbers are acceptable. It's a pretty low price to pay. Cars, tobacco, alcohol and junk food each kill more people than guns, but that obviously doesn't bother you or other haplophobes very much.
Did you know that the US states in the highest quartile of firearm ownership had overall homicide rates 60 per cent higher than states in the lowest quartile? Guns kill, Lit, and that fact is hard to avoid, even for you.
No, I didn't know, beacuse I count by gun laws, not by percentage of guns. Percentage doesn't make sense. Vermont has the most liberal gun law in the whole US, but not the highest death rates. You should count by gun laws and not by actual percentage of guns, because your "theory" is that liberal gun laws cause gun crimes but they don't. It's criminals getting access to guns that cause most gun crimes.
-
Maybe for the authorities it is about control, but I'm not the authorities. With a suicide rate that high though, Sweden definitely shouldn't make it easier to get guns.
The suicide rate wouldn't increase that dramatically. The thing that would mainly happen would be that instead of jumping in front of trains, cutting, drowning and OD:ing themselves, more people would shoot themselves instead. And that's not a crime. I just mentioned it to point out how ridiculous and conter-productive all restrictions and bans are.
-
Fewer guns means fewer deaths.
Think long and hard about what you're saying about human nature here. :police:
Stricter gun laws means it's harder to get guns (that includes getting them illegally because a good gun law will restrict more than just buying guns or ammo over the counter).
AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN!!! This is not true!!! We can't stop 11,000,000 people from coming arcoss our borders and we sure as hell can't stop drug smuggling. How do you propose to stop guns from comming in from Mexico?? (I've made this point several time now without anyone comming up with a good answer).
There are enough incidents in the US and elsewhere to demonstrate that easy access to guns will result in tragedies. Witness Columbine and many, many others.
Columbine incidents are few an far between. Also, when you eliminate homicides related to gangs and drugs, you eliminate a large number of U.S. homicides.
I'm very glad that none of these two gentlemen are in any position of power here or elsewhere in the world.
Likewise.
-
Of course the restrictions help. If Sweden didn't have the restrictions, gun crimes and suicides would go up.
As I said, suicide would mainly change by methods, not increase dramatically. Gun crimes might go up a little bit, yes, but on the other hand law abiding people would be able to defend themselves. More criminals would be shot, though, which I really can't be sorry about.
-
Never mind Scrap, QC. He's mostly target practice. ;)
Unfortunately for you, you couldn't hit the flat side of a barn from the inside with the doors closed!! :LMAO:
Only because Odeon has never fired a gun, Scrapheap. ;)
He misses with his comments as well. ;)
You just can't stand getting pwned. ;)
The Dark Sith Lord has deluded you into thinking you pwned me. I'm too strong in the Schwartz for that!!! :vader:
-
Lit, I was letting it go. I was joking. We aren't really getting anywhere; you can't convince me, at all. Your arguments are hollow at best.
Because I don't agree with you?
No, because you're arguing for a cause that you know is wrong, deep down.
But OK; fewer guns will take care of both problems. If there weren't for the current restrictions, more people would commit suicide, more people would be killed by firearms. I don't understand the point with your comments. Do you think the numbers are OK? Do you find them acceptable? Are they an acceptable price to pay? I don't know if your statistics are correct; I can't be arsed to check them right now, but the exact numbers are not the point.
No, you can't be arsed, because your sister once was nearly killed by a gun, and that day you decided that guns are evil and should be restricted or, if possible, totally banned. You haven't even fired yourself one in your whole life. I say that restrictions don't stop the ones who want to kill themselves and are already in possess of a gun. Neither do they stop criminals who are just the slightest advanced. They only stop law abiding people who want to protect themselves from doing it legally and easily. And yes, for the sake of freedom, the numbers are acceptable. It's a pretty low price to pay. Cars, tobacco, alcohol and junk food each kill more people than guns, but that obviously doesn't bother you or other haplophobes very much.
Another one of your moronic conclusions. I didn't look up your numbers because I was working on my laptop with a relatively tiny screen and a slow connection, but also because they don't actually make a difference. They don't validate your point, at all. What's sad is that you don't see it.
1) My stance against guns has very little to do with what almost happened to my sister. 2) Fewer guns means fewer gun-related crimes. More gun restrictions means fewer gun-related violence. There are many studies that prove this, among them the Harvard study I quoted. 3) Actually, deaths related to cars, tobacco, etc bother me a lot but they belong to another discussion. Are you saying that if you were a doctor, you'd only treat the epidemics? 4) I'd like you to explain your views on freedom and your right to guns to the parents and relatives for the twelve students and one teachers that died in the Columbine massacre.
Btw, a technicality, the "law-abiding" people in Sweden wanting to "protect" themselves with guns stop being law-abiding the second they get those guns. Thankfully.
Oh, and btw, did you or did you not ever come face to face with an armed criminal?
Did you know that the US states in the highest quartile of firearm ownership had overall homicide rates 60 per cent higher than states in the lowest quartile? Guns kill, Lit, and that fact is hard to avoid, even for you.
No, I didn't know, beacuse I count by gun laws, not by percentage of guns. Percentage doesn't make sense. Vermont has the most liberal gun law in the whole US, but not the highest death rates. You should count by gun laws and not by actual percentage of guns, because your "theory" is that liberal gun laws cause gun crimes but they don't. It's criminals getting access to guns that cause most gun crimes.
Those percentages make perfect sense, actually, because we are talking about privately owned guns in people's homes. The numbers add up, as they say. And there's more in that study. A lot more. The problem here is that you don't understand, or you don't want to understand.
-
Those percentages make perfect sense, actually, because we are talking about privately owned guns in people's homes. The numbers add up, as they say.
Corellation doesn't equal causation.... There are other studies (more recent) that refute those findings.
-
Of course the restrictions help. If Sweden didn't have the restrictions, gun crimes and suicides would go up.
As I said, suicide would mainly change by methods, not increase dramatically. Gun crimes might go up a little bit, yes, but on the other hand law abiding people would be able to defend themselves. More criminals would be shot, though, which I really can't be sorry about.
::)
I highly doubt gun crimes would only go up a little bit...but we're again going nowhere by debating about this again, and as odeon said before, we should just agree to disagree.
-
I highly doubt gun crimes would only go up a little bit...
This comment along with the notion that more guns= more crime have questionable psycological underpinnings. Stop and think about what you're saying for a second. This assumes that large portions of th human race simply lack convienient MEANS to commit murder but they are all possesed of the MOTIVE and WILL to commit murder. What you are saying QC (and odeon) is that the average man (or at least a large minority of them) is a scoundrel. This stretches beyond imagination. Both of you are giving the human race undue contempt.
I have a hard time valuing an opinion which holds the human spirit with such disreguard.
-
I highly doubt gun crimes would only go up a little bit...
This comment along with the notion that more guns= more crime have questionable psycological underpinnings. Stop and think about what you're saying for a second. This assumes that large portions of th human race simply lack convienient MEANS to commit murder but they are all possesed of the MOTIVE and WILL to commit murder. What you are saying QC (and odeon) is that the average man (or at least a large minority of them) is a scoundrel. This stretches beyond imagination. Both of you are giving the human race undue contempt.
I have a hard time valuing an opinion which holds the human spirit with such disreguard.
I have a hard time valuing the opinion of someone who feels so strongly about a murder weapon and speaks condescendingly to anyone who doesn't.
-
Both of you are giving the human race undue contempt.
No, just you and Lit.
-
Questionable pschological underpinnings? oh please! :violin: This comment means exactly what it says. The more guns there are available to people the more people are apt to use them. It's common sense. You're telling me, if you were told that it is no longer against the law to murder someone and you are free to do so as you please, you wouldn't go out and kill the man that sold cocaine to your daughter? What about the guy that raped your sister? If pot was legal you, your friends, and a million other people wouldn't be purchasing a lot more a lot easier? And maybe selling it to more kids? Of course you would. It's the way we are. If my neighbor knew he could go to the five and dime (for example) and buy a semi automatic legally he might decide it's worth the drive to another town and kill his friend for whatever reason. The chances of him getting caught in another town (assuming he wasn't identified) are a lot less. He bought the gun legally and wasn't seen near the victim at the time of death. If everyone bought guns like this so easily it could have been anyone. It's not necessarily about motive or will rather it could be about reasoning. Use yours.
-
It's the way we are.
It's the way you are, maybe.
-
No, actually it's not. And my reply was in defense to you and QC's comments, not on the offense, as you suggest. I am against guns but merely stating they way the world works.
-
Questionable pschological underpinnings? oh please! :violin: This comment means exactly what it says. The more guns there are available to people the more people are apt to use them. It's common sense. You're telling me, if you were told that it is no longer against the law to murder someone and you are free to do so as you please, you wouldn't go out and kill the man that sold cocaine to your daughter? What about the guy that raped your sister? If pot was legal you, your friends, and a million other people wouldn't be purchasing a lot more a lot easier? And maybe selling it to more kids? Of course you would. It's the way we are. If my neighbor knew he could go to the five and dime (for example) and buy a semi automatic legally he might decide it's worth the drive to another town and kill his friend for whatever reason. The chances of him getting caught in another town (assuming he wasn't identified) are a lot less. He bought the gun legally and wasn't seen near the victim at the time of death. If everyone bought guns like this so easily it could have been anyone. It's not necessarily about motive or will rather it could be about reasoning. Use yours.
Good points. Litigious himself said that the US (where it's very easy to get guns, for the most part) has a lot more gun related crimes than Sweden, where it is very difficult to get a gun. Obviously, the more guns there are, the more gun related crimes there will be.
-
No, actually it's not. And my reply was in defense to you and QC's comments, not on the offense, as you suggest. I am against guns but merely stating they way the world works.
Sorry, I misread your post. :-\
-
Good points. Litigious himself said that the US (where it's very easy to get guns, for the most part) has a lot more gun related crimes than Sweden, where it is very difficult to get a gun. Obviously, the more guns there are, the more gun related crimes there will be.
It would seem to be an obvious conclusion...
-
No problem. Being Aspie can sometimes make things more difficult to interpret. As an Aspie myself, I can relate. :eyebrows:
-
No, because you're arguing for a cause that you know is wrong, deep down.
Actually, no.
Another one of your moronic conclusions. I didn't look up your numbers because I was working on my laptop with a relatively tiny screen and a slow connection, but also because they don't actually make a difference. They don't validate your point, at all. What's sad is that you don't see it.
1) My stance against guns has very little to do with what almost happened to my sister. 2) Fewer guns means fewer gun-related crimes. More gun restrictions means fewer gun-related violence. There are many studies that prove this, among them the Harvard study I quoted. 3) Actually, deaths related to cars, tobacco, etc bother me a lot but they belong to another discussion. Are you saying that if you were a doctor, you'd only treat the epidemics? 4) I'd like you to explain your views on freedom and your right to guns to the parents and relatives for the twelve students and one teachers that died in the Columbine massacre.
1) OK. That would otherwise have been a very plausible explanation.
2) But there will still a price to be paid: More unarmed citizens killed or wounded by illegally armed criminals. There is always a price to be paid, but you seem to be comfortable with the law abiding, decent people paying it rather than the criminals. Actually almost 30000 people are killed by guns yearly in the US, but 19000 of them are criminals, killing each other or being killed by the police or law abiding people shooting in self-defense. So in the US more criminals than decent people are killed by guns. In Sweden it's the opposite, since most killed by guns are people committing suicide with a legally owned gun.
3) No, but I say that if fat food causes 30-40 times more deaths than guns, it should be as restricted or even more. That puts it in the right--absurd--perspective. Give me a reason why it shouldn't. Fat food isn't made to kill people but it does and anybody knows it.
4) Sure. It's a precious right to keep and bear arms. Bringing a gun into a school is a crime, even in the US. Killing people on random is first degree murder. It has nothing to do with guns. They could have killed people with axes or machetes, though not as many, but they broke against the fundamental law that it's wrong to kill other than in self-defense. And everybody is responsible for his/her actions, in Sweden from 15 years of age, in anglosaxon countries often even earlier.
Btw, a technicality, the "law-abiding" people in Sweden wanting to "protect" themselves with guns stop being law-abiding the second they get those guns. Thankfully.
What are you talking about? You can have a gun if you have a license, it's just that a license for a pistol is extremely hard to get, and you're not allowed to carry the gun in public. But you can own a gun legally and keep it in your home. If you use it in self-defense, it's up to the court to decide whether it was self-defense or not. But since Swedish legislators, judges and jury people usually are pussies and cowards, who don't live in the real world, it might very well be you ending up in jail for killing, hurting or just scaring the poor burglar. Alas.
Oh, and btw, did you or did you not ever come face to face with an armed criminal?
No, not myself and not an armed criminal, but I know a rape victim that still is being harassed by the rapist, after that the Swedish "justice" made him pay about $3000 for raping a (then) 13 year old. That was his only "punishment" for destroying a child. And he was 10 years older, so he wasn't too young for a real punishment. The police can't/won't stop him, since he hasn't raped or committed a crime of violence again since. That victim actually wants a gun for self protection but is too young to have one, and it would anyway take 2 years(!) to get a license to have a pistol in your home according to the local shooting club. Hail the Divine Swedish Justice! Hail! ::)
Those percentages make perfect sense, actually, because we are talking about privately owned guns in people's homes. The numbers add up, as they say. And there's more in that study. A lot more. The problem here is that you don't understand, or you don't want to understand.
No, illegal guns are up to the police to stop. N.Y.C. has even harsher (local) gun laws than Sweden but much higher crime rates with guns...The question is: Do legal access to guns make the crime rate with guns raise dramatically? Have there been any "Columbines" in Vermont, where guns are totally free? No.
-
Good points. Litigious himself said that the US (where it's very easy to get guns, for the most part) has a lot more gun related crimes than Sweden, where it is very difficult to get a gun. Obviously, the more guns there are, the more gun related crimes there will be.
It would seem to be an obvious conclusion...
The crimes with guns are much less, yes, but the total killings of law abiding people is 50% of the US rate, if you count in the ones who commit suicide with a licensed gun in Sweden, about 180 people a year or one every second day. I thought you disliked all killings with guns, but suicide might be OK with you, odeon & QC? At least read my posts so well that you understand what I'm saying, even though you disagree totally in any respect of my view on the topic! ::)
-
Perhaps you should start reading our posts, Litigious. Never have I said or implied that I think suicides are OK.
Earlier, I gave you the benefit of a doubt when judging you; I believe I was wrong. You are a gun nut and dangerous--blowing up road signs and considering a Swedish version of Columbine, plus your views that a few deaths are perfectly acceptable so you can have your precious freedom, have convinced me to reconsider.
I'm glad i don't live in a country where the likes of you can get hold of firearms easily. In spite of your radical views, you belong to a minority, in more ways than one, and so your vision is probably not going to happen.
-
Perhaps you should start reading our posts, Litigious. Never have I said or implied that I think suicides are OK.
No, but the fact still remains: It's extremely hard to get a gun in Sweden compared with the US. Yet 180 persons a year kill themselves with legal guns. They're to consider law abiding. 11000 law abiding Americans are killed every year. 275 millions/9millions is about 30. Divide 11000/30=367. 367/2=183.5. The rate of law abiding people killed by arms in Sweden then will be almost exactly 50% of the US rate, despite the ridiculous and humiliating gun laws here...
Earlier, I gave you the benefit of a doubt when judging you; I believe I was wrong. You are a gun nut and dangerous--blowing up road signs
Yes, far out on the countryside, after being fined by cowardly Swedish cops for the horrible crime of violating the speed limit on the motorway...Considering the gun laws, why aren't they out catching the big fishes instead, since law abiding Swedes are made slaughter sheeps by the law? If the citizens have no right to defend themselves like free men, it's the fucking duty of the police to catch every goddamn violent criminal!
and considering a Swedish version of Columbine,
For the ones who deserved it, yes.
plus your views that a few deaths are perfectly acceptable so you can have your precious freedom, have convinced me to reconsider.
Millions of Americans share that opinion.
I'm glad i don't live in a country where the likes of you can get hold of firearms easily. In spite of your radical views, you belong to a minority, in more ways than one, and so your vision is probably not going to happen.
We'll see about that. 8)
-
And who the fuck are you to decide who deserves to be shot? You really are nuts if you seriously think you get to decide who should die and who should not.
As for statistics, go look up my old posts in the arms threads--I think I quoted enough relevant facts to dispute your, um, interpretations.
-
And who the fuck are you to decide who deserves to be shot? You really are nuts if you seriously think you get to decide who should die and who should not.
Of course I don't have an objective right to decide. But I might at least have some kind of understandable motive wanting to hurt or even kill anyone who has made my life a living hell just because they thought it was a fun thing to do and to push their own self esteem.
As for statistics, go look up my old posts in the arms threads--I think I quoted enough relevant facts to dispute your, um, interpretations.
First you can defend your stance on guns for that rape victim I mentioned. I'll be more than willing to bring your explanation. I didn't make that story up, it's the bitter reality for that person.
-
JESUS H. CHRIST, didn't the two of you have another thread to bitch slap each other on. :slap: :boxers: :deadhorse: :flames: This thread started about a punk STABBING another kid to death in a high school bathroom. Maybe we should change the name of this thread to the; "Odeon and Litigious screaming and yelling at each other thread". :violin: :poke: :GA: :zzz: Quite frankly, the two of you are boring me to death, your never going to agree on this topic, in fact if I didn't know any better, my guess is that this "discussion" is better than sex for the two of you! :tantrum: :mad: :smash: :poop: :tp: :soapbox:
Oh well, I'm getting my say in and am going to leave you two love birds to your little tete a tete. Have fun, clean up after yourselves and do turn the lights off when your through. :-*
:knight: :deadhorse: :peace:
-
Ozy +
You're right, and I'm sorry. This discussion is over.
-
JESUS H. CHRIST, didn't the two of you have another thread to bitch slap each other on. :slap: :boxers: :deadhorse: :flames: This thread started about a punk STABBING another kid to death in a high school bathroom. Maybe we should change the name of this thread to the; "Odeon and Litigious screaming and yelling at each other thread". :violin: :poke: :GA: :zzz: Quite frankly, the two of you are boring me to death, your never going to agree on this topic, in fact if I didn't know any better, my guess is that this "discussion" is better than sex for the two of you! :tantrum: :mad: :smash: :poop: :tp: :soapbox:
Oh well, I'm getting my say in and am going to leave you two love birds to your little tete a tete. Have fun, clean up after yourselves and do turn the lights off when your through. :-*
:knight: :deadhorse: :peace:
note:
smilies added for emphasis.
-
Hey, you give me the smilies and I'm gonna run with them! :evillaugh:
-
Mkay, back on topic. I think stabbing people can be used for good. And I don't like that the fact that they felt AS needed to come into play on it, since AS doesn't directly cause homicidal tendancies. I have mixed emotions about whether this situation was for good or for ill. If I had to put it to a vote I would say bad because I don't want to lose my membership to sane society. But still, some part of me feels satisfaction that at least someone in some situation actually struck out against the assholes that plagued them in school, I think to make me feel better about all the times I couldn't strike back at the assholes in school.
And I would like to make a point that I feel like this kid was relatively normal.
I don't like trying to make out people like this as insane or ignorant or stupid, or that different from us, because I think it is an attempt to lie to ourselves about human nature. Trying to tell ourselves that normal people don't get so angry that they would be willing to kill. And I think that is a foolish attitude, not only is it disrespectful to everyone who has ever been enraged(not to mention rightfully), or pushed to despair to the point of killing themselves, it is detrimental to the correction of the situation. If only crazy people kill then it isn't our responsibility to be nicer or try to give some people extra help, they're just crazy, luck of the draw.
Perhaps this kid was really crazy(to some degree) but I still don't like it when people do that, and you can see why it would be harmful to do it.
-
OK, maybe I'm missing your point, but, the victim of the stabbing DID NOT even know his attacker. BUT, the attacker had made many references to committing a violent act. The victim was NOT a bully, the victim was even known to have AS. So why do you feel the attacker was "relatively normal". ??? I have had and still have violent ideations to the jerks and bullies of my life, BUT, I AM NOT going to go into a restroom and stab an innocent person to death because of it! Does that make me "relatively abnormal"!??
This situation was not for good, an innocent boy was killed because a jerk, who happens to have AS, carried out an impulse of violence!
Maybe you can explain to me where the "good" is in this situation!
Honestly, I have hit a point where I am now "Brassed" off at I2. For the shit that passes for thought here!
-
Didn't even know him, where does it say that in the article? Plus the article says it was likely premeditated, how the fuck did he premeditate it if he didn't know him?
-
I'm talking about this kid, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/20/ap/national/mainD8MONSA00.shtml , are you thinking of a different kid?
-
I think the two of you are talking about the same kid, Nomaken. I think Ozymandias knows more about the situation than you do, perhaps.
Have you bothered to find out more about the victim, James Alenson, before you assumed that James Odgren was defending himself against a bully?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/20/slain_teenager_recalled_as_good_student_who_avoided_trouble/
Slain teenager recalled as good student who avoided trouble
By Tracy Jan and Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff | January 20, 2007
Easy-going with a shy smile, James Alenson was a good student with a dry sense of humor who got along well with peers, recalled former classmates and his former speech team coach at Wilson Middle School in Natick.
The 15-year-old Alenson, whose family had moved to Sudbury from Natick last fall, was stabbed to death yesterday morning, allegedly by another student in a boys' bathroom at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School after a dispute.
"I cannot imagine him getting into a confrontation with anybody," said Deanie Goodman, who coached the boy for two years on Wilson Middle's speech team. "He was a really sweet kid, somewhat shy, a little bit quiet, and really easy-going. I could not believe this would happen to a kid like that."
Alenson was not a master orator and had joined the speech team at his parents' urging. But he was a good sport about going to weekly practices after school and cheered his younger sister, a team member and a great speaker, Goodman said.
Former classmates said that Alenson, tall and lanky with sandy blond hair and blue eyes, kept to himself and never caused trouble. But he would not allow classmates to pick on him, often retorting back when teased, students said. They do not recall him getting into physical fights....
Please follow the link for the full article.
Here is more information about James Odgren:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/23/state_report_describes_teens_early_aggression/
State report describes teen's early aggression
Suspect's parents sought better help
By Maria Cramer, Globe Staff | January 23, 2007
In seventh grade, John Odgren had several explosive episodes, was verbally abusive, and at times became physically aggressive, his parents, specialists, and teachers said, according to a state hearing report.
Odgren, who is accused of fatally stabbing a fellow student Friday at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School, did not understand the "effect of his behavior on others," according to a decision by the state Bureau of Special Education Appeals in 2003.
His parents had argued to the state agency that their son needed better services than he had received from the Wachusett Regional School District, which had placed him in an alternative school in Fitchburg. At that school, he was so miserable he came home and "often spent evenings wrapped in a blanket, crying," one of his parents testified.
The state agreed that the placement was not appropriate and ordered Wachusett to pay for Odgren's attendance at a smaller program in Belmont that his parents had found.
The state report portrays a complex picture of Odgren, who has been charged with first-degree murder in the killing of 15-year-old James F. Alenson, a freshman at Lincoln-Sudbury. Odgren, 16, is depicted at age 12 as a highly intelligent but troubled preadolescent with poor social skills. He has a hyperactivity disorder and Asperger's disorder, a mild form of autism. Several specialists familiar with Asperger's have said that those with the condition are not more prone to violence than others.
The report, giving an overall description, said that Odgren became aggressive at times when confused or ordered to do work, but did not offer details other than to say he was suspended three times for physical aggression within a two-month period at Caldwell Alternative School in Fitchburg. His parents, at the same time, were expressing concern for his physical and emotional safety at Caldwell, whose principal declined to comment.
The report made one mention of him having "explosive episodes" in fall 2002 in Wachusett's special education program, but did not detail those. Wachusett school officials declined to comment about Odgren, citing student confidentiality.
Odgren's lawyer, Jonathan Shapiro, also declined to comment.
A pseudonym was used to describe Odgren in the state agency's report on the case; a source with knowledge of the decision confirmed that the boy described in the report was Odgren....
Please follow the link for the full article.
Here is still more information about John Odgren:
http://www.milforddailynews.com/homepage/8998991617184497663
Students say assailant talked about murder, bombs
By Richard Lodge/Daily News staff
Friday, January 19, 2007 - Updated: 11:50 PM EST
Just hours after a classmate was stabbed to death in a school bathroom, two Lincoln-Sudbury High School juniors yesterday said the student now accused of the killing often wore a trench coat to school and talked about murder, forensics and how he wanted to make a bomb.
Katie Crowley of Framingham, a junior at L-S, said a friend at the school saw the boy they knew only as "Jack" stumble into a classroom with blood on his hands shortly after the attack, saying, "It was an accident, it was an accident."
Brianna Hogge, also a junior at L-S, said "Jack" was "always asking how to get away with killing people and talking about how to make acid to make bombs. He was a really creepy kid."
Hogge said the student "was always talking about murder, overly interested in forensics and not happy things."
She said the young man had, in the past, talked to many students and some teachers about his unusual interests.
Shortly after the stabbing, school authorities and police took John Odgren, 16, of Princeton, into custody. Odgren was charged with murder, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and carrying a knife on school property and held without bail in Middlesex County Jail in Cambridge.
Crowley said she heard from friends that "Jack" "walked into East House with blood on his hands and said it was an accident.' I guess he had a straight face about it."
Please follow the link for the full article.
Also, apparently John Odgren had an extensive knife collection, although why his parents would permit this given their concerns about his violence, I can't understand:
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=178137
John Odgren is a private kid who spent hours exploring the vast woods around his secluded Princeton home, neighbors said, sometimes carrying a machete.
He is a kid who showed an “unusually strong interest†in criminal forensics and who once boasted to a fellow student about his large knife collection. And he is also the type of kid that high schoolers quickly recognize: The one who gets picked on and left out because he comes off as weird.
Acquaintances yesterday tried to make sense of the 16-year-old accused killer, who has Asperger’s syndrome, a developmental disorder.
Please follow the link for the full article.
-
No, I made my judgement on the basis of the one article listed here. But even if this kid WAS crazy, dehumanizing people who do shit to get them into the news is a bad idea.
And I didn't suggest he killed the kid in self defense, although I did assume the kid was someone he didn't like.
-
If ozy has any evidence(I would even accept "some guy told me") that the kid didn't know his attacker, I'd like to see hear about it. I'll change my attitude entirely. Because even with those articles included I don't see any reason to assume the kid DEFINITELY didn't provoke the attack in any way. Or that he definitely didn't know him. They always make out kids who die as wonderful people.
I don't really give a fuck about the dead kid one way or another. If he did provoke the attack, it makes me feel good that he retailiated, but I don't care if that was or was not the case. But I do care about people dehumanizing people who end up on the news.
-
what happens when we assume?
-
But me feeling good about it was such a minor point. It was almost not worth mentioning. It was just a small side feeling I decided to mention because I couldn't think of anything intelligent to say about it, but I wanted to get back on topic.
"I think stabbing people can be used for good."
"And I don't like that the fact that they felt AS needed to come into play on it, since AS doesn't directly cause homicidal tendancies."
"But still, some part of me feels satisfaction that at least someone in some situation actually struck out against the assholes that plagued them in school, I think to make me feel better about all the times I couldn't strike back at the assholes in school."
Were all insignificant side feelings which I decided to mention. Which is why they don't connect together well in the same paragraph.
Pay attention to what I said about dehumanizing people, that I actually intended to be significant.
-
I went back and re read some stuff about this and apparently the victim did know about his attacker, BUT, hardly at all. As for dehumanizing the attacker........well, it seems he did that to himself, all to well. As for the victim, the articles say he did not allow himself to be bullied, but, he was not a bully. Look at what is in the articles, closely, is the attacker the victim, or is the victim the victim. Either way a life was taken senselessly and now the attackers life is in shambles......except he's alive.
-
I am not trying to justify this kids murder by calling the kid who died a bully. I am feeling good about that theoretical situation because I am just plain evil.
But I am not going to believe a bunch of articles about a kid who recently died. When kids die, everyone considers it like the highest tradegy possible, and anybody publishing an article that says, "Kid dies, he was mostly normal but sometimes a jerk," would get crucified.
If nothing else I can say good came from this due to this:
(http://www.dark-sanity.com/mistakes.gif)
But the kid was still relatively normal. Until you show me an article strongly suggesting he had some kind of disorder that incurs delusions or hallucinations, that means that even if this kid was very depressed, or very angry, he was still sane.
-
http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2007/01/22/police_counselors_to_greet_students/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Education
Police, counselors to greet students
Lincoln-Sudbury to address slaying
By April Simpson and Scott Allen, Globe Staff | January 22, 2007
SUDBURY -- Students returning to Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School for the first time since the fatal stabbing of a freshman on Friday will be greeted by uniformed police officers, grief counselors, and a school assembly to discuss the tragedy before classes resume, town officials said yesterday.
The state medical examiner's office yesterday officially ruled the death of 15-year-old James Alenson a homicide, saying the boy died of multiple stab wounds suffered in the boys' bathroom just before classes were to begin. John Odgren , a 16-year-old sophomore, has been arraigned on charges of first-degree murder and weapons offenses. Police have said he told school authorities, "I did it, I did it." Police said they have also recovered a bloody knife apparently used in the attack.
During the weekend, more than 300 students and parents came to the high school for grief counseling sessions with teachers and counselors, but the chairman of the Sudbury Board of Selectmen said town and school officials wanted to do more to make students feel safe. As a result, police officers will be on duty in the halls today, opening will be delayed until 9:45, and students will immediately report for an assembly, where John M. Ritchie , the school principal and superintendent of the school district, will address the tragedy.
"Unfortunately, it's a big day for us, and we want to reassure students that the school is safe," said William J. Keller Jr. , chairman of the Sudbury selectmen.
Keller said all the evidence that he knows of suggests Alenson's slaying was an isolated act and the other 1,600 students face no risk in returning to Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School. Odgren, a special-needs student who suffers from a mild form of autism, is being held without bail pending his next court appearance, scheduled for Feb. 2.
School officials are wrestling with whether they may have missed warning signs that Odgren was at risk of becoming violent. Though school officials have said that the boy had no record of violence and he was in a program that monitors special-needs students, numerous fellow students say Odgren boasted of violence. One student said Odgren had recently told him that he had a gun at home and "once tried to kill someone."
Yesterday, Keller said the slaying is especially mystifying since there is so little evidence of a connection between the victim and the suspect. Alenson's family had moved to the district from Natick in September, while Odgren's family lives in Princeton, about 30 miles away. He was sent to the Lincoln-Sudbury school district to take advantage of the special-education program.
"We don't even know that they knew one another at all," Keller said....
Until now, officials at Lincoln-Sudbury -- an affluent suburban school district where violence is rare -- have prided themselves on offering a high school without police or metal detectors in the halls. The federal report said beefed-up security usually does not stop students who are bent on killing. Though investigators have said little about the suspect's possible motives, they say he probably planned some sort of attack since he apparently brought a knife to school and the stabbing occurred before classes had begun....
Please follow link for full article.
I also read somewhere else last night that James Alenson was a special education student too, but I can't find it right now.
-
That doesn't say whether or not they knew each other.
-
That doesn't say whether or not they knew each other.
If you believe that they knew one another, why don't you look for the evidence yourself?
-
I don't believe they knew each other. I guess that they do based mostly on the premise that he doesnt seem insane. And sane people generally don't randomly stab passing strangers. But it isn't a very strong guess. I am not putting a lot of conviction in that guess. My thoughts that this might be good if he was striking out, given all the situations I, and others like myself couldn't or wouldn't was backed by practically NO conviction. It was about as important as if I said Arby's is the king of beef based food products if they use cows with no hormones that increase growth since all the other fast food chains settle for cheaper meat.
-
If ozy has any evidence(I would even accept "some guy told me") that the kid didn't know his attacker, I'd like to see hear about it. I'll change my attitude entirely. Because even with those articles included I don't see any reason to assume the kid DEFINITELY didn't provoke the attack in any way. Or that he definitely didn't know him. They always make out kids who die as wonderful people.
I don't really give a fuck about the dead kid one way or another. If he did provoke the attack, it makes me feel good that he retailiated, but I don't care if that was or was not the case. But I do care about people dehumanizing people who end up on the news.
Ok, first you want proof from me that they didn't know each other. I looked back and found that yes, they knew each other, in a passing sense. They didn't have any kind of acquaintance. Now you don't believe that they knew each other. And where was it said that this attacker with AS was sane, as far as I'm concerned, this scumbag was a psycho who just happens to have AS. That is my opinion, so I will agree that no sane person would randomly stab another person. AS usual, the rest of your last post makes no sense. And thank you, you have just turned I2 into another AFF where it's acceptable thinking to kill Bullies wherever they are. Or that if someone has AS, they are immediately Noble for killing people just on the suspicion that the victim was a bully. I'm sure that any curebies out there that read this stuff here and on other forums are pointing and saying, "See we told you so, we should put these people away for the safety of society."
I don't understand you and I'm tired of even trying!
-
i doubt the kid had an AS dx. they are hard to get in america.
he was probably just a member of WP. so they infered that he had AS.
-
McJ+
-
McJ+
thanks O-master. but we won't know for sure until alex starts to milk it for all it is worth.
-
McJ+
thanks O-master. but we won't know for sure until alex starts to milk it for all it is worth.
It's the idea that counts. Alex is what Alex does.
-
OK, the fact is the murderer had an official dx of Asperger's. Hello, is there anyone out there! I'm from the same region as this incident, I read the Boston Globe Newspaper the day after it happened. Cynical bastard that I am, the evidence was overwhelming that BOTH the murderer and victim had AS. The murderer, obviously had a few more issues brewing in his sick little brain, or had very large CO-MORBID ISSUES than AS.
AS advocacy what a fucking cosmic joke. I know, lets all get knives and guns and kill all the Bullies that have, are and will bully us past present and future!
God, I think it's time for me to take a break!
-
Ozy, calm the fuck down. Attack somebody who actually believes killing bullies is justified.
-
OK, the fact is the murderer had an official dx of Asperger's. Hello, is there anyone out there! I'm from the same region as this incident, I read the Boston Globe Newspaper the day after it happened. Cynical bastard that I am, the evidence was overwhelming that BOTH the murderer and victim had AS. The murderer, obviously had a few more issues brewing in his sick little brain, or had very large CO-MORBID ISSUES than AS.
AS advocacy what a fucking cosmic joke. I know, lets all get knives and guns and kill all the Bullies that have, are and will bully us past present and future!
God, I think it's time for me to take a break!
Wait, where does it say the victim had AS? I'd be interested in reading it.
-
OK, the fact is the murderer had an official dx of Asperger's. Hello, is there anyone out there! I'm from the same region as this incident, I read the Boston Globe Newspaper the day after it happened. Cynical bastard that I am, the evidence was overwhelming that BOTH the murderer and victim had AS. The murderer, obviously had a few more issues brewing in his sick little brain, or had very large CO-MORBID ISSUES than AS.
AS advocacy what a fucking cosmic joke. I know, lets all get knives and guns and kill all the Bullies that have, are and will bully us past present and future!
God, I think it's time for me to take a break!
Wait, where does it say the victim had AS? I'd be interested in reading it.
I found this, which says that James Alenson and John Odgren were enrolled in a special education program:
http://www.wmur.com/news/10796194/detail.html
BOSTON -- One student died Friday after an altercation between two students enrolled in a special education program at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School.
The victim, 15-year-old James Alenson, was transported to Emerson Hospital in Concord and pronounced dead at 8:12 a.m. Alenson, of Sudbury, was a freshman at the school.
John Odgren, 16, of Princeton, Mass., pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Framingham District Court and was held without bail. During his arraignment prosecutors said that Alenson died of a stab wound to his heart, and his throat was slashed.
"The defendant stabbed him twice in the abdomen," prosecutor Daniel Bennett said. "He stabbed him first through the abdomen and then through his heart. There were cut wounds above his neck."
Bennett said that Odgren was heard saying, "I did it. I did it," when police arrived at the school.
-
"Odgren", certainly Scandinavian ancestors. Sorry, off topic.
-
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO41239/
Yes. Thank you. Though I've been joking to people who know already that I could probably get away with murder. (Not that I'd want to murder someone. Knee-to-balls a person or two, but that's it.)
-
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO41239/
Yes. Thank you. Though I've been joking to people who know already that I could probably get away with murder. (Not that I'd want to murder someone. Knee-to-balls a person or two, but that's it.)
Should we take an additional implied meaning from the implied sexism of that remark? Nevermind, I am, anyway. :laugh:
/me hides his chocolate stash from Flying Toaster
-
I hear knee'ing a chick in the groin is highly painful due to the giggling of the ovaries. I don't believe it, but I have heard it, so there is a chance knee to groin is just as effective on either sex.
-
I hear knee'ing a chick in the groin is highly painful due to the giggling of the ovaries. I don't believe it, but I have heard it, so there is a chance knee to groin is just as effective on either sex.
Nah. Guys writhe on the ground if you hurt them there.
-
I hear knee'ing a chick in the groin is highly painful due to the giggling of the ovaries. I don't believe it, but I have heard it, so there is a chance knee to groin is just as effective on either sex.
Women are tougher than men. If you want to hurt a woman, you must devote your life to the task and you could still lose and end up writhing on the ground in agony ...
It's just not recommended.
-
I really don't know. I don't know if men are pussies in that they collapse once being hit there where the same amount of pain wouldnt touch women. The pain is sharp and sudden on contact, but becomes constant and lingering after. But still, i dont know that women dont feel that kind of pain during PMS, or getting their ovaries jiggled.
-
I'm glad you explained that meant "Jiggled." I had no idea how giggling ovaries would hurt. + for making me laugh so hard it's hard to type.
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO41239/
Yes. Thank you. Though I've been joking to people who know already that I could probably get away with murder. (Not that I'd want to murder someone. Knee-to-balls a person or two, but that's it.)
Should we take an additional implied meaning from the implied sexism of that remark? Nevermind, I am, anyway. :laugh:
/me hides his chocolate stash from Flying Toaster
The people I'd really like to injure right now are both male, that's all.
-
I've heard jiggling ovaries hurting as a response to "kneeing women in the groin not hurting nearly as much" from women. I don't believe it. But there is the explanation.
-
You don't jiggle women's ovaries from kneeing women in the groin, Nomaken. If you tried it, you would only piss them off, then they would kick you there and you would be singing soprano. You can jiggle some women's ovaries sometimes from very deep penetration while you are having sex with them and that feeling would be analogous to a guy getting kneed in the groin.
-
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO41239/
Yes. Thank you. Though I've been joking to people who know already that I could probably get away with murder. (Not that I'd want to murder someone. Knee-to-balls a person or two, but that's it.)
Should we take an additional implied meaning from the implied sexism of that remark? Nevermind, I am, anyway. :laugh:
/me hides his chocolate stash from Flying Toaster
The people I'd really like to injure right now are both male, that's all.
Oh .. I see. I missed the part where you were being specific to certain males.
/me gives her a "Big Pounder" Milk Chocolate bar and a brotherly hug ... thinks for a moment and decides it's not a good time to try to cop a feel.
-
You don't jiggle women's ovaries from kneeing women in the groin, Nomaken. If you tried it, you would only piss them off, then they would kick you there and you would be singing soprano. You can jiggle some women's ovaries sometimes from very deep penetration while you are having sex with them and that feeling would be analogous to a guy getting kneed in the groin.
i have giggled a woman's ovaries before. but i am not very big.
should i take it that she was giggling at my lack of size?
-
I really don't know. I don't know if men are pussies in that they collapse once being hit there where the same amount of pain wouldnt touch women. The pain is sharp and sudden on contact, but becomes constant and lingering after. But still, i dont know that women dont feel that kind of pain during PMS, or getting their ovaries jiggled.
If women had their ovaries hanging between their legs, they'd feel just as much pain. 8)
-
I really don't know. I don't know if men are pussies in that they collapse once being hit there where the same amount of pain wouldnt touch women. The pain is sharp and sudden on contact, but becomes constant and lingering after. But still, i dont know that women dont feel that kind of pain during PMS, or getting their ovaries jiggled.
If women had their ovaries hanging between their legs, they'd feel just as much pain. 8)
Gender differences in pain tolerance (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=2637.msg109617#msg109617)