I hope this guy doesn't have AS

[TheoK]

I wouldnt be surprised if he was aspie.
Breivik is probably aspie too.

We should be better than "wishful thinking" guys... better than resorting to wishful protests "boo hoo no he isnt aspie! i am aspie! waaah!", when Breivik was first mentioned to likely be aspie, norwegian autists protested left and right. Lame.
He is a person isnt he? We are persons too.

And as an aspie, i can understand what causes him to go rampant like this, all this alienation from society that we all recognize so well, this disconnection from social norms, etc etc.
this doesnt mean YOU or ME is a killer. we should know this.

That's the horrendous herd mentality (even among auties!). It's by the way the same mentality that makes people believe in gun laws. Breivik killed 77 people. So what? The Nazi government killed 6 millions, the Soviet >20 millions, the Red Khmers 3 millions, and Mao some 100 millions! But yet people come and say that guns are horrible, but only in the hands of civilians! They even leave guns to the cops during "gun amnesties" here in Sweden; guns that their grandfathers had, that they someway believe that the cops would find out by mind-reading that they have, because they have absolutely blind faith in law and authority.

[ZEGH8578]

You are mostly right, but the problem with guns (and most lethal weapons, even swords, but swords and spears are less common lately ) is that they make killing more easily.

A person wanting to commit suicide for example, will have to give much more of an effort finding a bridge to jump off. If i wanted to kill myself _right now_, i'd actually have difficulty. my body can take a lot. i cant use the dull scissors in my house, they can barely cut paper. I could jump, head first, from my neighbors balcony i guess, but even then i could wake up brain damaged and paralized in the hospital.
A gun would make it significantly easyer.

But otherwise, you are right. Norway is FULL of guns, and yet, most of us dont ever used them to hurt others. By guns i mean "firearms", we dont have many handguns, but we do have tons of high powered hunting rifles. Almost a rifle-per-household in average (considering most hunter-families typically have 1-3 weapons)

Personally, I dont think guns should be outlawed. I want guns for myself, i love their designs, i would love to collect handguns and rifles, just to have and admire them
but there most definitely should be restrictions that make them difficult to aquire. we have that in norway, and imo it works pretty well (in my personal case i have two hinders: a police record, and poor economy. a nifty gun costs a lot). if you want a modern Glock 17 in norway, its gonna cost you some effort. but if you're a good boy, and follow the correct path, you will eventually own one.

[TheoK]

Aaah, ZEGH, now you disappoint me. What about natural rights? Have you read Thomas Paine and Lysander Spooner?

Already before kindergarten I found it absurd that things that are not per se bad were banned or restricted. Even more confusing is the fact that most people seem to accept this. Why don't most people reason "As long as I don't hurt anyone, no-one has a goddamn moral right to forbid me anything!"?

[ZEGH8578]

Aaah, ZEGH, now you disappoint me. What about natural rights? Have you read Thomas Paine and Lysander Spooner?

Already before kindergarten I found it absurd that things that are not per se bad were banned or restricted. Even more confusing is the fact that most people seem to accept this. Why don't most people reason "As long as I don't hurt anyone, no-one has a goddamn moral right to forbid me anything!"?

I am always thinking of my own safety first. This city is small and compact. I shudder to think about the near-trouble situations ive found myself _near_ coupled with guns - or weapons - that were auto-defused simply cus nobody wanted to get into a fist fight.
I dont give a shit about "honor", i dont believe in "heaven", i want nothing near me that will risk my safety. If handguns were more common in norway, i would still be unsafe, simply because i wouldnt be able to afford one for myself
An unregistered firearm would probably go for 3-4 thousand krones, from what i know, here in trondheim, which is way more than i could afford anytime soon...

I know where you are coming from - but you seem to forget that there are many idiots in our society. I am fully aware that the vast vast majority of gun owners, would be responsible with them.
But its so much more dangerous with irresponsible fire-arms, than, say, irresponsible pot smoking (both examples of illegal/restricted things that in themselves do not pose a threat to others)

Ideally, i would say "guns for everyone!", but sadly, that could quickly turn lame - especially in boroughs/cities where poverty is high, desperation high with it, and stray bullets would fly left and right. Innocent bystanders in the middle of a brasilian favela have no more a deathwish than anybody else. Swords or even arrows dont have the same risk of killing innocent/non-targets.

[P7PSP]

CBC is probably already on the top ten list.

Everyone knows weebles are unstable.

CBC is probably already on the top ten list.

Everyone knows weebles are unstable.

  That's just one more stereotype we Weebles have to combat!
  In reality we are exceptionally  stable, we wobble but we don't fall down.

  *sigh*  How much longer must my people fight for acceptance and understanding?

I have pictures of how carefully you climbed down the cliff stairs. Not that faith in your supposed stability. 

[TheoK]

I'm kind of a fatalist. My grandmother is 90 years old now. She has been sick in one way or the other since she was 7 and had tubercholosis. She is the kind of person that would never disobey an authority. As long as I can remember, she has been a sad person, never really enjoying anything. My mother says she was the same already 60 years ago. What's the point with such a life? I don't get it.

[odeon]

I've no idea why this nutjob killed 12 people. Was it lax gun laws or a dx on the spectrum? Or something else that someone can and will blame? But I do know that these things happen more frequently overseas, per capita. Seems to me that the 2d amendment doesn't protect the people. Happening one tragedy at a time, too.

Say that a real nutjob becomes president, nut only some half nutjob like G.W. Bush, but someone absolutely batshit insane person, and that he starts putting Americans in concentration camps etc. The Americans then by far have better opportunities than most Europeans, maybe with the exception of Switzerland and the Czech Republic.

They can't win battles against the US armed forces, of course, but they can carry out acts of sabotage and kill high officers, officials, politicians etc. as acts of resistance.

In countries like China people don't have guns, so they can't put up any resistance to start with. In countries with guns but with strict gun control, they know who has legal guns and, in case of severe resistance, they shoot the gun owners first. When the Germans occupied France, the French had 24 hours after the French capitulation to give up their private guns to the German military. When Germany itself was defeated, no German civilians were allowed to own guns again before 1956.

The fact that the military confiscated guns from civilians as well shows that it's not pointless to have civilian guns as a last resort of resistance. If they really had believed what the proponents of gun control are saying, that you don't stand a chance with civilian guns, why, then were civilian guns confiscated?

In Yugoslavia everyone had guns in the 1930's. Yugoslavia was also extremely hard to keep occupied during WWII. It's also believed that one of the reasons that Switzerland was never invaded, despite it being a country with a German majority (and thus "belonging" to Germany), was that every Swiss male had a gun. Same reason why the Japanese never tried to invade the US mainland. They knew that not only the military but most civilians too would be able to defend themselves.

And this is relevant to what happened in Denver, how?

[TheoK]

I've no idea why this nutjob killed 12 people. Was it lax gun laws or a dx on the spectrum? Or something else that someone can and will blame? But I do know that these things happen more frequently overseas, per capita. Seems to me that the 2d amendment doesn't protect the people. Happening one tragedy at a time, too.

Say that a real nutjob becomes president, nut only some half nutjob like G.W. Bush, but someone absolutely batshit insane person, and that he starts putting Americans in concentration camps etc. The Americans then by far have better opportunities than most Europeans, maybe with the exception of Switzerland and the Czech Republic.

They can't win battles against the US armed forces, of course, but they can carry out acts of sabotage and kill high officers, officials, politicians etc. as acts of resistance.

In countries like China people don't have guns, so they can't put up any resistance to start with. In countries with guns but with strict gun control, they know who has legal guns and, in case of severe resistance, they shoot the gun owners first. When the Germans occupied France, the French had 24 hours after the French capitulation to give up their private guns to the German military. When Germany itself was defeated, no German civilians were allowed to own guns again before 1956.

The fact that the military confiscated guns from civilians as well shows that it's not pointless to have civilian guns as a last resort of resistance. If they really had believed what the proponents of gun control are saying, that you don't stand a chance with civilian guns, why, then were civilian guns confiscated?

In Yugoslavia everyone had guns in the 1930's. Yugoslavia was also extremely hard to keep occupied during WWII. It's also believed that one of the reasons that Switzerland was never invaded, despite it being a country with a German majority (and thus "belonging" to Germany), was that every Swiss male had a gun. Same reason why the Japanese never tried to invade the US mainland. They knew that not only the military but most civilians too would be able to defend themselves.

And this is relevant to what happened in Denver, how?

It was a response to the comment on the 2nd Amendment.

[odeon]

Aaah, ZEGH, now you disappoint me. What about natural rights? Have you read Thomas Paine and Lysander Spooner?

Already before kindergarten I found it absurd that things that are not per se bad were banned or restricted. Even more confusing is the fact that most people seem to accept this. Why don't most people reason "As long as I don't hurt anyone, no-one has a goddamn moral right to forbid me anything!"?

Yup, that seems to have worked well.

[odeon]

I've no idea why this nutjob killed 12 people. Was it lax gun laws or a dx on the spectrum? Or something else that someone can and will blame? But I do know that these things happen more frequently overseas, per capita. Seems to me that the 2d amendment doesn't protect the people. Happening one tragedy at a time, too.

Say that a real nutjob becomes president, nut only some half nutjob like G.W. Bush, but someone absolutely batshit insane person, and that he starts putting Americans in concentration camps etc. The Americans then by far have better opportunities than most Europeans, maybe with the exception of Switzerland and the Czech Republic.

They can't win battles against the US armed forces, of course, but they can carry out acts of sabotage and kill high officers, officials, politicians etc. as acts of resistance.

In countries like China people don't have guns, so they can't put up any resistance to start with. In countries with guns but with strict gun control, they know who has legal guns and, in case of severe resistance, they shoot the gun owners first. When the Germans occupied France, the French had 24 hours after the French capitulation to give up their private guns to the German military. When Germany itself was defeated, no German civilians were allowed to own guns again before 1956.

The fact that the military confiscated guns from civilians as well shows that it's not pointless to have civilian guns as a last resort of resistance. If they really had believed what the proponents of gun control are saying, that you don't stand a chance with civilian guns, why, then were civilian guns confiscated?

In Yugoslavia everyone had guns in the 1930's. Yugoslavia was also extremely hard to keep occupied during WWII. It's also believed that one of the reasons that Switzerland was never invaded, despite it being a country with a German majority (and thus "belonging" to Germany), was that every Swiss male had a gun. Same reason why the Japanese never tried to invade the US mainland. They knew that not only the military but most civilians too would be able to defend themselves.

And this is relevant to what happened in Denver, how?

It was a response to the comment on the 2nd Amendment.

And my point is that the 2nd amendment did not protect the people, in this instance. It's been used as an excuse many times, though.

[TheoK]

I've no idea why this nutjob killed 12 people. Was it lax gun laws or a dx on the spectrum? Or something else that someone can and will blame? But I do know that these things happen more frequently overseas, per capita. Seems to me that the 2d amendment doesn't protect the people. Happening one tragedy at a time, too.

Say that a real nutjob becomes president, nut only some half nutjob like G.W. Bush, but someone absolutely batshit insane person, and that he starts putting Americans in concentration camps etc. The Americans then by far have better opportunities than most Europeans, maybe with the exception of Switzerland and the Czech Republic.

They can't win battles against the US armed forces, of course, but they can carry out acts of sabotage and kill high officers, officials, politicians etc. as acts of resistance.

In countries like China people don't have guns, so they can't put up any resistance to start with. In countries with guns but with strict gun control, they know who has legal guns and, in case of severe resistance, they shoot the gun owners first. When the Germans occupied France, the French had 24 hours after the French capitulation to give up their private guns to the German military. When Germany itself was defeated, no German civilians were allowed to own guns again before 1956.

The fact that the military confiscated guns from civilians as well shows that it's not pointless to have civilian guns as a last resort of resistance. If they really had believed what the proponents of gun control are saying, that you don't stand a chance with civilian guns, why, then were civilian guns confiscated?

In Yugoslavia everyone had guns in the 1930's. Yugoslavia was also extremely hard to keep occupied during WWII. It's also believed that one of the reasons that Switzerland was never invaded, despite it being a country with a German majority (and thus "belonging" to Germany), was that every Swiss male had a gun. Same reason why the Japanese never tried to invade the US mainland. They knew that not only the military but most civilians too would be able to defend themselves.

And this is relevant to what happened in Denver, how?

It was a response to the comment on the 2nd Amendment.

And my point is that the 2nd amendment did not protect the people, in this instance. It's been used as an excuse many times, though.

Of course it didn't. But gun laws don't have protection of the people as their objective either. The Swedish gun law is a very good example. It was proposed by a liberal-conservative government in 1926. The objective was to prevent social democrats and communists from carrying guns on their meetings.

A low rate of lunatics shooting innocent people might be a side-effect of the gun law, but the reason that there is a gun law in the first place is the absolute opposite of protecting the people.

[Phallacy]

Well, this IS America, after all. The land of the wank.

Everybody with a desire to voice their opinion will bitch/argue/debate/blahblahblah about this until it falls to the side, nothing gets done, they will just quickly lose interest and forget about the whole fucking thing just in time for the next top story the mass media shits out.

 

[TheoK]

Aaah, ZEGH, now you disappoint me. What about natural rights? Have you read Thomas Paine and Lysander Spooner?

Already before kindergarten I found it absurd that things that are not per se bad were banned or restricted. Even more confusing is the fact that most people seem to accept this. Why don't most people reason "As long as I don't hurt anyone, no-one has a goddamn moral right to forbid me anything!"?

Yup, that seems to have worked well.

If everyone reasoned like I do, there would be no laws against victimless crimes.

[odeon]

I've no idea why this nutjob killed 12 people. Was it lax gun laws or a dx on the spectrum? Or something else that someone can and will blame? But I do know that these things happen more frequently overseas, per capita. Seems to me that the 2d amendment doesn't protect the people. Happening one tragedy at a time, too.

Say that a real nutjob becomes president, nut only some half nutjob like G.W. Bush, but someone absolutely batshit insane person, and that he starts putting Americans in concentration camps etc. The Americans then by far have better opportunities than most Europeans, maybe with the exception of Switzerland and the Czech Republic.

They can't win battles against the US armed forces, of course, but they can carry out acts of sabotage and kill high officers, officials, politicians etc. as acts of resistance.

In countries like China people don't have guns, so they can't put up any resistance to start with. In countries with guns but with strict gun control, they know who has legal guns and, in case of severe resistance, they shoot the gun owners first. When the Germans occupied France, the French had 24 hours after the French capitulation to give up their private guns to the German military. When Germany itself was defeated, no German civilians were allowed to own guns again before 1956.

The fact that the military confiscated guns from civilians as well shows that it's not pointless to have civilian guns as a last resort of resistance. If they really had believed what the proponents of gun control are saying, that you don't stand a chance with civilian guns, why, then were civilian guns confiscated?

In Yugoslavia everyone had guns in the 1930's. Yugoslavia was also extremely hard to keep occupied during WWII. It's also believed that one of the reasons that Switzerland was never invaded, despite it being a country with a German majority (and thus "belonging" to Germany), was that every Swiss male had a gun. Same reason why the Japanese never tried to invade the US mainland. They knew that not only the military but most civilians too would be able to defend themselves.

And this is relevant to what happened in Denver, how?

It was a response to the comment on the 2nd Amendment.

And my point is that the 2nd amendment did not protect the people, in this instance. It's been used as an excuse many times, though.

Of course it didn't. But gun laws don't have protection of the people as their objective either. The Swedish gun law is a very good example. It was proposed by a liberal-conservative government in 1926. The objective was to prevent social democrats and communists from carrying guns on their meetings.

A low rate of lunatics shooting innocent people might be a side-effect of the gun law, but the reason that there is a gun law in the first place is the absolute opposite of protecting the people.

We've had this discussion before, haven't we? The absurd notion of a few guns protecting the rights of the people when the state has tanks? Ring any bells?

Give them nukes if you want balance.

[TheoK]

We've had this discussion before, haven't we? The absurd notion of a few guns protecting the rights of the people when the state has tanks? Ring any bells?

Give them nukes if you want balance.

 

Like I said - resistance could not be on the battlefield, but a good example of resistance that would do some good would be like in the case with the Jewish widow I mentioned. She should have kept her husbands guns. Or do you think that it would have been bad killing some Gestapo people too?