Virginia Tech Shootings - Gun Debate

[No Limit]

I'm not understanding you. What sob story?

You say this whole thing is unfair. The fact is these people are here to do jobs nobody thats here legally seems to want to do. So if you think that's so unfair you have the perfect opportunity here, you just have to figure out how to get to Warez and I'll help you out with the rest.

As far as taxes go I'm ok, 20 percent of their income really isn't that much. If big corporations can avoid paying taxes I'm sure we can let it slide in their case. They give back enough by doing great work on our backyards and keeping those toilets extra clean.

Just as a side note, how many people come in here legally has absolutely no effect on how many Visas we give out. That number has stayed consistent for a very long time, it has nothing to do with the amount of mexicans that come to this country illegally.

So are you coming over or not? We could certianly use the extra labor. But don't get your hopes up, you seem to think you will be provided with a middle class job, trust me, it will be no where close to middle class.

 

[No Limit]

It has nothing to do with what I think of this situation. It has to do with you bitching about how unfair it is. I am pointing out to you there is nothing unfair about it, come on over.

 

[Tyguy]

Doesnt change the fact that the country suffers as a result of it. Get past the whole "poor you, you cant feed your kids" thing, and it boils down to a man not paying his taxes....

If a rich guy neglected his taxes he would be in jail...so why is it different for illegal immigrants...because they are poor?

 

[CptStern]

Yet according to one of your own links, the crime rate is higher now than it was in 1986 - and the gun ban has been around since the 1970s. Regression to the mean, anyone?

now now lets not avoid the issue/derail it into something we were not discussing ...murder rate is not the same as crime rate ..you said washington is the murder captial not whether it has higher crime rate ..which covers everything from assault to mass murder

Chart

Incidentally, I just noticed that the DC gun ban was repealed in March.

yup

DC crime stats since 1960

As you can plainly see, murder and violent crime skyrocketed in DC since the gun ban. It has come down a lot over the years, but it is still higher than it was before the gun ban, and the city remains far more dangerous than most places in America.
So how again is the gun ban saving lives?

you're not reading it right (remember we're talking about Murders not crime in general); look at the number of murders per year ..been dropping since 1994 .look at the year it was first implemented: 1975 ..noticeable drop in number of murders till the late 80's when there was a dramatic spike but has been declining ever since ..your link supports my point more than it does yours

 

[No Limit]

Doesnt change the fact that the country suffers as a result of it. Get past the whole "poor you, you cant feed your kids" thing, and it boils down to a man not paying his taxes....

If a rich guy neglected his taxes he would be in jail...so why is it different for illegal immigrants...because they are poor?

So your only beef with illegals coming over here is that they don't pay their taxes on their shitty incomes? If that's the case I think Bush has a plan out there right now to take care of that.

 

[leib10]

Doesnt change the fact that the country suffers as a result of it. Get past the whole "poor you, you cant feed your kids" thing, and it boils down to a man not paying his taxes....

If a rich guy neglected his taxes he would be in jail...so why is it different for illegal immigrants...because they are poor?

Truth. I think the United States has absolutely zero obligation to take care of these freeloaders. Neither does Mexico have the right to push them on us since they're obviously incapable of taking care of them. That's their problem, and not ours.

 

[No Limit]

you're not reading it right (remember we're talking about Murders not crime in general); look at the number of murders per year ..been dropping since 1994 .look at the year it was first implemented: 1975 ..noticeable drop in number of murders till the late 80's when there was a dramatic spike but has been declining ever since ..your link supports my point more than it does yours

As a side note, the spike in the 80s probably has to do with crack cocaine. The 80s is when the crack problem in poor black areas of the country sky rocketed. So if guns were or weren't legal there would have been a spike in that time period. I haven't looked at the stats but Im sure if you look at poor areas throughout the rest of the country the same occured in that time period.

 

[CptStern]

Truth. I think the United States has absolutely zero obligation to take care of these freeloaders. Neither does Mexico have the right to push them on us since they're obviously incapable of taking care of them. That's their problem, and not ours.

ya that must be it ..Mexico actively pushes them out and into the US ..Tijuana is full of posters printed by the goverment forcing the poor to illegally cross the border ..shut up..

TOPIC PEOPLE: guns in america

 

[repiV]

now now lets not avoid the issue/derail it into something we were not discussing ...murder rate is not the same as crime rate ..you said washington is the murder captial not whether it has higher crime rate ..which covers everything from assault to mass murder

I was mainly talking about the murder and violent crime rates, which show the trends I have been discussing.

yup

So it will be interesting to have this discussion again in a few years' time.

you're not reading it right (remember we're talking about Murders not crime in general); look at the number of murders per year ..been dropping since 1994 .look at the year it was first implemented: 1975 ..noticeable drop in number of murders till the late 80's when there was a dramatic spike but has been declining ever since ..your link supports my point more than it does yours

Don't look at the total numbers, look at the numbers per 100,000 population below. Neither violent crime nor gun crime dropped - if you compare 1974 with 1975 then yes murder experiences a big drop, but look back a few years and the 1974 figure is abnormally high compared to the average. 1975 has the same murder rate as 1972, for example.

 

[Tyguy]

So your only beef with illegals coming over here is that they don't pay their taxes on their shitty incomes? If that's the case I think Bush has a plan out there right now to take care of that.

Having millions upon millions of them not paying their taxes....yes. What do you think that does to the economic stability? Like Leib said, its not our obligation to take these people in.


haha, ya...back to guns

 

[repiV]

It has nothing to do with what I think of this situation. It has to do with you bitching about how unfair it is. I am pointing out to you there is nothing unfair about it, come on over.

Of course it's unfair. It's a great big **** you to all the law-abiding people who want to immigrate legally. I'm an educated, talented salesperson who belives in the core American values and would assimilate very well into somewhere outside of the Bible Belt. I would contribute a lot to the American economy and respect and become a part of US culture instead of undermining it as the Mexican influx is doing - so why is it that I don't have a hope in hell of getting a work permit?

 

[No Limit]

It certainly isn't our obligation but somebody has to do all these shitty jobs we all don't seem to want to do. As soon as white people start cleaning houses, doing landscaping, and working in construction you will see a stop to the illegal immigration problem. If there are no jobs for people have here there will be no point in comming over here. There's your solution to the problem. Anyway back on topic. Wouldn't mind a discussion on this though, maybe someone should volunteer to make a new thread.

 

[repiV]

It certainly isn't our obligation but somebody has to do all these shitty jobs we all don't seem to want to do. As soon as white people start cleaning houses, doing landscaping, and working in construction you will see a stop to the illegal immigration problem. If there are no jobs for people have here there will be no point in comming over here. There's your solution to the problem. Anyway back on topic. Wouldn't mind a discussion on this though, maybe someone should volunteer to make a new thread.

We don't have any problem finding white people to clean houses, do landscaping and work in construction over here. I can't find any evidence behind your assertion that there would be nobody to do these jobs if it wasn't for the Mexican saviours, it's just another one of those soundbites that people say without thinking.

 

[CptStern]

I was mainly talking about the murder and violent crime rates, which show the trends I have been discussing.

no you said washington is the murder captial of ameica ..that's all I was addressing ..you just chose to include crime in general to try to win your case by default ..well no, it's not the murder captial of the US

So it will be interesting to have this discussion again in a few years' time.

why wait? the figures are right there: drop in murders the VERY year the law was enacted

Don't look at the total numbers, look at the numbers per 100,000 population below. Neither violent crime nor gun crime dropped - if you compare 1974 with 1975 then yes murder experiences a big drop, but look back a few years and the 1974 figure is abnormally high compared to the average. 1975 has the same murder rate as 1972, for example.

ahem:

It is the murder capital of the US, and by a considerable margin.

again we're talking about number of murders ..crime rate doesnt distinguish between weapon of choice and I'm not willing to look it up for you as this subject bores me to tears ..mostly because of the circular logic and cherry picking information to suit people's stances

 

[repiV]

no you said washington is the murder captial of ameica ..that's all I was addressing ..you just chose to include crime in general to try to win your case by default ..well no, it's not the murder captial of the US

No, I didn't mean crime in general. I said "crime rate" because I thought it would be obvious what I was talking about.

why wait? the figures are right there: drop in murders the VERY year the law was enacted

It means nothing without context. The very year the law was enacted, the murder rate was the same as it was two years before it was enacted. So there is no significant difference.

ahem:

again we're talking about number of murders ..crime rate doesnt distinguish between weapon of choice and I'm not willing to look it up for you as this subject bores me to tears ..mostly because of the circular logic and cherry picking information to suit people's stances

Ok, as I can see it's not quite the murder capital of the US, but it's damn close. And the murder rate still hasn't dropped down to pre-1974 levels. There is no evidence here whatsoever that the gun ban has reduced murders.

 

[No Limit]

We don't have any problem finding white people to clean houses, do landscaping and work in construction over here. I can't find any evidence behind your assertion that there would be nobody to do these jobs if it wasn't for the Mexican saviours, it's just another one of those soundbites that people say without thinking.

Really? Let me guess, you've never lived in this country, have you? Oh, thats right you haven't yet you accues me of not thinking? Grow up.

Its pretty simple really, you can make minimum wage cleaning toilets, doing landscaping or construction, or you can make minimum wage flipping burgers or operating a cash register. Which will you choose? That's whats great about this country, there are minimum wage jobs everywhere so you actually get a choice at what shitty work you want to do for that money. But that leaves a lot of businesses that have even shitter jobs without a work force. Like I said make a new topic about it, if not I can do it later.

 

[repiV]

Really? Let me guess, you've never lived in this country, have you? Oh, thats right you haven't yet you accues me of not thinking? Grow up.

Its pretty simple really, you can make minimum wage cleaning toilets, doing landscaping or construction, or you can make minimum wage flipping burgers or operating a cash register. Which will you choose? That's whats great about this country, there are minimum wage jobs everywhere so you actually get a choice at what shitty work you want to do for that money. But that leaves a lot of businesses that have even shitter jobs without a work force. Like I said make a new topic about it, if not I can do it later.

You didn't say make a new topic about it, unless you edited it in and I didn't see.
The same applies here, although the job market is a lot tougher. You're just making assumptions and saying "have you LIVED here??" when the same factors apply to my own country. So what evidence do you have to prove that the US needs 12 million Mexicans? And if it did, why the amnesty? Won't they just use their legal status to get better jobs thus bringing you back to square one?

 

[No Limit]

I haven't made a new topic, I asked anyone else to do it. If you want I can make one but it will have to be later.

I have no idea what applies in your country, I've neveer lived there and the only time I've been there (the UK right?) was about 30 minutes at an airport. However, I do know that here in this country people would much rather live on welfare than work at a shitty job cleaning toilets for $5 an hour before taxes. So somebody has to fill that gap, and those 12 million mexicans are the only ones that seem to be able to do it.

Plus again, I really don't understand why you are so worried about our immigration policies. I already pointed out to you that they aren't unfair, you can come over here as soon as you buy a plane ticket to Warez. And in addition it has nothing to do with how many legal visas we give out on an annual basis. So again, why are you so worried about this?

 

[repiV]

I haven't made a new topic, I asked anyone else to do it. If you want I can make one but it will have to be later.

Go ahead. I'm in no hurry.

I have no idea what applies in your country, I've neveer lived there and the only time I've been there (the UK right?) was about 30 minutes at an airport. However, I do know that here in this country people would much rather live on welfare than work at a shitty job cleaning toilets for $5 an hour before taxes. So somebody has to fill that gap, and those 12 million mexicans are the only ones that seem to be able to do it.

Yes, a lot of people would rather do the same here too. Although it runs a lot deeper than that because our welfare system is a lot more extensive and pretty easy to cheat. It also punishes people for trying to get out of their rut, as I experienced when trying to find my first job (took five months - that's what socialist employment policy combined with a high-tech service economy does to first jobbers I'm afraid). Basically if I worked more than 16 hours in any one week my benefits would be cancelled and if I wanted to get any more money I'd have to fill in all the forms all over again and have my claim reassessed from scratch. Which meant that taking a few days' temp work was a real pain in the arse, but that's all I could get at the time.
Still, we don't need an army of illegal immigrants to do the shitty work.

Plus again, I really don't understand why you are so worried about our immigration policies. I already pointed out to you that they aren't unfair, you can come over here as soon as you buy a plane ticket to Warez. And in addition it has nothing to do with how many legal visas we give out on an annual basis. So again, why are you so worried about this?

It's unfair on everyone except the rich. It's unfair on the working classes who are having their wages and quality of life slashed or losing their sources of income because the illegals will undercut them massively. It's unfair on the taxpayer because they have access to the country's social services without paying any money into them, thus putting them under enormous strain.
It's unfair on the American public because American culture is being undermined and Spanish is becoming the de-facto second language through a completely undemocratic process, and ghettoisation is likely to follow if it hasn't already. Also because of the vast amounts of extra criminal activity that comes across the border.
It's unjust to people like me who want to get into the country legally and have a lot to offer.
It's unfair on the Mexicans who get exploited and ****ed over.
The ones who really benefit from this situation are big corporations like Walmart. Effectively, it's ensuring that the gap between rich and poor gets ever wider.

As a libertarian capitalist, I don't support this from any perspective whatsoever, so as a socialist how can you possibly condone it?

 

[CptStern]

No, I didn't mean crime in general. I said "crime rate" because I thought it would be obvious what I was talking about.

crime in general = crime rate ..ok to clarify ..felonies are included in crime rate misdemeanors are not ...which wasnt what I was suggesting


ok are we looking at the same chart because there was a significant drop in the murder rate from 1975 to 1976 the year the ban was enacted: 32.8 vs 26.8 ..whether it was the same as 1972 is telling in that it the trend was reversing itself ..up until that point the murder rate was steadily climbing ..the murder rate and number of murders continued to decline in subsequent years after the law was enacted with a brief spike that corrected itself. the fact that the rate was rising up until the point where the ban was enacted and subsequently either declined or remain the same ..obviously the gun ban had some effect

Ok, as I can see it's not quite the murder capital of the US, but it's damn close.

"Close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades

And the murder rate still hasn't dropped down to pre-1974 levels. There is no evidence here whatsoever that the gun ban has reduced murders.

what are you talking about there is plenty of evidence ..a drop in the number of murders since the gun law was enacted ..and again are we looking at the same chart? the number of murders and crime rate is reverting to within a few points of 1975

 

[repiV]

crime in general = crime rate ..ok to clarify ..felonies are included in crime rate misdemeanors are not ...which wasnt what I was suggesting


ok are we looking at the same chart because there was a significant drop in the murder rate from 1975 to 1976 the year the ban was enacted: 32.8 vs 26.8 ..whether it was the same as 1972 is telling in that it the trend was reversing itself ..up until that point the murder rate was steadily climbing ..the murder rate and number of murders continued to decline in subsequent years after the law was enacted with a brief spike that corrected itself. the fact that the rate was rising up until the point where the ban was enacted and subsequently either declined or remain the same ..obviously the gun ban had some effect

In the 1960s, the murder rate was far, far lower than it has EVER been since 1974. It reached, as you mentioned, a shockingly high peak in the 1980s and now it's still higher than it generally was in the years leading up to 1974.

what are you talking about there is plenty of evidence ..a drop in the number of murders since the gun law was enacted ..and again are we looking at the same chart? the number of murders and crime rate is reverting to within a few points of 1975

Yeah, a drop, followed by a gain, followed by a drop, followed by a MASSIVE gain, followed by another drop. It doesn't wash. And if banning guns is so beneficial, why is there not so much of a difference as to be both indisputable and massive? Why is DC not one of the safest cities in America instead of one of the most dangerous?

 

[Tagaziel]

In my opinion, real guns should be banned. ASGs are a different case entirely

 

[CptStern]

In the 1960s, the murder rate was far, far lower than it has EVER been since 1974. It reached, as you mentioned, a shockingly high peak in the 1980s and now it's still higher than it generally was in the years leading up to 1974.

I'm sure if you compare the murder rate in my city to that of 1960 it would be much higher today ..doesnt prove anything

Yeah, a drop, followed by a gain, followed by a drop, followed by a MASSIVE gain, followed by another drop. It doesn't wash. And if banning guns is so beneficial, why is there not so much of a difference as to be both indisputable and massive? Why is DC not one of the safest cities in America instead of one of the most dangerous?

again it's not washington but rather the district of columbia ..look:

The population of the District of Columbia, as of 2006 United States Census Bureau estimates, is 581,530 persons.[1] The Washington Metropolitan Area is the eighth largest in the United States with more than five million residents

here look at the map ..the district of columbia is smack dab in the middle of the Washington ..it was just a matter of crossing the street to get to one side of the gun control issue into the other

 

[repiV]

I'm sure if you compare the murder rate in my city to that of 1960 it would be much higher today ..doesnt prove anything

The statistics certainly don't prove that the gun ban has reduced gun crime. They are far too inconsistent and sketchy to prove any such effect.

again it's not washington but rather the district of columbia ..look:

here look at the map ..the district of columbia is smack dab in the middle of the Washington ..it was just a matter of crossing the street to get to one side of the gun control issue into the other

Erm, I thought DC was on the east coast and was actually nowhere near Washington State at all.

Fact is I can go to anywhere in America with hardly any restrictions on guns and the chances are it will be a whole lot safer than Washington DC. Not exactly a great victory for gun control.

 

[leib10]

I will say one more thing about the immigration issue, and then I'm done since we're off-topic.

One thing a lot of people don't consider (sometimes you have to see it firsthand) is that these people who come over are nearly always Mexican first, and American second. They LOVE to denigrate and criticize the US, while at the same time taking advantage of every benefit it has to offer. Meanwhile, they are very supportive of Mexico, even though it failed to provide them with enough to have a halfway decent life. It is one of the most hypocritical things I've ever witnessed. Most cars around here have Mexican banners hanging from the rear view mirror, and during those immigration protests a year and a half ago it really showed where the sympathies of these people laid.

They categorically refuse to assimilate into American culture, rather thinking that America should assimilate to their culture. They refuse to learn the English language (making it very difficult for people like me, a non-Spanish speaker, to communicate with half the people we meet in this city) and basically expect to be catered to every step of the way, despite not contributing anything to society other than skipping on their taxes or siphoning welfare away.

There is an ever-deepening rift between these people and true Americans, and this will probably become a more serious problem as time goes on and more people come into the country illegally.

 

[CptStern]

The statistics certainly don't prove that the gun ban has reduced gun crime. They are far too inconsistent and sketchy to prove any such effect.

yes it does; specifically that there was a drop in murders ..there is no disputing this ..now whether it was gun related well I'll leave it for someone else to research ..but again seeing as how the district of coulmbia was literally surrounded by other burbs insured they could not control the flow of weapons into the city ..it's not like every road had a check point

Erm, I thought DC was on the east coast and was actually nowhere near Washington State at all.

yes but we're not talking about the state of washington but rather look at the map I provided ..the district of columbia is part of the greater washington area ..not washington state:

Washington, D.C. is the capital city of the United States of America. "D.C." is an abbreviation for the District of Columbia, the federal district coextensive with the city of Washington

Fact is I can go to anywhere in America with hardly any restrictions on guns and the chances are it will be a whole lot safer than Washington DC. Not exactly a great victory for gun control.

again the numbers may have dropped since 1975 but JUST IN DC not the surrounding areas that had no such ban ..guns easily flow from one side into the other

 

[repiV]

yes it does; specifically that there was a drop in murders ..there is no disputing this ..now whether it was gun related well I'll leave it for someone else to research ..but again seeing as how the district of coulmbia was literally surrounded by other burbs insured they could not control the flow of weapons into the city ..it's not like every road had a check point

That there was a drop in murders from one year to the next taken in isolation means NOTHING. It's not scientific, it wouldn't pass any kind of statistical scrutiny, and completely ignores the fact that as a wider trend, there appears to be no significant difference. It's cherry-picking of the most obvious kind.

yes but we're not talking about the state of washington but rather look at the map I provided ..the district of columbia is part of the greater washington area ..not washington state:

I see - I didn't realise DC had a Greater Washington area surrounding it.

again the numbers may have dropped since 1975 but JUST IN DC not the surrounding areas that had no such ban ..guns easily flow from one side into the other

Then you are essentially admitting that banning guns in DC is an exercise in futility?

 

[CptStern]

That there was a drop in murders from one year to the next taken in isolation means NOTHING. It's not scientific, it wouldn't pass any kind of statistical scrutiny, and completely ignores the fact that as a wider trend, there appears to be no significant difference. It's cherry-picking of the most obvious kind.

yes but it wasnt a bump but rarther a trend that lasted a decade

I see - I didn't realise DC had a Greater Washington area surrounding it.

yes, 10 times it's size

Then you are essentially admitting that banning guns in DC is an exercise in futility?

I'm sure it was designed to fail ..and again yes but not for the reasons your suggesting ..but because 4,500,000 live on it's borders so any hope of truely having a gun safe zone is next to nil

 

[repiV]

yes but it wasnt a bump but rarther a trend that lasted a decade

How?
If anything, the 1974 level of murder was a bump and the trend is indicated a few years further back than that. As you can see it hadn't reached that level since the records began and didn't reach it again until 1989. It's not a good yardstick.

yes, 10 times it's size

I'm sure it was designed to fail ..and again yes but not for the reasons your suggesting ..but because 4,500,000 live on it's borders so any hope of truely having a gun safe zone is next to nil

Best to stop using legislation to try and control everything, then.

 

[kathaksung]

Kathaksung, I think you're being very inconsiderate and downright cruel to the people who died that day. Don't you have any qualm about using their deaths to spread your inane drivel? A word of advice: Don't post conspiracies about what 'really' happened here. Morally, it's really low to use peoples' deaths for propaganda. In other words: Let it go, now.

To find the real killer is the most respect to the dead people in this plot. A word of advice: Don't throw stones at the revelation post. It only blow off the cover up mask from your face. Read the following message, let people see what is your true face.

------------

487. Informants troop (6) (5/28/07)

8. Cho was under surveillance

If you used to get up at 7:am, when your family member get up before 5.a.m. would you follow up him(her)? Generally, people would go on with their sleep. Do you have habit to follow up your family member to the bathroom? Generally people don't bother others in bathroom unless there is emergency.

Re: " "Caught in the backlash", (ACLU reported on 11/13/01),

Charlotte Wu, a 20 years old student of UC Berkley, was visited by 3 policemen of camps about one month after 911 last year. It's about 30 minutes after she finished a phone call. In phone call, she instructed her friends how to play an internet game. It's a spy game. Player must put bomb at the foot of wall to break it. Policemen questioned her why she talked about spy and bomb on the phone. At last, she had to go to her friend's place with police to clarify it. Lucky enough, her friend was still playing that spy and bomb game.

Charlotte Wu never talked to policemen for all her 19 years experience. (She was 19 then) She was very scare and wonder how could police know what she said in phone call. Policemen didn't explain.

She may never know her phone is under surveillance if she hadn't talked about spy and bomb.

http://www.aclunc.org/911/backlash/wu.html

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/nation/4519596.htm

(I learned this from "World Journal" of 11/14/2002 in which it said Ms. Wu still didn't know how police could know her phone call one year later. Several days later a message told me it was reported by her suite-mate. I am surprised at that for the whole year Ms. Wu hadn't got an explanation from police, now when it became a news, they said it was from an informer. Some response said it was Echelon or Carnivore. So despite of the surveillance system on communication, there maybe a surveillance net of informant? No wonder Ashcroft proposed TIPS programme of one million informants.)

There were other cases indicated informant are everywhere.

In July, 2006, news reported the Miami terror cell case. In which FBI sent an informant, disguised as Al Qaida messenger, to direct the group to attack FBI office throughout the country.

In May, 2007, news reported the extremists group plotted to attack Fort Dix. In which FBI sent an informant to offer the group the assault rifles.

Remember, FBI doesn't have a crystal ball which can tell it where there is a terror cell. There must be a surveillance net gave it the information. So before Feds could send out a directive informant to set up the case, there was an informer there already.

From above samples, we know how densely and thickly the informant are used. Each dorm of the university or about average six people there is one informer. This is a spy country.

In July 2002, former Attorney General Ashcroft announced Operation TIPS in which government will recruit one million mail carriers, utility readers..... to be informants to report suspicious event. . I at first wondered how could the Feds recruit one million people in a short period. How big is US Army? One million and something. It's almost another Pentagon to recruit one million informants. Then as I get familiar with Feds, I knew they have that informant troops already. Operation TIPS is only an attempt to turn one million of that troops from the underground to formal establishment.

Cho Seung Hui's behave in bathroom at about 5 a.m. on 4/16/07 was recorded either by a needle point camera or some people's mind. It means he was under close surveillance that particular day. Because he would play an important role in the coming tragedy - a scapegoat of the massacre. Feds didn't want their plan go wrong.

(to be continued)

 

[Nemesis6]

The real killer is Cho Seung Hui. How are you not getting this? By the way, what the hell are you talking about with me having a mask on? I don't have a mask on. That would be impractical and uncomfortable. Listen: There is no conspiracy here, there's no government cover-up, and there are no Illuminati, Jew Lizards involved; in other words, this is not 9/11; No Illuminati Jew Lizards here.

 

[HunterSeeker]

It does not matter who the real killer is, fact is if the killer had used a knife far fewer would have died that day.

 

[Nemesis6]

Right. But by making the school a gun-free zone, they robbed themselves of any chance to stop the assailant.

 

[Tagaziel]

Right. But by making the school a gun-free zone, they robbed themselves of any chance to stop the assailant.

Wrong. By refusing to lockdown the campus and not informing the student about the gunman they robbed themselves of any chance to excape the assailant.

You don't treat syphillis with AIDS, do you?

 

[Absinthe]

Wrong. By refusing to lockdown the campus and not informing the student about the gunman they robbed themselves of any chance to excape the assailant.

Dead on.

How in holy Hell can anybody see this as an issue of guns instead of stupidity?

 

[Nemesis6]

Mikael, they did inform the students. But why they only did it when he entered the main building remains a puzzle to me.

 

[Tagaziel]

Via e-mail. Not everyone has a habit of checking their e-mail two times per hour, do they?

A simple PA about a gunman on the loose on the campus grounds would at least make the students aware of the risk.

 

[Jintor]

Someone was arguing with me about why they didn't do that. Ah yes! The shooting in the dormitories was deemed a one-off incident and the gunman was presumed to have fled the campus, from what i recall. Unfortunately they were wrong.

If there was a time when massive paranoia DIDN'T come into effect...

 

[kathaksung]

The real killer is Cho Seung Hui. How are you not getting this? By the way, what the hell are you talking about with me having a mask on? I don't have a mask on. That would be impractical and uncomfortable. Listen: There is no conspiracy here, there's no government cover-up, and there are no Illuminati, Jew Lizards involved; in other words, this is not 9/11; No Illuminati Jew Lizards here.

A man with mask will never admit the cover on his face is a mask. When he thought people don't know that's a mask then it's practical. And it's comfortable for him when he got his tips from his master. Do you agree?

---------------

488. S.S.G. and Cho Seung Hui (7) (6/3/07)

9. Cho was recruited as S.S.G.

Informants used to watch and report other people in daily life. But when there is an operation, they will be called to look out, to be "reliable witness", even take part in the operation. Their name then are "Special Support Group".

Re: ," The FBI Special Support Group , or SSG (They're nicknamed G's), supposedly does much of the routine work for the Bureau, leaving the FBI agents themselves free to pursue more important matters. ...

They usually work part-time, and earn about $5,000.00 - $10,000.00 per year or more. The FBI doesn't advertise the existence of the SSG, but it's no big secret either. The reality of the Special Support Group is much different than the "released" information. SSG teams regularly harass and even menace people on the FBI's Black List. ...

The FBI calls this harassment "dangling," and they do it on a regular basis to people who frequently have committed no offense other than to have drawn the ire of the Bureau. Many SSG's are of the lowest caliber of human life, especially those chosen for excessive harassment of innocent citizens. Far too often SSG teams consist of bullies, perverts, racists and ex-convicts and other dregs whose sole purpose is to drive people crazy and ruin their lives. If one of their victims snaps and tears one of them up, the bloodied G will press charges, perjure himself if confronted with his FBI affiliation, and the victim is locked up. Mission accomplished. That's one reason why the FBI is not very open about the SSG. This is just one of the many questionable and outright illegal activities that the FBI uses our tax dollars for. The very people sworn to uphold our Civil Rights are perhaps the most flagrant violators. If you attend a protest rally, or otherwise call attention to yourself, don't be surprised if you start seeing the same bizarre group of people showing up everywhere you go, bothering you and behaving like psychotic clowns."

http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/tradecencrimes/page447.html

Harassing people is only the open side S.S.G.does. Covertly they used to support Feds in their operation: Muhammad and Malvo were accused of as the snipers in DC sniper shooting spree. They were also accused of involved in a murder case in Alabama. In that case, two women were shot when they closed a liquor store at night. One died, one seriously wounded. When patrol police arrived, they saw Muhammad was searching the victim's purse, with a handgun in his right hand. Malvo was about 50 yards away, possibly acting as a lookout. When police chased Muhammad through a parking lot, a blue car darted out to block the way of police. Muhammad thus escaped. Later, law enforcement agent proved the woman died of a rifle shot which was used in DC sniper shooting later.

So, in Alabama case, there were more people involved: the real gunman with a rifle. (Muhammad holding a handgun) and the man who drove the car to block police's chasing. Muhammad and Malvo were possible sacrifice. They worked in front line: checking the victim and looking out. Took the risk to be arrested. Muhammad may also have another job: to be thorough on victims. That was to kill the undead. The seriously wounded woman was lucky enough that police car arrived on time. Or her wound was so serious (shoot at neck) that Muhammad thought she was dead. (see: "115. The third leg in Alabama shooting case. (2/17)")

I think Cho Seung Hui was recruited as an informant and played the same role Muhammad and Malvo played in Alabama case. He was instructed to buy a handgun and then was ordered to practice it in a shooting ranch in March, all purposed to take part in the Virginia Tech. shooting operation. I reached this conclusion after I read another news.

(to be continued)

 

[-Psy-]

Oh em gee people, let's call Batman and KiTT to help solve mysteries!