Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Another shooting
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16116
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:43 am    Post subject: Another shooting Reply with quote

Prevented. Security did their job, no one hurt.

Bars have security. Corporations have security. Banks have security. Schools?

You only floss the teeth you want to keep, and I guess secure that which you value.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:41 am    Post subject: Re: Another shooting Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Prevented. Security did their job, no one hurt.

Bars have security. Corporations have security. Banks have security. Schools?

You only floss the teeth you want to keep, and I guess secure that which you value.

No one hurt? Prevented? Tooth analogy?
One man dead. Not prevented just contained. Dentures are analogous to what in this case: zombie children? :P
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16116
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But something touched me deep inside, the day that stupid died. So bye, bye, dumb drunk ass guy.

Yes, no one was hurt.

I mentioned nothing about dentures, but as close as I can tell, since teeth are something protected if valued, that would make dentures the equivalent of an insurance settlement?
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not much information in the article to explain why he received a gunshot to the head.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Not much information in the article to explain why he received a gunshot to the head.

Maybe he was so wasted he forgot which was the business end of the gun?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1227
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.arrse.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=94435&d=1350468426
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wswartzendruber wrote:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=94435&d=1350468426

That's a Dignitas Midnight Special.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16116
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Not much information in the article to explain why he received a gunshot to the head.
He had a gun and was threatening others or acting in a threatening manner (I forget which). Police aren't acting at all concerned about security having killed him.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
notageek
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 120
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/05/aurora-siege-gunman-shot-dead
_________________
The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Do you understand? --Capt Jack Sparrow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16116
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Proving once again the police are not for protection. In fact, there is legal precedent indicating such.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Proving once again the police are not for protection. In fact, there is legal precedent indicating such.

So, "to protect and serve" is bollocks then. What with that and "in God we trust" there seems to be a lot of slogans that are bollocks in the US.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Proving once again the police are not for protection. In fact, there is legal precedent indicating such.


When every second counts, the police will be minutes away.
_________________
I, for one, am glad to be living on a planet with 776x the mass of the super-massive black hole at the center of the milky way.
auf alten Schiffen lernt man Segeln.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

notageek wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/05/aurora-siege-gunman-shot-dead

That's a different shooting.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16116
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
So, "to protect and serve" is bollocks then.
To be fair, it _might_ be a legal distinction for liability. If they are supposed to but don't, are they liable for not, etc.

sikpuppy wrote:
What with that and "in God we trust" there seems to be a lot of slogans that are bollocks in the US.
It's an abomination. I prefer E pluribus unum. I doubt it is coincidence that the socialist mantra added reference to God only 2 years prior. I really wish all of the Jesus Freaks who disparage socialism and defend such a pledge would get a clue. Of course, if that happened, a lot of our problems would be solved.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Out of many, one. Yes, that's kind of pleasing. We just have politically correct historical figures on our currency, which is colour coded for the innumerate.
This is amusing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegiance#Salute
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
notageek
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 120
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
notageek wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/05/aurora-siege-gunman-shot-dead

That's a different shooting.
Yes.
_________________
The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Do you understand? --Capt Jack Sparrow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16116
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
This is amusing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegiance#Salute
Maybe I need to think of a way to generate news coverage of this, right after a bunch of them get all upset when someone wants to return to the pre-50's pledge.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
sikpuppy wrote:
So, "to protect and serve" is bollocks then.
To be fair, it _might_ be a legal distinction for liability. If they are supposed to but don't, are they liable for not, etc.

sikpuppy wrote:
What with that and "in God we trust" there seems to be a lot of slogans that are bollocks in the US.
It's an abomination. I prefer E pluribus unum. I doubt it is coincidence that the socialist mantra added reference to God only 2 years prior. I really wish all of the Jesus Freaks who disparage socialism and defend such a pledge would get a clue. Of course, if that happened, a lot of our problems would be solved.

The "under God" part needs to go, I think, along with the "in God we trust" motto. Both are artifacts of the Cold War (the "godlessness" of Communists was one effective way of demonizing them for a large segment of the population). They are orthogonal, even contrary, to the intent of the the founders of this Nation.

However, E pluribus unum is not a reference to unity of individuals under a state; it is a reference to a union of states under a republic. It is an explanation as to why 13 (now 50) states should band together. It should be taken in context with the specific limitations on the power of the Federal Government which the Constitution established (limits which we have moved a couple times now and are overstepping once again even as we sit here).
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
notageek wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/05/aurora-siege-gunman-shot-dead

That's a different shooting.


I guess it's hard to keep track of them all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
But something touched me deep inside, the day that stupid died. So bye, bye, dumb drunk ass guy.

Yes, no one was hurt.

I mentioned nothing about dentures, but as close as I can tell, since teeth are something protected if valued, that would make dentures the equivalent of an insurance settlement?


The article's title is "City's first homicide". Surely, someone was hurt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
pjp wrote:
Proving once again the police are not for protection. In fact, there is legal precedent indicating such.

So, "to protect and serve" is bollocks then. What with that and "in God we trust" there seems to be a lot of slogans that are bollocks in the US.

police have no legal duty to protect you. in fact, they can be reckless and completely lie to you that help is on the way. you still cannot sue them. this alone should be sufficient to warrant the 2nd amendment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
notageek wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/05/aurora-siege-gunman-shot-dead

That's a different shooting.


I guess it's hard to keep track of them all.

Thank you, Captain Obvious
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big dave wrote:
sikpuppy wrote:
pjp wrote:
Proving once again the police are not for protection. In fact, there is legal precedent indicating such.

So, "to protect and serve" is bollocks then. What with that and "in God we trust" there seems to be a lot of slogans that are bollocks in the US.

police have no legal duty to protect you. in fact, they can be reckless and completely lie to you that help is on the way. you still cannot sue them. this alone should be sufficient to warrant the 2nd amendment.

That court case is bizarre as described in Wiki.

I don't understand how the right to be armed would have helped anyone in that case except the criminals.

Is demonstrating a lawful use for a firearm beyond anything mentioned in your legal system?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
big dave wrote:
sikpuppy wrote:
pjp wrote:
Proving once again the police are not for protection. In fact, there is legal precedent indicating such.

So, "to protect and serve" is bollocks then. What with that and "in God we trust" there seems to be a lot of slogans that are bollocks in the US.

police have no legal duty to protect you. in fact, they can be reckless and completely lie to you that help is on the way. you still cannot sue them. this alone should be sufficient to warrant the 2nd amendment.

That court case is bizarre as described in Wiki.

I don't understand how the right to be armed would have helped anyone in that case except the criminals.

Is demonstrating a lawful use for a firearm beyond anything mentioned in your legal system?

bizarre doesn't change the fact that these exact scenarios have happened multiple times... in fact, these cases resulting in lawsuits alone are more common than mass murders. even more don't result in lawsuits. people call for police assistance, and many times they don't come for hours or even until later in the week. in other cases, cops say they're coming and never even arrive.

this happened in DC when and where firearms were completely banned. how could the victims been helped? they lived in a city where they relied on the government alone for help. it would have been illegal for the victims to shoot the men who raped and tortured them while the police said they were on the way but did nothing.

the government is not going to protect you. the government should never be allowed to prevent you from protecting yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
big dave wrote:
sikpuppy wrote:
pjp wrote:
Proving once again the police are not for protection. In fact, there is legal precedent indicating such.

So, "to protect and serve" is bollocks then. What with that and "in God we trust" there seems to be a lot of slogans that are bollocks in the US.

police have no legal duty to protect you. in fact, they can be reckless and completely lie to you that help is on the way. you still cannot sue them. this alone should be sufficient to warrant the 2nd amendment.

That court case is bizarre as described in Wiki.

I don't understand how the right to be armed would have helped anyone in that case except the criminals.

Are you daft?
Quote:
The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.
Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below.

They were fully aware that a break-in was occurring, but were defenseless. If any of them had a gun and knew how to use it, the following would most probably not have occurred:
Quote:
The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.
Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below.
Quote:
At knife point, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.


sikpuppy wrote:
Is demonstrating a lawful use for a firearm beyond anything mentioned in your legal system?

This sentence is pretty muddled, but if you mean what I think you mean, the answer is no.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum