Who's worse, Adam Lanza or Andreas Lubitz?

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

Famed few on your side give a wit about the second amendment. Oversimplification? Your side would wet their pants with a repeal. But if a repeal isn't likely you'll settle for a bunch of nonsense regs that do nothing to curb mass killings by gun and do nothing to curb inner city gun violence.

Me and the NRA/you and the NRA... Like I said, you are far more a gun nut than me.

I see you still haven't found a way to work BENGHAZI!! ! into the scenario...really disappointed in you. How can you call yourself a conservative?

I do find it amusing that the only time a conservative actually cares about anything happening in "inner cit[ies]" is when they can use statistics on gun violence to try to show that good white people aren't the problem...<- Did it again, fight fire with fire I guess?

It's just more of the same from you. You don't want to discuss, you want to insult. Have at it Be the best intertubz warrior you can be.

Fwiw, I've been discussing the inner city issue on this forum pretty much since I got here. Interesting NPR article;

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/02/39686...-support-carrying-legal-guns-for-self-defense

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

You stupidly overlook that the regulation set-up to ensure that an airplane doesn't kill, or is used to kill, which is designed as a mode of transportation, is far more rigorous; than the regulation set-up to protect society from guns, even though they are designed for this purpose.

So now it's not the design but the regs? You guys need to make up your minds.

Btw, how'd those regs work out in this case? Not too good.

I called this a few days ago but you do realize political correctness and union protection will be at the root of this, right? Regs don't hold a candle.

Your usual diverson tactic. What has the fact that the regulations didn't function in this case to do with them being obsolete?

Let us then deregulate everything. Say it if you have the balls.

Lookey here, you miss the point again.

No, I hit the mark. Is it mental atrophy, or are you really just that dumb? At any rate Scott, you never respond to what was actually said. Try it sometime. If you dare.

I typically don't respond when you make *** up or come to *** conclusions or just flat out float strawmen like this;

"Let us then deregulate everything."

If you don't understand my point then just ask me to type slower and I'll do it.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

Famed few on your side give a wit about the second amendment. Oversimplification? Your side would wet their pants with a repeal. But if a repeal isn't likely you'll settle for a bunch of nonsense regs that do nothing to curb mass killings by gun and do nothing to curb inner city gun violence.

Me and the NRA/you and the NRA... Like I said, you are far more a gun nut than me.

I see you still haven't found a way to work BENGHAZI!! ! into the scenario...really disappointed in you. How can you call yourself a conservative?

I do find it amusing that the only time a conservative actually cares about anything happening in "inner cit[ies]" is when they can use statistics on gun violence to try to show that good white people aren't the problem...<- Did it again, fight fire with fire I guess?

It's just more of the same from you. You don't want to discuss, you want to insult. Have at it Be the best intertubz warrior you can be.

Fwiw, I've been discussing the inner city issue on this forum pretty much since I got here. Interesting NPR article;

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/02/39686...-support-carrying-legal-guns-for-self-defense

That post went completely over your head. Completely.

As for African Americans support of one side or the other, I've often said that if we started a movement to arm every African American with a assault rifles, you'd see more gun laws being enacted, in a quicker time period, than any time in our history.<- More of the same. Lets see if you pick up on the intent this time.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

Famed few on your side give a wit about the second amendment. Oversimplification? Your side would wet their pants with a repeal. But if a repeal isn't likely you'll settle for a bunch of nonsense regs that do nothing to curb mass killings by gun and do nothing to curb inner city gun violence.

Me and the NRA/you and the NRA... Like I said, you are far more a gun nut than me.

I see you still haven't found a way to work BENGHAZI!! ! into the scenario...really disappointed in you. How can you call yourself a conservative?

I do find it amusing that the only time a conservative actually cares about anything happening in "inner cit[ies]" is when they can use statistics on gun violence to try to show that good white people aren't the problem...<- Did it again, fight fire with fire I guess?

It's just more of the same from you. You don't want to discuss, you want to insult. Have at it Be the best intertubz warrior you can be.

Fwiw, I've been discussing the inner city issue on this forum pretty much since I got here. Interesting NPR article;

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/02/39686...-support-carrying-legal-guns-for-self-defense

That post went completely over your head. Completely.

As for African Americans support of one side or the other, I've often said that if we started a movement to arm every African American with a assault rifles, you'd see more gun laws being enacted, in a quicker time period, than any time in our history.<- More of the same. Lets see if you pick up on the intent this time.

That's a movement I could get behind. The African American community would be much better able to defend themselves from predator gangs and as an added bonus white police would be needed far less frequently reducing negative interactions. Then all we'd need to to is guarantee a 4X poverty wage for all working age adults and you'd see economic growth and prosperity like never before. Once the AA community reaches super solid economic footing then their voting patterns wil certainly change. The first order of business of course would be to help the community elect presidents with conservative credntials so that when new Supremes are nominated they will be solidly pro life. Once Roe v Wade is overturned then the African American community will not only thrive - they will be a major economic force.

Don't get me started on education.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Latest news is that Lubitz did internet searches on suicide and cockpit door security just before the fateful day. If he was looking for different methods of commiting suicide, perhaps he chose the plane crash as the quickest, easiest, and most certain and therefore the primary purpose wasn't to kill 149 innocent people. In this case we could possibly conclude he was "less worse" than Lanza, who's primary mission appeared to be killing children.

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

You stupidly overlook that the regulation set-up to ensure that an airplane doesn't kill, or is used to kill, which is designed as a mode of transportation, is far more rigorous; than the regulation set-up to protect society from guns, even though they are designed for this purpose.

I just bought 4 new weapons. No problems.

Trying to buy a ticket to Japan as we speak over the interwebz. Mucho problemo

God bless you. Let us know about Japan.

God bless merikah. haha

Seriously I bought no weapons was just being sarcastic. The Japan part was the truth. I had a heck of a time to get that done.

 

[frenchfry]

Re: Re:

God bless merikah. haha

Seriously I bought no weapons was just being sarcastic. The Japan part was the truth. I had a heck of a time to get that done.

You didn't fool me about the gun buying thing.

Serious question: is it easier to buy guns or go to Japan?

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

You stupidly overlook that the regulation set-up to ensure that an airplane doesn't kill, or is used to kill, which is designed as a mode of transportation, is far more rigorous; than the regulation set-up to protect society from guns, even though they are designed for this purpose.

So now it's not the design but the regs? You guys need to make up your minds.

Btw, how'd those regs work out in this case? Not too good.

I called this a few days ago but you do realize political correctness and union protection will be at the root of this, right? Regs don't hold a candle.

Your usual diverson tactic. What has the fact that the regulations didn't function in this case to do with them being obsolete?

Let us then deregulate everything. Say it if you have the balls.

Lookey here, you miss the point again.

No, I hit the mark. Is it mental atrophy, or are you really just that dumb? At any rate Scott, you never respond to what was actually said. Try it sometime. If you dare.

I typically don't respond when you make **** up or come to *** conclusions or just flat out float strawmen like this;

"Let us then deregulate everything."

If you don't understand my point then just ask me to type slower and I'll do it.

You still haven't addressed what was said Scott. Try it sometime. *** conclusions? That's just rich, coming from the one who is the king of *** conclusions, the master of idiocy and the most proficient in imbecility.

You are trying to say that since the airline regulations didn't work in this case, this is a demonstration of the futility of increasing gun regulations. Now, apart from this simply being insane cretinism, you only evidence what is driving your asinine worldview. Government regulations are evil, stupid and useless, especially when they infringe upon my right to have access to whatever type of firearm I damn well please.

What's more since people die for all types of reasons that don't involve guns - holy sh!t, accidents, what a brilliant observation! - there is thus no reason to change the existing gun laws, because the fact that someone goes out to intentionally kill with a firearm is of no consequence whatsoever, given that more people die in car crashes each year.

It is difficult alone to try to think with such moronic reasoning, let alone express it in words.

The horrific recurrence of mass murder with firearms legally bought in the US, or the idea that an armed citizenry doesn't lead to more gun violence, but rather makes us all safer, even when all the evidence demonstrates otherwise, further emphasizes the lunacy. Especially now that we know, mass murder can be achieved through other means.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

You stupidly overlook that the regulation set-up to ensure that an airplane doesn't kill, or is used to kill, which is designed as a mode of transportation, is far more rigorous; than the regulation set-up to protect society from guns, even though they are designed for this purpose.

So now it's not the design but the regs? You guys need to make up your minds.

Btw, how'd those regs work out in this case? Not too good.

I called this a few days ago but you do realize political correctness and union protection will be at the root of this, right? Regs don't hold a candle.

Your usual diverson tactic. What has the fact that the regulations didn't function in this case to do with them being obsolete?

Let us then deregulate everything. Say it if you have the balls.

Lookey here, you miss the point again.

No, I hit the mark. Is it mental atrophy, or are you really just that dumb? At any rate Scott, you never respond to what was actually said. Try it sometime. If you dare.

I typically don't respond when you make **** up or come to *** conclusions or just flat out float strawmen like this;

"Let us then deregulate everything."

If you don't understand my point then just ask me to type slower and I'll do it.

You still haven't addressed what was said Scott. Try it sometime. *** conclusions? That's just rich, coming from the one who is the king of *** conclusions, the master of idiocy and the most proficient in imbecility.

You are trying to say that since the airline regulations didn't work in this case, this is a demonstration of the futility of increasing gun regulations. Now, apart from this simply being insane cretinism, you only evidence what is driving your asinine worldview. Government regulations are evil, stupid and useless, especially when they infringe upon my right to have access to whatever type of firearm I damn well please.

What's more since people die for all types of reasons that don't involve guns - holy sh!t, accidents, what a brilliant observation! - there is thus no reason to change the existing gun laws, because the fact that someone goes out to intentionally kill with a firearm is of no consequence whatsoever, given that more people die in car crashes each year.

It is difficult alone to try to think with such moronic reasoning, let alone express it in words.

The horrific recurrence of mass murder with firearms legally bought in the US, or the idea that an armed citizenry doesn't lead to more gun violence, but rather makes us all safer, even when all the evidence demonstrates otherwise, further emphasizes the lunacy. Especially now that we know, mass murder can be achieved through other means.

You are trying to say that since the airline regulations didn't work in this case, this is a demonstration of the futility of increasing gun regulations. Now, apart from this simply being insane cretinism, you only evidence what is driving your asinine worldview. Government regulations are evil, stupid and useless, especially when they infringe upon my right to have access to whatever type of firearm I damn well please.

Is that what I'm saying? No, actually I'm saying that your reaction to Lubitz action is quite different to Lanza's. Why? Not the result, not the cause but the method. I'm not against more stringent gun regs - particularly background and psych screening. I don't want crazy people to have access to guns anymore than I want criminals to.

It might be important for you to be honest here. Tell me why your hackle's are only up when there's a mass killing by some nut with a rifle? Why not when dozens and dozens are shot every weekend of the year in inner city gang related violence? I know why, I'm just wondering if you'll admit.

What's more since people die for all types of reasons that don't involve guns - holy sh!t, accidents, what a brilliant observation! - there is thus no reason to change the existing gun laws, because the fact that someone goes out to intentionally kill with a firearm is of no consequence whatsoever, given that more people die in car crashes each year.

You're conflating. Intentional action isn't an accident.

It is difficult alone to try to think with such moronic reasoning

You do it very well. Just re-read your post.

The horrific recurrence of mass murder with firearms legally bought in the US

Pales in comparison to the handgun violence happening everyday in poor inner cities. Where's your outrage?

Especially now that we know, mass murder can be achieved through other means.

Now that we know??

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

You stupidly overlook that the regulation set-up to ensure that an airplane doesn't kill, or is used to kill, which is designed as a mode of transportation, is far more rigorous; than the regulation set-up to protect society from guns, even though they are designed for this purpose.

So now it's not the design but the regs? You guys need to make up your minds.

Btw, how'd those regs work out in this case? Not too good.

I called this a few days ago but you do realize political correctness and union protection will be at the root of this, right? Regs don't hold a candle.

Your usual diverson tactic. What has the fact that the regulations didn't function in this case to do with them being obsolete?

Let us then deregulate everything. Say it if you have the balls.

Lookey here, you miss the point again.

No, I hit the mark. Is it mental atrophy, or are you really just that dumb? At any rate Scott, you never respond to what was actually said. Try it sometime. If you dare.

I typically don't respond when you make **** up or come to *** conclusions or just flat out float strawmen like this;

"Let us then deregulate everything."

If you don't understand my point then just ask me to type slower and I'll do it.

You still haven't addressed what was said Scott. Try it sometime. *** conclusions? That's just rich, coming from the one who is the king of *** conclusions, the master of idiocy and the most proficient in imbecility.

You are trying to say that since the airline regulations didn't work in this case, this is a demonstration of the futility of increasing gun regulations. Now, apart from this simply being insane cretinism, you only evidence what is driving your asinine worldview. Government regulations are evil, stupid and useless, especially when they infringe upon my right to have access to whatever type of firearm I damn well please.

What's more since people die for all types of reasons that don't involve guns - holy sh!t, accidents, what a brilliant observation! - there is thus no reason to change the existing gun laws, because the fact that someone goes out to intentionally kill with a firearm is of no consequence whatsoever, given that more people die in car crashes each year.

It is difficult alone to try to think with such moronic reasoning, let alone express it in words.

The horrific recurrence of mass murder with firearms legally bought in the US, or the idea that an armed citizenry doesn't lead to more gun violence, but rather makes us all safer, even when all the evidence demonstrates otherwise, further emphasizes the lunacy. Especially now that we know, mass murder can be achieved through other means.

You are trying to say that since the airline regulations didn't work in this case, this is a demonstration of the futility of increasing gun regulations. Now, apart from this simply being insane cretinism, you only evidence what is driving your asinine worldview. Government regulations are evil, stupid and useless, especially when they infringe upon my right to have access to whatever type of firearm I damn well please.

Is that what I'm saying? No, actually I'm saying that your reaction to Lubitz action is quite different to Lanza's. Why? Not the result, not the cause but the method. I'm not against more stringent gun regs - particularly background and psych screening. I don't want crazy people to have access to guns anymore than I want criminals to.

It might be important for you to be honest here. Tell me why your hackle's are only up when there's a mass killing by some nut with a rifle? Why not when dozens and dozens are shot every weekend of the year in inner city gang related violence? I know why, I'm just wondering if you'll admit.

What's more since people die for all types of reasons that don't involve guns - holy sh!t, accidents, what a brilliant observation! - there is thus no reason to change the existing gun laws, because the fact that someone goes out to intentionally kill with a firearm is of no consequence whatsoever, given that more people die in car crashes each year.

You're conflating. Intentional action isn't an accident.

It is difficult alone to try to think with such moronic reasoning

You do it very well. Just re-read your post.

The horrific recurrence of mass murder with firearms legally bought in the US

Pales in comparison to the handgun violence happening everyday in poor inner cities. Where's your outrage?

Especially now that we know, mass murder can be achieved through other means.

Now that we know??

You are even dumber than I thought.

Scott part of my outrage is in fact directed at the horrific amount of handgun violence in the inner cities, which is precisely why a change in the culture of violence is necessary. And my writings make this quite clear, if they are read impartially. Merica's cult of a "right to bear firearms" is part of the reason why US cities statistically have the highest rate of gun crime in the developed world. The sheer numbers are stagaring, even if they have somewhat diminished of late. It doesn't take a genius to see the connection.

But what, pray tell, does the fact that instances of mass murder with guns also being greater in America than elsewhere, have anything to do with not being outraged with the violent state of existence in US inner cities? Even if you have gotten it wrong again, on that score. You see this is precisely where the imbecility resides in your thinking. Both instances are calls for outrage as I have said, just as both are reasons to strike hard at the gun lobby in the country and the culture of violence upon which it thrives. The nation has been hoodwinked Scott.

I was referring to the millions of accidental deaths caused by human error or stupidity, which, however, are no reason to not try and prevent gun violence and the intentional acts (in other words, not accidental) that this presupposes. Again since you are too stupid to see the point, then this obviously explains why you would idiotically assume I was alluding to Lubitz. But I really can't help you on that one.

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

People who support the carrying of guns are either crazy or evil. They are designed for killing, even when they are carried for self defense it is the threat of killing that makes them of any use in self defense. All guns in the world, every single one of them, should be destroyed. As should many other machines designed for the killing of other humans. It will not stop all killing but it will leave humans with far less efficient means of killing each other.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Guys, is this really a thread where we're discussing airline safety and mental illness anymore, or has it just delved into another political thread with the topic about gun control? Because we already have one of those threads where much of this can, and should be discussed.

 

[Jspear]

Re:

People who support the carrying of guns are either crazy or evil. They are designed for killing, even when they are carried for self defense it is the threat of killing that makes them of any use in self defense. All guns in the world, every single one of them, should be destroyed. As should many other machines designed for the killing of other humans. It will not stop all killing but it will leave humans with far less efficient means of killing each other.

I'm one happy crazy evil person.
That's a very broad statement. Do you believe it is an evil thing to hunt a deer?

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

People who support the carrying of guns are either crazy or evil. They are designed for killing, even when they are carried for self defense it is the threat of killing that makes them of any use in self defense. All guns in the world, every single one of them, should be destroyed. As should many other machines designed for the killing of other humans. It will not stop all killing but it will leave humans with far less efficient means of killing each other.

I'm one happy crazy evil person.
That's a very broad statement. Do you believe it is an evil thing to hunt a deer?

always thought so..after seeing your posts in God and Religion

It is evil to kill a deer for sport, entertainment, IMHO.

 

[frenchfry]

Re: Re:

People who support the carrying of guns are either crazy or evil. They are designed for killing, even when they are carried for self defense it is the threat of killing that makes them of any use in self defense. All guns in the world, every single one of them, should be destroyed. As should many other machines designed for the killing of other humans. It will not stop all killing but it will leave humans with far less efficient means of killing each other.

I'm one happy crazy evil person.
That's a very broad statement. Do you believe it is an evil thing to hunt a deer?

20 million deer in the USA, more than 300 million guns. That would be more than 15 guns per deer. Some people would call that overkill.

 

[VeloCity]

Re: Re:

People who support the carrying of guns are either crazy or evil. They are designed for killing, even when they are carried for self defense it is the threat of killing that makes them of any use in self defense. All guns in the world, every single one of them, should be destroyed. As should many other machines designed for the killing of other humans. It will not stop all killing but it will leave humans with far less efficient means of killing each other.

I'm one happy crazy evil person.
That's a very broad statement. Do you believe it is an evil thing to hunt a deer?

If you hunt solely for the practical reason of putting food on the table, fine, but anyone who enjoys killing something for the sheer joy of killing is mentally ill, yes. Why not hunt with a camera, dude? Exact same process. But it's the thrill of the kill, eh?

 

[VeloCity]

Re: Re:

Latest news is that Lubitz did internet searches on suicide and cockpit door security just before the fateful day. If he was looking for different methods of commiting suicide, perhaps he chose the plane crash as the quickest, easiest, and most certain and therefore the primary purpose wasn't to kill 149 innocent people. In this case we could possibly conclude he was "less worse" than Lanza, who's primary mission appeared to be killing children.

Yes, but because Lanza used a gun. No need to look further.

Lanza used a weapon designed to kill... to kill. Lubitz used a vehicle designed for transportation to kill.

The end result is mass death at the hands of mentally ill perps but the design of the instrument used makes all the difference.

Yep. Guns are designed for no other purpose than to kill. Which is exactly why they should be heavily regulated and controlled.

 

[Jspear]

always thought so..after seeing your posts in God and Religion

It is evil to kill a deer for sport, entertainment, IMHO.

Some of you guys are funny. I don't even own a gun and I don't even hunt. I was just pointing out how silly the post that I originally quoted was. There is obviously nothing morally wrong with hunting for food...and many do it for practical reasons. Of course that isn't what is being discussed here, just used it as an example.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

WARNING!

Since my last post was ignored, here it goes again, as I'm about to close this thread unless someone can give me a good reason not to.

Is this still a thread where we're discussing airline safety and mental illness anymore, or has it just delved into another political thread with the topic about gun control? Because if we do not focus on the former, this belongs in the US or World Politics threads.

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

always thought so..after seeing your posts in God and Religion

It is evil to kill a deer for sport, entertainment, IMHO.

Some of you guys are funny. I don't even own a gun and I don't even hunt. I was just pointing out how silly the post that I originally quoted was. There is obviously nothing morally wrong with hunting for food...and many do it for practical reasons. Of course that isn't what is being discussed here, just used it as an example.

I hunt fish with a hook and line, although it is usually called fishing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with killing any animal (whales included) for food. Killing for pleasure is wrong.

However we need to get back to the topic of airlines.

People have implicitly blamed the regulations around who is in the cockpit of the aircraft. It has caused a real change in those regulations in Australia at least where there now needs to be two people in the cockpit at anyone time.

However this kind of blame is not claiming the responsibility for the deaths belongs to those regulations or those who wrote them. The blame is that of Lubitz. However if they can be improved to stop those who might want to so in the future then that is a good thing.

When comparing that to guns, the gunman is responsibility but if regulating access to guns (idealy in my view there complete destruction) can be done to prevent people wanting to kill others from getting access to highly efficient killing machines then it should be done.

So on one hand everything possible is being done to stop people from getting control of aircraft with the intent of using that aircraft to kill, not everything possible is being done to people getting control of these highly efficient killing machines to kill lots of people. Instead there is this ridiculous view among many that bearing arms is in some way a good thing.

 

[VeloCity]

always thought so..after seeing your posts in God and Religion

It is evil to kill a deer for sport, entertainment, IMHO.

Some of you guys are funny. I don't even own a gun and I don't even hunt. I was just pointing out how silly the post that I originally quoted was. There is obviously nothing morally wrong with hunting for food...and many do it for practical reasons. Of course that isn't what is being discussed here, just used it as an example.

I hunt fish with a hook and line, although it is usually called fishing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with killing any animal (whales included) for food. Killing for pleasure is wrong.

However we need to get back to the topic of airlines.

People have implicitly blamed the regulations around who is in the cockpit of the aircraft. It has caused a real change in those regulations in Australia at least where there now needs to be two people in the cockpit at anyone time.

However this kind of blame is not claiming the responsibility for the deaths belongs to those regulations or those who wrote them. The blame is that of Lubitz. However if they can be improved to stop those who might want to so in the future then that is a good thing.

When comparing that to guns, the gunman is responsibility but if regulating access to guns (idealy in my view there complete destruction) can be done to prevent people wanting to kill others from getting access to highly efficient killing machines then it should be done.

So on one hand everything possible is being done to stop people from getting control of aircraft with the intent of using that aircraft to kill, not everything possible is being done to people getting control of these highly efficient killing machines to kill lots of people. Instead there is this ridiculous view among many that bearing arms is in some way a good thing.

Here in the US it essentially boils down to this:

Pilot intentionally crashes a plane, killing 150 people: we will do whatever we can to try to prevent it from happening again.

Kid kills 24-25 people with a gun: we will do absolutely nothing to try to prevent it from happening again.

 

[blackcat]

dont gun sales actually rise in America when there is one of these mass shootings?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Re:

dont gun sales actually rise in America when there is one of these mass shootings?

Along with talk of arming teachers.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

God bless merikah. haha

Seriously I bought no weapons was just being sarcastic. The Japan part was the truth. I had a heck of a time to get that done.

You didn't fool me about the gun buying thing.

Serious question: is it easier to buy guns or go to Japan?

Well simple answer is to buy tickets to Japan.

But from what I have seen and personally witnessed at gun shows - it is easier to buy a gun from a gun show than it is to buy tickets to japan online.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

WARNING!

Since my last post was ignored, here it goes again, as I'm about to close this thread unless someone can give me a good reason not to.

Is this still a thread where we're discussing airline safety and mental illness anymore, or has it just delved into another political thread with the topic about gun control? Because if we do not focus on the former, this belongs in the US or World Politics threads.

I had not caught up on this thread and this post ---otherwise I would not have replied to FrenchFry. Sorry Alpe.

Dammmm the PLANE! If this kid would not have access to a plane then all would be good now. Maybe he would had his kitchen knife but from the looks of him he would not have done much harm to 149 people with a kitchen knife.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Re:

WARNING!

Since my last post was ignored, here it goes again, as I'm about to close this thread unless someone can give me a good reason not to.

Is this still a thread where we're discussing airline safety and mental illness anymore, or has it just delved into another political thread with the topic about gun control? Because if we do not focus on the former, this belongs in the US or World Politics threads.

I think the premise was a discussion of all of the salient points, gun control, airline safety, and mental illness, with regard to the reaction to awful events that tied any two of those together. The point that I can see being made is that in the USofA more people are upset by the plane thing because we all have to fly on those, be it work or pleasure, whereas the gun violence is such a normal part of our (USA again) news coverage lives that it is easier to have that "won't happen to me" attitude.