>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^luxury_pie:
Here on the sift we would NEVER jump to conclusions.

The problem with that statement is, we here on the sift are not journalists. We are normal every day type people. Journalists/news organizations should not try to taint or slant public opinion. They are supposed to be unbiased. This is just another example of the media using scare tactics to keep us fearing the "brown people" that want to kill us all. It's really quite disgusting.


You call that journalism? I'm sorry but I rate the let's call it "aggregating journalism" here on the sift infinitely higher then whatever the fuck Fox is doing.
Whatsoever I wasn't judging anybody, if I somehow implied that, I am sorry.

Your video, Colbert: Norwegian Muslish Gunman's Islam-Esque Atrocity, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^luxury_pie:

Here on the sift we would NEVER jump to conclusions.


The problem with that statement is, we here on the sift are not journalists. We are normal every day type people. Journalists/news organizations should not try to taint or slant public opinion. They are supposed to be unbiased. This is just another example of the media using scare tactics to keep us fearing the "brown people" that want to kill us all. It's really quite disgusting.

Woke up at 4 am today to the news that atleast 80 young people where shot dead on Utøya. The guy was walking around on an island with 600 kids and young people in tents aged 15-25 in a police uniform. One girl on the radio minutes ago : "I looked out the window and saw a man who was shooting at girls lying on the ground.." Apparantly he used his policeuniform to maximize the killing, frightened kids who where hiding from the gunman, was lured out by the "policeman" and then excecuted in cold blood.

This was one sick fuck.

This is why, if you a crazed gunman, you never actually put the gun up to the other guy.

[redacted]

Your argument seems confused to me sir. Access to guns = Killings at school?
You are right though, same 'pattern' can be observed here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/23/finland.schoolsworldwide .
IMO only certain trained professionals (+psych eval) absolutely require, and therefore, should have access to non-sporting guns, thats it. If you want to have access to guns designed to kill people (alot, quickly, efficiently), and defend your fellow countryman, become a trained professional. >> ^Buck:

"In 2007, a deranged student killed 32 people at Virginia Tech -- 30 of them in a very short period of time in one building. He didn't need high-capacity magazines because he had two guns and reloaded.
There was no one to stop him.
School shootings that have been halted were almost always stopped by the happenstance of an armed citizen on school property.
In 2002, an immigrant in Virginia started shooting his classmates at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy. Two of his classmates retrieved guns from their cars, forcing the killer to drop his weapon and allowing a third classmate to tackle him.
Thrre dead.
In Santee, Calif., in 2001, when a student began shooting his classmates, the school activated its "safe school plan" -- as the principal later told CNN -- by sending a "trained campus supervisor" to stop the killer.
Possibly not realizing that he was in a gun-free zone, the killer responded by shooting the trained campus supervisor three times. Fortunately, an armed off-duty San Diego policeman happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day. With a gun, he stopped the killer and held him at bay until more police could arrive.
Two dead.
In 1997, a student at Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., had already shot several people at his high school and was headed for the junior high school when assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from his car and pointed it at the gunman's head, ending the slaughter.
Two dead.
In 1998, a student attending a junior high school dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pa., started shooting, whereupon the restaurant owner pulled out his shotgun, chased the gunman from the restaurant and captured him for the police.
One dead.
See the pattern?"
---------------------
"Letter writer Barry Ruhl is concerned about a new gun law being proposed in Florida. The changes would bring Florida's laws in line with Utah's. Both require a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but in Utah open-carry is also allowed. It would also allow non-felons to carry in all public places including schools. Ruhl fears that this will degrade public safety.
I would like to point out that Utah's murder rate is just 1.3 per 100,000 and it has never had a school shooting. When Utah enacted its handgun carry laws in 1995, its murder rate was 3.9, three times higher than it is today. Canada's murder rate is 1.8.
In each and every state that has passed a handgun carry law, all rates of crime have dropped immediately and significantly."

"In 2007, a deranged student killed 32 people at Virginia Tech -- 30 of them in a very short period of time in one building. He didn't need high-capacity magazines because he had two guns and reloaded.
There was no one to stop him.
School shootings that have been halted were almost always stopped by the happenstance of an armed citizen on school property.
In 2002, an immigrant in Virginia started shooting his classmates at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy. Two of his classmates retrieved guns from their cars, forcing the killer to drop his weapon and allowing a third classmate to tackle him.
Thrre dead.
In Santee, Calif., in 2001, when a student began shooting his classmates, the school activated its "safe school plan" -- as the principal later told CNN -- by sending a "trained campus supervisor" to stop the killer.
Possibly not realizing that he was in a gun-free zone, the killer responded by shooting the trained campus supervisor three times. Fortunately, an armed off-duty San Diego policeman happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day. With a gun, he stopped the killer and held him at bay until more police could arrive.
Two dead.
In 1997, a student at Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., had already shot several people at his high school and was headed for the junior high school when assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from his car and pointed it at the gunman's head, ending the slaughter.
Two dead.
In 1998, a student attending a junior high school dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pa., started shooting, whereupon the restaurant owner pulled out his shotgun, chased the gunman from the restaurant and captured him for the police.
One dead.

See the pattern?"

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

"Letter writer Barry Ruhl is concerned about a new gun law being proposed in Florida. The changes would bring Florida's laws in line with Utah's. Both require a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but in Utah open-carry is also allowed. It would also allow non-felons to carry in all public places including schools. Ruhl fears that this will degrade public safety.

I would like to point out that Utah's murder rate is just 1.3 per 100,000 and it has never had a school shooting. When Utah enacted its handgun carry laws in 1995, its murder rate was 3.9, three times higher than it is today. Canada's murder rate is 1.8.

In each and every state that has passed a handgun carry law, all rates of crime have dropped immediately and significantly."

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Aniatario:
^ There was a sh tload of things they could've used. Tazers, pepperspray, rubber bullets, common fucking sense?

Ya, that or wait till he leaves the house in the morning and arrest him? I don't understand why forced entry is even necessary in most of these cases. I guess mostly because waiting around for someone to leave a house requires manpower/police work. It is easier to bust down the door, shoot the guy, then file a report.

I can agree to this waiting until the offender is out of the house first. However, since Law Enforcement would need to be around his house for when he did leave, that would be one hell of an overtime bill. Say it takes 12 hours, and each officer makes 40 bucks in overtime-age, that adds up to 4800 dollars... Assuming the offender even comes out within 12 hours... Let's multiply that by the number of raids around the state and...wow, what a tab... Are you willing to pay for/ and justify that expense in a down economy to your video sift neighbor? (And to argue that we would not neeed to pay the officers overtime is just foolish. They would not be able to just go home, after all.)
Oh, and with the hate I hear about tazers and rubber bullets, we eventually equate this (horror) with those circumstances anyways.... "How dare they use 20 rubber bullets" etc... Sad, we should embrace less-than lethal methods all the times, especially in cases of abuse where people would die, but all I hear about them is shit talk (Right until something like this happens, I mean.)
Onto the actual video. 21 feet is the lethal zone a knifeman needs to kill a gunman. That may sound off, but it is completely accurate. I get hit twice or so with fourty, and ofteb I would still be up (Which happens often since men don't die like they show in the movies.) I can and will stab whoever shot me.
That doesn't mean I agree with this video at all. The officers had little security for themselves, so they relied on their weapons. That is just plain dumb. These officers seemed intent on a showdown. Waiting till the suspect leaves does seem the best option. That at least allows space to find cover and surround a suspect.


This was interesting -> http://www.usadojo.com/articles/21-feet-valid.htm

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Aniatario:
^ There was a sh tload of things they could've used. Tazers, pepperspray, rubber bullets, common fucking sense?

Ya, that or wait till he leaves the house in the morning and arrest him? I don't understand why forced entry is even necessary in most of these cases. I guess mostly because waiting around for someone to leave a house requires manpower/police work. It is easier to bust down the door, shoot the guy, then file a report.


I can agree to this waiting until the offender is out of the house first. However, since Law Enforcement would need to be around his house for when he did leave, that would be one hell of an overtime bill. Say it takes 12 hours, and each officer makes 40 bucks in overtime-age, that adds up to 4800 dollars... Assuming the offender even comes out within 12 hours... Let's multiply that by the number of raids around the state and...wow, what a tab... Are you willing to pay for/ and justify that expense in a down economy to your video sift neighbor? (And to argue that we would not neeed to pay the officers overtime is just foolish. They would not be able to just go home, after all.)

Oh, and with the hate I hear about tazers and rubber bullets, we eventually equate this (horror) with those circumstances anyways.... "How dare they use 20 rubber bullets" etc... Sad, we should embrace less-than lethal methods all the times, especially in cases of abuse where people would die, but all I hear about them is shit talk (Right until something like this happens, I mean.)

Onto the actual video. 21 feet is the lethal zone a knifeman needs to kill a gunman. That may sound off, but it is completely accurate. I get hit twice or so with fourty, and ofteb I would still be up (Which happens often since men don't die like they show in the movies.) I can and will stab whoever shot me.

That doesn't mean I agree with this video at all. The officers had little security for themselves, so they relied on their weapons. That is just plain dumb. These officers seemed intent on a showdown. Waiting till the suspect leaves does seem the best option. That at least allows space to find cover and surround a suspect.

I agree, people aren't motivated to kill by phrases like "don't retreat, reload" or state billboards with crosshairs, but by the exaggerated and false and highly incendiary rhetoric they voice about individual rights, morality and the economy.

If you truly believed that a vague and amorphous entity called 'the government' was going to devalue everyone's currency to nothing and was brainwashing its citizens, would you not be compelled to act drastically?>> ^blankfist:

Wow, what a nutbag. As an aside, I think people may be placing blame wrongfully on the Tea Party and Palin for this incident. This guy seems more like an Alex Jones conspiratorial nutbag than anything else. That's what he seems like to me. Someone who came to libertarianism but got very lost and very angry in the process.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

...
I see the buzzards have already started repeating talking points from KOS & HuffPO without even waiting for the body to get cold before trying to wrest a tragedy so it fits into the political fetters forged by years of personal bias. There's little evidence of anything so far except a lone gunman and a sad, tragic attack where 6 human beings died.
Quite honestly, to try and make this about Palin or anybody else shows a similar sort of hate-driven mental outlook to what was motivated the waste of skin pulling the trigger. Those of you guilty of such hate-driven bias really need to take a good long hard look in the mirror. When the first thing that you think of is not, "What an awful human tragedy" but instead "How can I squish this event into my political worldview?" then you have truly lost an important part of yourself. Those of this ilk need to take some time off from hating the 'other guy' and try to piece back together whatever scraps of humanity are left in you.


Fuck You.

@MaxWilder, thanks for trying to have a civil dialog. You wrote "How is it that people cannot defend themselves right now?" Owning a gun is still a right in the US, but try to carry it with you in public places. That's the important distinction between owning a gun and using it to defend yourself outside of your home. Cops aren't always around, and most recently with the gunman in Arizona, it might've been handy for others to have guns to subdue the gunman.

My "whole" argument has nothing to do with "I can't smoke what I want". Not sure why you're attempting to paint it as such. I'm trying to illustrate how there's more to the immoral statist system of government than just protecting us from egregious crimes like murder, rape, robbery, etc. Like I said, if that was all they protected, you'd not hear a peep out of me. But it's the other areas of control that bother me such as, sure, what you smoke and eat and drive and whatever else. I ask you, name ONE thing in your life where government doesn't intervene in some capacity. It's impossible. They're influencing what we watch, how we learn, what we eat, where we can go, and even how much water is necessary to flush our shits. It's madness.

This was the purpose of my Hayek quote above: "It is indeed probable that more harm and misery have been caused by men determined to use coercion to stamp out a moral evil than by men intent on doing evil." -- F.A. Hayek

That quote means that as we try harder and harder to correct the problems with society through the violent apparatus of government, we tend to create more tyranny in the process. To mean we do more harm than good. This is how I view big government, which is what we have in the US. A very big, powerful, rich government.

Those of us clamoring for a free and voluntary society, we think people can do better than the current immoral system of government. You see it as a quick leap to chaos and a warlord-run Somalia world. We see it as a gradual shift from institutionalized violence and coercion to a more moral existence of self-governance. If you think "fear is a good thing", as you wrote above, then I don't think there's any way of reaching you, unfortunately. As the socialist AJ Muste once said, “There is no way to peace, peace is the way.” I think he was on to something. You cannot reach peace by war, central planning, coercion, using fear, etc.

Peace is not a destination, it's the path. Not the end, the means.

If you want to peacefully coexist, you have to start by giving freedom to those around you. Don't try to turn my words back at me and propose I'm saying we shouldn't be vigilant. That's not the case at all. We should all remain vigilant and take steps to protect ourselves.

The gunman didn't sound like a Palin supporter from what I've read and heard on CNN. Not that I'm defending Palin.

My thoughts exactly.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Ironic that he has such poor English grammar structure.