# 20 dead in Campus shooting



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> At Least 20 Killed in Virginia Tech Shooting
> By Robert E. Pierre
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Monday, April 16, 2007; 12:30 PM
> ...


At Least 20 Killed in Virginia Tech Shooting - washingtonpost.com

22 killed 21 wounded watching CNN


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

This is terrible news.

Sounds like the shooter is among the dead.

I can't believe that these kinds of incidents keep happening.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i wonder what the NRA and Chuck "Moses" Heston will say about this


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i wonder what the NRA and Chuck "Moses" Heston will say about this


That if everyone had been armed, they would have been able to thwart the gunman. Or something to that effect.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i wonder what the NRA and Chuck "Moses" Heston will say about this


Not much as his brain has turned to jelly.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

A SAD day for sure.

I know this is going to turn into a gun control debate; I'll wait for the thread to start to rebut. This post brings mention of the event.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i wonder what the NRA and Chuck "Moses" Heston will say about this


Can you at least wait until the facts come in before you start?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Unreal. I can't believe what I'm seeing.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Vandave said:


> Can you at least wait until the facts come in before you start?


Yes, let's wait for the NRA to comment before we make fun of them. :heybaby:


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

Very tragic news...


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

sad news, won't be the last time though


----------



## kevs~just kevs (Mar 21, 2005)

according to CityNews: Home these shootings have happened at least 50 times in the past worldwide...

sad state of the world we live in...


----------



## mazirion (May 22, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i wonder what the NRA and Chuck "Moses" Heston will say about this


Probably typical crap that they have quoted many times before...

"Guns don't kill people - people kill people"


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

I'll start the post...


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

A very tragic event. There were, it seems two separate incidents. The first happened at about 7:15 A.M. and the second two hours later on the other side of the campus. Second guessing, I know, but how might things have been different if the university had been shut down immediately after the first shooting instead of letting classes continue.


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

33 dead, including the gunman.


----------



## spicyapple (Aug 17, 2006)

This is so sad. I want to cry.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Demosthenes X said:


> 33 dead, including the gunman.


I know this is picky, but I feel it demeans the victims when the media includes the dead perpetrator of a crime in the number along with the victims. He wasn't a victim, he created them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So, what problem do you have with fact, exactly? The number of dead in this incident are just that. The number of dead.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

SINC said:


> So, what problem do you have with fact, exactly? The number of dead in this incident are just that. The number of dead.


As I said, I feel it demeans the victims to include the shooter in the same breath. If you have a problem with that, well, that's not my problem.


----------



## overkill (May 15, 2005)

Sad day to come home to see this all over the television. I remember being at home for both the Columbine and Dawson College incidents and watching the coverage all day. I found myself trying to play catch up this evening to all the events that took place today.

May they rest in peace.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Voyager said:


> As I said, I feel it demeans the victims to include the shooter in the same breath. If you have a problem with that, well, that's not my problem.


I have no problem with that. It IS fact. It demeans no one.

The fact the shooter died in the events of the day makes not one bit of difference to the facts.

The shooters name, age, hand gun or rifle type and whatever else they discover about him will be indelible with this event as long as history exists.

The shooter died today as well. Get used to it.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

:-( ...


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Voyager said:


> A very tragic event. There were, it seems two separate incidents. The first happened at about 7:15 A.M. and the second two hours later on the other side of the campus. Second guessing, I know, but how might things have been different if the university had been shut down immediately after the first shooting instead of letting classes continue.


Because of that tragic decision, there will be lawsuits galore.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

gwillikers said:


> Because of that tragic decision, there will be lawsuits galore.


Yep. Funny how money can easily act as a substitute to a human life.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Will anyone have the audacity to argue that these guys could've killed just as many if they'd been armed with knives or pointed sticks?

There's nothing we can do in the short term about the fact that our society has a small minority of dangerously insane individuals. We can, however, make it more difficult for these individuals to arm themselves with highly effective anti-personnel weapons. If that makes it more difficult for hunters to engage in their barbaric sport, too bad.

The world would be a better place without guns in civilian hands.

Cheers


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Will anyone have the audacity to argue that these guys could've killed just as many if they'd been armed with knives or pointed sticks?
> 
> There's nothing we can do in the short term about the fact that our society has a small minority of dangerously insane individuals. We can, however, make it more difficult for these individuals to arm themselves with highly effective anti-personnel weapons. If that makes it more difficult for hunters to engage in their barbaric sport, too bad.
> 
> ...


What we really need to do is to address the real problem of the dangerouly insane individuals.... We let these a$$holes run around loose without thinking about it much.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> We let these a$$holes run around loose without thinking about it much.


Umm the shooter was a Korean student - legally in the US.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Umm the shooter was a Korean student - legally in the US.


So? That didn't stop him from being a dangerously insane a$$hole.... I don't get your point...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

rgray said:


> So? That didn't stop him from being a dangerously insane a$$hole.... I don't get your point...


The problem is that we don't have a way to detect a dangerously imbalanced mind. We can, however, detect and police guns.

Unfortunately, under current legislation, it's legal to have guns, so we can't do anything about people who have them until it's too late. If possession of guns were illegal, we could arrest people *before* they shot anyone.

Certainly criminals would still get guns, and there would still be violent crime, but if we could seize all firearms, there'd be a lot fewer of them around, and criminals could be arrested simply for possessing guns, rather than having to wait for them to shoot someone first.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Exactly



> *We let these a$$holes run around loose*


Did YOU know he was dangerously insane??..did anyone. No


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Umm the shooter was a Korean student - legally in the US.


thats not a very good picture..he does look insane....but again so do I on my drivers.....

May they rest in peace....

except the shooter...Burn A$$wipe....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Certainly criminals would still get guns, and there would still be violent crime, but if we could seize all firearms, there'd be a lot fewer of them around, and criminals could be arrested simply for possessing guns, rather than having to wait for them to shoot someone first.
> 
> Cheers


Sadly, that will never happen. It's an impossible dream. Guns will be with mankind as long as they inhabit the earth.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Sadly, the next target appears to be once again, surprise surprise, video games. I wager Grand Theft Auto will be mentioned at least 30 times in the next week (minimum).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Words cannot fully express my shock and horror over this incident, so I shall not try. Seeing some of the bios of the people who were killed makes the sadness even deeper.

In the Jewish faith, a "mitzvah" is a good deed. The ultimate mitzvah is to give one's life to save another person's life. One of those killed, Dr. Liviu Librescue, 76, was a survivor of the Holocaust. According to his son, he will be remembered as a hero, in that "he blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee". The ultimate mitzvah. Shalom.


Bandsman, Holocaust survivor killed at Virginia Tech - CNN.com


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bandsman, Holocaust survivor killed at Virginia Tech - CNN.com

That is a very hard list to read.....  Some truly outstanding people lost to humanity and their families.


----------



## adam.sn (Feb 7, 2007)

The worst part is this will spawn a whole bunch of copy-cat inicdents in the very near future....


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

adam.sn said:


> The worst part is this will spawn a whole bunch of copy-cat inicdents in the very near future....


Grossly accurate and true.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The best part maybe having Virginia and others start closing some of the ridiculous access to handguns.
If that happens - there is some good to seen from a horror and a Virginia Tech law banning handguns would be a fitting memorial.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Exactly
> 
> 
> 
> Did YOU know he was dangerously insane??..did anyone. No


One of his teachers at the university was so concerned and disturbed about what he was writing that he was referred for counseling. (He refused to go.) She also warned university police and officials about him. Was anyone listening? There should have been some way to check whether he had or was applying for a firearms licence.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> The best part maybe having Virginia and others start closing some of the ridiculous access to handguns.
> If that happens - there is some good to seen from a horror and a Virginia Tech law banning handguns would be a fitting memorial.


Not just Virginia. Lots of work to do to achieve Utopia in the rest of the US too:

Brady Campaign - State Gun Laws


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> One of his teachers at the university was so concerned and disturbed about what he was writing that he was referred for counseling. (He refused to go.) She also warned university police and officials about him. Was anyone listening? There should have been some way to check whether he had or was applying for a firearms licence.


Exactly and while there are patterns to this behaviour thankfully it's rare that it erupts.
Tricky balance for society between privacy and safety but in the case of handguns I think public safety trumps personal rights as it does with other dangerous materials.

The Japanese have the "fudge" clause - they basically do not have to state a reason for denial of a permit.

I'd be happy to start with Virginia as they have some of the weakest control laws. A Canadian was amongst those killed


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Voyager said:


> One of his teachers at the university was so concerned and disturbed about what he was writing that he was referred for counseling. (He refused to go.) She also warned university police and officials about him. Was anyone listening? There should have been some way to check whether he had or was applying for a firearms licence.


The campus bureaucrcy hears but does not listen. It is the same on all the campuses upon which I have worked. We occasionally have reason to write a referral to counselling. It seems that unless an individual has reason to push on the system that these referals are not collated. In the rare case where one is pushed by continuing negative indicators, one follows up or goes to security. But we live in a free world and a certain level of evidence is required. This is just the dark side of the privacy and freedom we all expect. Often miscreants are smart enough to not draw too much attention - not provide enough evidence. 

It has been said that *if you told no-one* you could easily commit murder undetected in our society. 

An MA committee, in the department of a lab I have worked at once, that refused a prospectus. The candidate took it as personal from the head of our lab and was overheard threatening to shoot him. That witness came forward and there was immediate action from security and from the local police - guns were confiscated, security cameras were installed. Once the evidence threshhold was reached action was taken.

The price of our freedom is the fact that there is, so to speak, space below the radar. 

Cho, by accident or by design, stayed below radar, at a level that can only be seen in hindsight.

An aside here: as part of the incedent described above we also recieved basic security training like parking in different places and taking different routes.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

_The number of murders in Japan totalled 589 in 2005, up 8 percent from a year earlier. In contrast, the United States had 16,692 cases of murder and non-negligent manslaughter in 2005, up 3 percent from 2004. The U.S. population is about 2.3 times that of Japan's._


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

It always amazes me that when tragedies occur, we always first look for blame. Almost the first words spoken following this horrific event were regarding the 'failure' of the school to prevent this. 

It is the failure of we as a society to understand that events like this are part of our very nature. Not wanting to sound pessimistic, but I believe there is very little we will ever be able to do to stop this kind of behaviour. We are wildly divergent and unpredictable creatures.

Sure you can limit access to guns, increase jail penalties, beef up security etc. but ultimately nothing will fundamentally change. All you will achieve will be a superficial sense of safety. Perhaps that's all we need.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> It always amazes me that when tragedies occur, we always first look for blame. Almost the first words spoken following this horrific event were regarding the 'failure' of the school to prevent this.
> 
> It is the failure of we as a society to understand that events like this are part of our very nature. Not wanting to sound pessimistic, but I believe there is very little we will ever be able to do to stop this kind of behaviour. We are wildly divergent and unpredictable creatures.
> 
> Sure you can limit access to guns, increase jail penalties, beef up security etc. but ultimately nothing will fundamentally change. All you will achieve will be a superficial sense of safety. Perhaps that's all we need.


Perhaps it is all that we as a society can *allow* given that safety is inversely proportional to freedom and privacy. As a society we seem to have chosen freedom and privacy.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> It is the failure of we as a society to understand that events like this are part of our very nature. Not wanting to sound pessimistic, but I believe there is very little we will ever be able to do to stop this kind of behaviour. We are wildly divergent and unpredictable creatures.
> 
> Sure you can limit access to guns, increase jail penalties, beef up security etc. but ultimately nothing will fundamentally change. All you will achieve will be a superficial sense of safety. Perhaps that's all we need.


Fundamentally, I agree with you. However, I think that in a rational society (i.e. one that is governed rationally, not one in which all individuals are rational) that eliminates (or at least strictly limits) the availability of anti-personell weaponry to its citizens, these sorts of tragedies will be limited to someone going crazy with a machete or other less efficient weapon, and killing far fewer innocent bystanders before they are subdued or killed by the police. 

There was an incident in Seattle when I lived there where a lunatic went on a rampage with a katana... they managed to injure a few people, but didn't kill anyone. If they'd stopped by the local WalMart they could've picked up a semi-automatic pistol and killed dozens before the police stopped them, but fortunately, their particular insanity drove them to try chopping people up with a sword.

My point is that yes, people go crazy and try to kill each other. But there's no reason we need to make the tools to easily kill lots of people readily available. If someone is really intent on causing maximum harm to society, they'll build a bomb or grow a massive batch of anthrax in a basement fermenter. But these sorts of events don't seem to be the problem. The problem is much more often a crazy kid with a gun. If we can't do anything about the existence of crazy kids (and I don't think we can), then let's remove the guns.

Cheers


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Fundamentally, I agree with you. However, I think that in a rational society (i.e. one that is governed rationally, not one in which all individuals are rational) that eliminates (or at least strictly limits) the availability of anti-personell weaponry to its citizens, these sorts of tragedies will be limited to someone going crazy with a machete or other less efficient weapon, and killing far fewer innocent bystanders before they are subdued or killed by the police.
> 
> There was an incident in Seattle when I lived there where a lunatic went on a rampage with a katana... they managed to injure a few people, but didn't kill anyone. *If they'd stopped by the local WalMart they could've picked up a semi-automatic pistol and killed dozens before the police stopped them, but fortunately, their particular insanity drove them to try chopping people up with a sword.
> 
> ...


You can get everything you need for a bomb at Canadian Tire or WalMart.....

Just load up the old mini-van with a dozen propane cyliners, gallon jugs of gasoline, a couple sacks of fertilizer and a few boxes of roofing nails and drive it into a school or whatever - Oklahoma City!!! (or London, or Beirut, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Montreal (FLQ), or Lisbon, or, or, ....) The handgun is actually a relatively inefficient means of killing a lot of people, although there is a disturbing increase in body count in the more recent sprees - considering firepower, target containment and so on, the count at Columbine, tragic enough as it was, was pretty low.

The only real answer is to improve early detection of dangerous crazies but society places more value on freedom and privacy which is by its nature reciprocally related to safety.... But the point has already been made.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

rgray said:


> You can get everything you need for a bomb at Canadian Tire or WalMart.....


Absolutely. However there are two points to make about this in contrast to guns. Firstly, propane cylinders, etc. have other useful purposes (one might argue that guns do too, but I argue that they don't). Secondly, despite the ease with which one could make a bomb and blow up their school, these events are not happening with monotonous regularity (in the western world), whereas shooting sprees are only news worthy if record numbers are being killed.

In a perfect world, allowing people to have guns wouldn't be a problem (although, in a perfect world, there'd be no use for guns). Unfortunately, in our less-than-perfect-world there appears to be an irreducible population of crazy people, and letting everyone carry guns puts these weapons into the hands of these lunatics, to our great cost.

Cheers


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

CTV.ca | Police had contact with shooter in fall of 2005

According to the story at the above link he was twice investigated by campus police for stalking and was even admitted to a mental health facility in 2005 over fears he was suicidal.

That someone like this would be able to purchase a gun is beyond me.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

*The inevitable attack on science*



> The inevitable attack on science
> By: Steve on Tuesday, April 17th, 2007 at 5:20 PM - PDT
> In 1999, as the nation was still coming to grips with the tragedy at Columbine High School, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) took to the floor to identify what he saw as the real culprit: science classes. “Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized [sic] out of some primordial soup,” DeLay said. Young people learn modern biology, DeLay said, which in turn makes them feel insignificant, which in turn leads to violence.
> 
> ...


Linky: crooksandliars.com


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> The only real answer is to improve early detection of dangerous crazies


Hope to god that's not gonna be a M$ application... :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> According to the story at the above link he was twice investigated by campus police for stalking and was even admitted to a mental health facility in 2005 over fears he was suicidal.
> 
> *That someone like this would be able to purchase a gun is beyond me*.


That's the heart of it....and at the very least that aspect can be dealt with in Canada to better degree than currently.

The real shame is the escalation to the second series of shootings. 
That will mulled over for a long time to come as to what could have been done differently.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

> Enter Ken Ham, a leading creationist activist, who leads an outfit called Answers in Genesis.
> 
> “We live in an era when public high schools and colleges have all but banned God from science classes. In these classrooms, students are taught that the whole universe, including plants and animals — and humans — arose by natural processes. Naturalism (in essence, atheism) has become the religion of the day and has become the foundation of the education system (and Western culture as a whole). The more such a philosophy permeates the culture, the more we would expect to see a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness that pervades people’s thinking. In fact, the more a culture allows the killing of the unborn, the more we will see people treating life in general as ‘cheap.’”


Anyone want to place a bet on the beliefs of the shooter in question? Simply on the basis of the odds (i.e. I'm not suggesting that his religion was causative in his actions), I'll bet that this nut was a Christian. Takers?


------
Edit: I heard on CBC this morning that among the ravings this guy sent to NBC was a rant against Christianity. So apparently I was wrong.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Is there some religious element - yes.
Hard to say tho.

"Ismail Ax". on his arm .

Really tho - psychopathic is psychopathic regardless.....in my mind very little can be read into this type of event beyond a societal responsibility to attempt to limit the damage a single person can do when they crack.

It IS the risk of an open society but there can be some damage limits.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

A local radio talk show had on a criminal psychologist speaking about this latest tragedy. His main point was surrounding "humiliation", and "isolation".
In terms of a foreign student, in a strange culture, with no friends and feeling unwelcome, humiliation and isolation can cause extreme problems.

It certainly doesn't excuse violence, but it's an angle that deserves exploring in terms of early prevention.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Gunman sent 'disturbing' photos, writings to NBC*

Apparently mailed between first shootings and final rampage:

Gunman sent 'disturbing' photos, writings to NBC - CNN.com


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

SINC said:


> Apparently mailed between first shootings and final rampage:
> 
> Gunman sent 'disturbing' photos, writings to NBC - CNN.com



definately premeditated....I don't think he just snapped but you never no I guess....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah clearly in this case and without guns he may have devised something worse. Sure a lot of warning signals in hindsight.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

Well at least no one has mentioned video games.....yet, whew!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> "Foreign student?"
> 
> Didn't his family arrive in the U.S. in 1992?
> 
> ...


Whenever will you learn to post the quote you are commenting on first, then your reaction? Posting backwards is just plain, well, backwards.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> Whenever will you learn to post the quote you are commenting on first, then your reaction? Posting backwards is just plain, well, backwards.


Haha. :lmao:

I was always intrigued with the fact that HowEver has always used that reverse-order in his replies.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I remember hearing that after these events there is a high potential of a copycat incident to occur.

It's almost the end of the school year (most of these events happen at the start and end of school terms) and I bet a similar incident (lower magnitude) will occur before July.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I remember hearing that after these events there is a high potential of a copycat incident to occur.

It's almost the end of the school year (most of these events happen at the start and end of school terms) and I bet a similar incident (lower magnitude) will occur before July."

Vandave, let us hope that you are wrong in this prediction. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

Very disturbed watching the homemade videos of the guy on NBC. Apparently very anti-social, often talking to himself. There has been mention that the guy exhibits classic mass murder behavior, but I had an odd reaction watching the video...

He seems very calm thru all the rambling, and with the gear he wore in his pictures, it was almost like he was acting out a script for a movie that the guy had either made up in his head, or had remembered seeing elsewhere.

I just can't believe the guy had revenge or anger fueling his shooting rampage. Narcissism seemed to be the biggest play on this guy's mind, and I'm convinced he got off on the attention received during the ordeal.

Very sad that so many lives were lost, with so many signals this man needed help.


----------



## ZipperZap (Sep 24, 2006)

Turns out Seung-Hui had been found mentally ill by a court in 2005. That means he was prohibited from purchasing a firearm. No comfort to the victims, but it does damage the argument the some anti-gun people will make when they use this as an excuse for a new AWB.

There is no way to guard against an antisocial nutcase that is determined to kill and be killed. 

I've noted some here who portend that Americans like to stereotype and try to oversimplify/overlook pertinent warning signs, etc. are guilty of the same 'charges.'

I suggest you look a little more carefully at the information about this lad in the past two days - some here have missed the obvious.

Interesting.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

HowEver said:


> "Foreign student?"
> 
> Didn't his family arrive in the U.S. in 1992?


The premise still holds true when you expand the criminal psychologists point. Whether unpopular, or not cool, or just a loner. It's about those who feel isolated, and humiliated, not part of the "in" crowd. Not unlike the Columbine shooters, and many others who have acted out in the past.
It's certainly an angle that deserves exploring, especially if it might prevent another student from going off the deep end.

Obviously some foreign students face an extra challenge in our culture.

:yawn:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

spicyapple said:


> This is so sad. I want to cry.


I was watching Jon Stewart last night and he had as a guest the high ranking official of the Iraqi gov't who was peddling his own book

Stewart made a very interesting observation, and I paraphrase from memory; "This type (in numbers) happens every day in Iraq. We feel a great loss from just one such event. How do you deal with it on a daily basis?"

[emphasis mine]

Stewart went on to say that over 150 Iraqis were killed by a [non military] bomb that day.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

ZipperZap said:


> Turns out Seung-Hui had been found mentally ill by a court in 2005. That means *he was prohibited from purchasing a firearm*. No comfort to the victims, but it does damage the argument the some anti-gun people will make when they use this as an excuse for a new AWB.


???? Several news sources have said he obtained at least one of the weapons legally..  


> I suggest you look a little more carefully at the information about this lad in the past two days - some here have missed the obvious.


Such as???? or is this some kind of riddle??


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## ZipperZap (Sep 24, 2006)

... may I throw some gasoline onto the fire?

40 Reasons For Gun Control in The Lower Forty Eight. 

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

ZipperZap,

Who is the author + affiliation of this list or is it you?


----------



## ZipperZap (Sep 24, 2006)

No, not mine. It came across my desk this morning and I'm passing it along as I am often apt to do.

... strange and tumultuously disturbing times in which we live, eh?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

ZipperZap said:


> No, not mine. It came across my desk this morning and I'm passing it along as I am often apt to do.


anonymous? 



ZipperZap said:


> ... strange and tumultuously disturbing times in which we live, eh?


They said that in 1966 after the bell tower shootings at The University Of Texas.


----------



## ZipperZap (Sep 24, 2006)

anonymous

... but easily disproved, if that is your intention, or, perhaps not.


----------



## ZipperZap (Sep 24, 2006)

> mrjimmy:
> 
> They said that in 1966 after the bell tower shootings at The University Of Texas.


I don't wish to belabor (belabour) the point but here are some stats that you may want to play around with. I can't attest to their reliability - although not anonymous - our Government has gained the reputation of being a little less than perfectly honest with it's citizenry (to say the least).

My I point out, however... from the Justice Department website ... since 1995 the max percentage of gun murders was 28%. 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm

I wonder how the anti gun folks view the other 72%. They don't seem to have a problem with some guy beaten to death with a ball bat or knifed, etc. ... .

Just my .02¢ worth.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

ZipperZap said:


> I wonder how the anti gun folks view the other 72%. They don't seem to have a problem with some guy beaten to death with a ball bat or knifed, etc.


Look at it this way: there was a guy who killed someone by hitting them over the head with a shovel, but you don't hear anyone arguing that we should ban shovels. Why is that? Could it be that shovels have other legitimate uses and are not readily used by deranged lunatics to kill dozens of innocent bystanders?

Do handguns have legitimate uses for civilians? Hard to think of any that aren't better served by other tools. Are handguns readily used to kill dozens of innocent bystanders? 

Take your time and think about it.


----------



## ZipperZap (Sep 24, 2006)

> bryanc:
> 
> Do handguns have legitimate uses for civilians? Hard to think of any that aren't better served by other tools.


OK ... I have thought about it.

Pepper spray? Maybe some cool Kung fu moves/footwork?

This happened to a friend of mine ... in the 'real world.'

Two armed men broke into his house at 2 AM a few years back. 

Later it was determined that one was an escaped murderer and the 
other was a less than stable rapist (no kidding).

Both were dispatched with the sound of Bob racking a shell into 
his shotgun (I know - a very dangerous thing to do in a house 
with women and children present - he probably should have 
been arrested). 

He, nor his beautiful wife, nor their two teenaged daughters will ever 
know the wondrous times they probably missed by not meeting those 
gentlemen and discussing current events and their early childhood 
experiences/upbringing/aspirations, etc.

In the event that they survived ... imagine the benefits of lifelong 
psychological counselling, physical scarring, nightmares, and of 
course fear of just about everything, and in some cases, everyone.

... they did not live in the slums, nor had they left their doors/windows
unlocked. 

There is another guy - friend of my father's - who believed much as you 
do. He wasn't as fortunate after giving up six dollars to a mugger in 
New York City on a business trip. He was an aerospace engineer with a 
family of five kids and a dog named Georgie. Dad said his wife, Nora, 
never smiled again ... cried a lot ... wasn't a happy person.

... I'm still thinking ... now what? 

The real world can be a real bummer, eh?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ZipperZap said:


> The usual crap


And this is to counter the massacre of students in our schools how?
With all these "incidents" in our schools we are supposed to look at two stories that are likely urban myths as a reason to support guns? My family lives in California (SF and LA) and no one has any stories like this to tell.
Stats pointing to the UK "upsurge" in gun violence have been shown to be a result of new criteria for what constitutes "gun violence" when amassing the data.

The real wold is a bummer. 31 Students and a prof were just killed by one of their own who had ridiculously easy legal access to guns. This keeps happening in USA and Canada and every time we keep hearing about those who deterred or killed intruders. How many lives are being "saved" vs how many keep getting massacred in our schools, malls and work places? Short sighted and massaged stats that don't take into account long term implications of having fewer guns on the streets to begin with are just show and nothing more. 

I love how the guy who sold Cho the gun doesn't seem to have lost a wink of sleep about it.

Next big NRA meeting? Balcksburg VA! You can count on it. Just like they went to Littleton CO after Collumbine. THE NRA IS THE PROBLEM NOT THE SOLUTION.

Edit: fixed punctuation and changed 32 Students to 31 and a prof.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

ZipperZap said:


> Both were dispatched with the sound of Bob racking a shell into
> his shotgun (I know - a very dangerous thing to do in a house
> with women and children present - he probably should have
> been arrested).


Your friend was very lucky. I take it he lived in the bush somewhere, or obviously he would've just called the police.

Cheers


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

TheStar.com - News - Canadian's daughter to push gun control


> Canadian's daughter to push gun control
> 
> Apr 19, 2007 02:15 PM
> Tim Harper
> ...


Good for her!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

She can try, but it'll be like peeing into the wind south of the 49th.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sadly, I agree with Sinc on the possible futility of this act, especially in Virginia. Still, it is worth the effort. Even sadder is the report out of the Virginia legislature that the leadership feels that "now is not the appropriate time" to discuss hand gun registration. "If not now ....... when???"


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Sadly, I agree with Sinc on the possible futility of this act, especially in Virginia. Still, it is worth the effort. Even sadder is the report out of the Virginia legislature that the leadership feels that "now is not the appropriate time" to discuss hand gun registration. "If not now ....... when???"


Exactly, sometimes the effort has to be made even if it seems like a long shot.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Sadly, I agree with Sinc on the possible futility of this act, especially in Virginia. Still, it is worth the effort. Even sadder is the report out of the Virginia legislature that the leadership feels that "now is not the appropriate time" to discuss hand gun registration. "If not now ....... when???"


If gun control advocates in the US had the same controls we in Canada enjoy pertaining to hand guns, they would be ecstatic. Yet so many Canadians try in vain to get tougher. What we have is great compared to the US. Accept it and appreciate it. You can't create Utopia.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

ZipperZap said:


> No, not mine. It came across my desk this morning and *I'm passing it along* as I am often apt to do.
> 
> ... strange and tumultuously disturbing times in which we live, eh?


Actually, you haven't '_passed on_' anything.

What exactly is your gig here, ZipperZap????????... You have asked for and taken advice, and so on, for admitted commercial purposes and yet you are *NOT* a sponsoring member. You seem to want to take our input and give little or nothing back except for this ridiculous interchange or similar. Maybe it is (high) time you gave something back. That, or I'm gonna have to decide that you are just here to milk some kind of Canadian focus group that you can rip off for free.

*WTF???*


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Of course, movie studio head honchos and their self-confessed deep pocket advisors might be exempt from the above. I don't know.


Thanks, HowEver, nicely put..... I'm begining to come to the conclusion that these self styled 'honchos' and 'deep pocket advisors' are so much male-cow kah-kah.....


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Not to derail the thread but ain't that the beauty of the internet (for some)? Anecdotal evidence and role playing. Fabulous...


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Not to derail the thread but ain't that the beauty of the internet (for some)? Anecdotal evidence and role playing. Fabulous...


Beautifully put, mrjimmy! G*d I love sarcasm....


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> What we have is great compared to the US. Accept it and appreciate it. You can't create Utopia.


I can't argue with that. I guess one of the only good things to come out of this tragedy will be that it will help us here in Canada appreciate what we've got, and bolster our efforts to prevent the Americanization of our gun laws.

Cheers

---
Edit: I also agree with martman, below, in that there is obviously room for improvement in Canada, and I will certainly support any politician who has the balls to increase the stringency with which guns are regulated in Canada.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> If gun control advocates in the US had the same controls we in Canada enjoy pertaining to hand guns, they would be ecstatic. Yet so many Canadians try in vain to get tougher. What we have is great compared to the US. Accept it and appreciate it. You can't create Utopia.


This is the same old fallacy: It is worse somewhere else so we shouldn't try and make it better still over here.
I don't buy this line of reasoning.
We still have way more room for improvement. Let's start with charging those who have (repeatedly) failed to register their "legal" fire arms, then start charging those who allow their guns to be stolen especially if they are used in a crime.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A Canadian victim is taking the lead on that in Virginia



> *Canadian's daughter to push gun control*
> 
> Washington Bureau Chief
> BLACKSBURG, Va. — The daughter of slain Canadian university professor Jocelyne Couture-Nowak says she will push for stricter gun-control laws in Virginia to honour the memory of her mother.
> ...


TheStar.com - News - Canadian's daughter to push gun control


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I already posted this story to this thread. see page 9


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sorry missed it - thought it just broke. Mea culpa.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> This is the same old fallacy: It is worse somewhere else so we shouldn't try and make it better still over here.
> I don't buy this line of reasoning.
> We still have way more room for improvement. Let's start with charging those who have (repeatedly) failed to register their "legal" fire arms, then start charging those who allow their guns to be stolen especially if they are used in a crime.


Like I said, we've got it good compared to our neighbours. It is your kind of reasoning that defies logic. Leave it alone. You won't get it changed anyway and it will lower your blood pressure. What will be will be, and believe me, guns will be.

And tell me, just where will you find these people who "have (repeatedly) failed to register their "legal" fire arms"?

You think they will somehow magically confess? Dream on mm.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> And tell me, just where will you find these people who "have (repeatedly) failed to register their "legal" fire arms"?
> 
> You think they will somehow magically confess? Dream on mm.


If I was the RCMP I'd start by lurking in various forums on the internet where many people are stupid enough to admit they have failed to register their fire arms. In fact anyone who publically admits to not registering their weapons (and there have been many) should be served with a search warrant as soon as possible.
Certainly repeated extensions of the amnesty isn't going to convince folks to register. To get compliance we need to show that we are serious.

Here is a comment on this issue I found interesting on a different forum:


from a different forum (Capital Hill blue) said:


> Guns most certainly *should* be more controlled
> Submitted by Netmonger on April 18, 2007 - 11:12.
> 
> The 3 posts I read are nothing but disturbing.
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> If I was the RCMP I'd start by lurking in various forums on the internet where many people are stupid enough to admit they have failed to register their fire arms.


Yeah right. Let real crime run rampant while they waste their time surfing forums for the odd person who might be stupid enough to make an admission on line. Good plan.



martman said:


> Here is a comment on this issue I found interesting on a different forum:


I found it almost as juvenile as your idea to have the RCMP lurking on forums. Almost, but not quite.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah, suggesting we just need more representatives of the state to spy on the people strikes me as a bad idea veering off into purest wretchedness. I don't know that the state would know when to back off... after awhile, everything is up to scrutiny, isn't it?


----------



## ZipperZap (Sep 24, 2006)

> Actually, you haven't 'passed on' anything.
> 
> What exactly is your gig here, ZipperZap????????... You have asked for and taken advice, and so on, for admitted commercial purposes and yet you are NOT a sponsoring member. You seem to want to take our input and give little or nothing back except for this ridiculous interchange or similar. Maybe it is (high) time you gave something back. That, or I'm gonna have to decide that you are just here to milk some kind of Canadian focus group that you can rip off for free.


What's my gig? I'm sorry you feel threatened. Are we a bit insecure? Shall I agree with you? How often should I agree with you? 80% 90% of the time? Perhaps I was placed here as a threat to all the lefties in the band - perhaps that's my gig, eh?

I'm sorry if you are scared of me. ... and I don't own a motion picture studio ... I think you are grossly misinformed, obviously.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

ZipperZap said:


> What's my gig? I'm sorry you feel threatened. Are we a bit insecure? Shall I agree with you? How often should I agree with you? 80% 90% of the time? Perhaps I was placed here as a threat to all the lefties in the band - perhaps that's my gig, eh?
> 
> I'm sorry if you are scared of me. ... and I don't own a motion picture studio ... I think you are grossly misinformed, obviously.


I'm not sure where do you get "scared"? And I certainly don't feel threatened by the likes of you.

In poker it is known as a 'call'.


----------



## ZipperZap (Sep 24, 2006)

"The likes of me"?

... That's telling.


----------



## ZipperZap (Sep 24, 2006)

OK ... here's the call. 

I'm 62 in June. I've probably seen a lot more of Canada than most Canadians - starting in 1950.

Six years of undergraduate University at Berkeley and USC - three more years of graduate work at UC San Diego, La Jolla. Two years at Scripps Institute, La Jolla. 
I'm a pilot, a diver, and an avid ocean fisherman.

Somewhere in there I spent two years in Vietnam - wounded in Tet, '68, at the Citadel in the ancient city of Hue.

30 years of fun as an Oceanographer - in many parts of the world for Woods Hole, U. of Hawaii, Scripps, etc. 

I'm retired - successfully retired at 55. I've ignored some associates of mine who have been continuously trying to lure me back into the wondrous world of clocks and meetings. I finally succumbed about a month and a half ago.

I joined Mac, eh? a while back but my wife almost died and I nursed her for 14 months. A brain surgery later and she's back at teaching third grade - she's an exceptional teacher - and she's my hero.

I've been on the net for so long I don't remember when I 'joined.' My first serious computer was an Apple in either '83 or '84. A nice little floppy 55k green screen II, I think.
Then a 2C switchbank 128 and lots after them.

I've been on too many bulletin boards and forums to remember them all. I've got a 20,000 post count on one where I enjoy spending my time ... late at night/early morning. 

I made the mistake here of offering a fun opportunity - with no strings attached - and verified that old saying that “No good deed goes unpunished!” My error and no harm done - noted and not to be repeated.

I have noted there are a few here who pretty much run herd over the many. i got few replies posted online here but many, many by e-mail. They asked for absolute confidentially, which I said I would maintain. That was interesting, eh?

I was directed to other Canadian forums which I have explored and now enjoy a moment or two daily - when time permits. 

I am very familiar with poker.

SO, that just about wraps up me ... and I call you. 

What makes the likes of me so frightening to you, that you display a measure of hostility? I've seen it before, but honestly, never quite understood it. Perhaps you can 'enlighten' me. 

I’m sorry, I never have been a fading flower when confronted by someone by the likes of you? Did I phrase that correctly?

May I ask you what your “gig” is?

So, I call.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I made the mistake here of offering a fun opportunity - with no strings attached - and verified that old saying that “No good deed goes unpunished!” My error and no harm done - noted and not to be repeated.


i read your post and went back a couple of pages to read more of them and am confused by both your tone and your content

i still have no idea of your 'gig'


----------



## ZipperZap (Sep 24, 2006)

Ha ha ha! OK ... since I have no idea what YOU are speaking to ... gig ...
go to: gig - Definitions from Dictionary.com

... and tell me to what you are referring.

I'm assuming it isn't my light, two-wheeled one-horse carriage. Right?

Perhaps if you could define your term, gig, or rephrase the question.

Then, I would be more than happy to answer your question. 

I'll check back in the morning.

... and poker man, it's your call - time to show'em or fold'em, lad. Please don't disappoint me.


----------



## ZipperZap (Sep 24, 2006)

Ah, I see.

"... and then, there were the hollow men."

I've seen the phantom shadows of 'intellectual
hollow men' many times in many places. I am 
not surprised. Ethereal, fleeting, scampering 
from shadow to shadow ... .

... not men at all.My mistake.


----------



## markceltic (Jun 4, 2005)

rgray said:


> Perhaps it is all that we as a society can *allow* given that safety is inversely proportional to freedom and privacy. As a society we seem to have chosen freedom and privacy.


So is it a bad thing that we seem to have chosen freedom & privacy?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

ZipperZap said:


> Ah, I see.
> 
> "... and then, there were the hollow men."
> 
> ...


I guess that is supposed to be an insult because I didn't adhere to your arbitrary 'morning' deadline.  

If you did know anything about Canada you would know that the NHL finals are now on and that everything stands down for that. Further it is the first sunny warm day of spring which means yard work. I have spent the day hauling a winter's worth of downed branches and the like to the dump - but then this is springtime in Canada. I did, however, spend time last night (aside from hockey) reviewing everything you have written here so as to be sure I am being fair in my assessment. 

Your request that I put my cards on the table is laughable in the sense that my cards have been on the table face up since I signed on here (Feb 2005). My life, my family, my work have all been commented on as no doubt has been noted by others. However since you haven't noticed I am still married to the girl next door, have 2 children one of whom is a PhD candidate and have nursed 4 palliative relatives to thier ends in the last four years. I am semi-retired from a lifetime career as a Psychology/Neurotoxicology Research Associate (our study in the number one cited study on prenatal marijuana effects in the world). But then all that info is in my various posts. I have been a completely open book.

What is my 'gig' here? I ask and answer Mac related questions, join in discussion, share jokes and bitch about the weather.... End of story.



> .. and poker man, it's your call - time to show'em or fold'em, lad. Please don't disappoint me.


Interesting turn of phrase because, since you know so much about poker you will recognise that it isn't my call in this case, it is yours.... it is my 'show'.

Your pleas (spelling intentional) to the contrary, whether or not your are *dissapointed* will be entirely your own perception. It is of absolutely no consequence to me one way or the other. I got over needing external validation many many years ago.

I took issue with you when you provided us the "opporunity" to give you a name for some mythological studio you couldn't tell us anything about. A business name is intellectual property of considerable value and you offered nothing of substance in return. Actually through the course of that discussion, until I read your 'cards on the table' and your profile, I made you out to be a 20-something studio rat wannabe - someone's bumboy who wasn't up to doing your own research. After all, every time the discussion turned you were taking it to the "big boys" (your term). You should be aware that that is how you come across. Now I know you are 60-something.

As for your question about whether Macs could hold their own in a production studio environment it is interesting that you claim Mac involvement since '83/'84, claim much contact with the field yet you didn't already know the answer the question which is common knowledge all over the net that Mac cost less to maintain, put less load on support and hold their own in any environment.

I find interesting your insistence that I feel "scared of" or "threatened by" you. I cannot for the life of me figure why that should be after reading all your stuff on this board. If it is your firearms obsession that is supposed to scare me, I point out that I shot 5897/6000 in the Dominion Marksman program at age 12 and can still at age 61 take the head off a crow 3 times out of 4 on at 300yds any given day. 

Frankly, I find you to be a self-important blowhard. To paraphrase Shakespeare "sound and fury - signifying nothing". As the Sage said, "I hear the wind blow but I did not see the trees move". 

I am putting you on my ignore list as I have wasted enough effort on this already.


----------



## ZipperZap (Sep 24, 2006)

Glad you won't see this ... lightweight.

I'll stick with my evaluation of 'the likes of you.'

Glad I made your acquaintance.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ZipperZap said:


> Glad you won't see this ... lightweight.
> 
> I'll stick with my evaluation of 'the likes of you.'
> 
> Glad I made your acquaintance.


Odd how one day everyone is accepting your invitation to submit a name suggestion and the next they're crappin' all over you ZZ.

We're not all like that. Matter of fact my bet is more of us are unlike that.

Keep us posted on your progress with the studio.


----------



## ZipperZap (Sep 24, 2006)

Actually, that is not the case. Only three here have exhibited any negative reactions to my posts. ... maybe four. Don't really care. A number have been keeping in touch with me with e-mail and some belong to multiple forums and keep up that way.

I don’t mind getting flamed - provided it’s just not the ‘hit and run away technique some are so proficient at here. The do provided some comic relief, I suppose.

Absolutely, I will keep those posted who are interested in the progress of the studio retrofit. 

At the moment things have slowed a bit as the main sound stage - with 60' roof - is losing it's 10 vertical load bearing 60' posts - having them replaced with 60' cantilevered pre-stressed roof supports. That seems to be the main issue at hand for the non-
leased portion.

As for the name - so far - it hasn't been decided as of Thursday night, anyway. The website designers and ad folks are going nuts about that ... but ... that part is really none of my business (thank goodness) any longer! I delivered about 500-600 and provided the overload that seems to have swamped that small project ... so I'm off in another direction.

There will be a documentary of the building of a (major) studio - it'll be the first since Lucas produced his a number of years ago. That ought to be pretty interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing that myself.

Really, the neatest thing, for me, about this project is being able to watch a huge, empty steel reinforced concrete box turn into something really magical. It's a gift - I've never had the privilege to ever witness anything like this before. As I've stated before, the projected start-up date (for full production) is sometime during the summer/probably late summer, now. 

I'll get some digital photos posted, for those interested.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ZipperZap said:


> I'll get some digital photos posted, for those interested.


Count me among the interested.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where's the outrage for those dying DAILY??



> As a single event, the shootings last week at Virginia Tech were horrific in scale. But every day in the United States dozens of people die from gunfire.


http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html#

*81 people each and every day on average for the entire year 2004.*


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*Perspective*

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html

Ten leading causes of death in the US, 2003, all persons. 

*Sixty-seven hundred and seven people each and every day on average for the entire year 2003.*

Not a gun related death in the lot.

Where is the outrage, indeed...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Not a gun related death in the lot.
> 
> Where is the outrage, indeed...


That is the trouble with those who claim to be outraged, either in the US or here at home. They do not recognize the insignificance of gun related deaths. Making mountains out of mole hills comes to mind every time I hear them squawk.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You've just listed some very significant causes of death. Their numbers are high. Death by gunshot pales in comparison. Matter of fact as a percentile, it barely exists. Even less if you remove suicides from the mix.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Gun-related deaths are pretty significant in Blacksburg right about now.


No argument. My heart goes out to all who lost someone in this incident.



HowEver said:


> Sensitivity is way too much to ask for.


I'm not being insensitive, I am merely furnishing statistics, the same as MD. Where were the sensitivity police when he failed to mention the 6600+ people who die every day from non-gunshot related causes?




HowEver said:


> "Insignificant" though some of those causes may be to you, they are not to everyone else.


A brash and inaccurate assumption. As the post title indicated, I was offering some perspective on the issue. No more, no less.



HowEver said:


> It remains that if only one person died from a heroin overdose last year, you probably wouldn't be saying heroin should be legal.


Heroin has far greater implications for society, even at one death per year. In a PDF file I downloaded related to this same topic, the authors indicated that nearly 29,000 deaths in the US in 2003 were drug induced. Frankly, I see drugs as a far greater threat than firearms, even though they have similar death rates.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The problem with your comparison is that, unlike most of the other causes of death, guns are not necessary for society to function in it's current form.

You can argue that drugs are also major killers, and, not surprisingly, there are lots of well-funded efforts to curb/eliminate drug use in our society*. But where is the 'war on handguns' when we need it?

So, unlike other factors that cause thousands of tragic deaths every year, guns are not only somehow 'okay', they're actually enshrined in the constitutions of some countries (fortunately, not Canada).

Cheers

*I'm willing to argue that these are wrong-headed and doomed to failure, but this is another topic.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The problem with your comparison is that, unlike most of the other causes of death, guns are not necessary for society to function in it's current form.


Consumption of meat, motion pictures, skiing, running shoes, pop rocks and recreational drugs are all unnecessary for society to function in its current form. If I find deaths caused by any of these, I suppose they should go.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Consumption of meat, motion pictures, skiing, running shoes, pop rocks and recreational drugs are all unnecessary for society to function in its current form. If I find deaths caused by any of these, I suppose they should go.


If you find consistent strong correlation with death (i.e. not a few freak occurances), good research evidence for a mechanism (i.e. evidence of causation), and these activities don't have other mitigating values, then yeah, they should go. In fact, WRT eating meat, you're probably right. People either shouldn't eat meat at all, or at the very least consumption should be reduced by a couple orders of magnitude.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> If you find consistent strong correlation with death (i.e. not a few freak occurances), good research evidence for a mechanism (i.e. evidence of causation), and these activities don't have other mitigating values, then yeah, they should go. In fact, WRT eating meat, you're probably right. People either shouldn't eat meat at all, or at the very least consumption should be reduced by a couple orders of magnitude.
> 
> Cheers


I limit protein consumption to three ounces at any one sitting and then only twice daily maximum, be it fish, beef, pork, poultry, seafood or whatever. (Think of a piece the size of a deck of playing cards.)

I pig out on the veggies though. 

It is amazing how much better I feel.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> I pig out on the veggies though.
> 
> It is amazing how much better I feel.


Remind me to send you some recipes. It wasn't until I quit eating meat that I discovered all the great food (and spices) I'd been missing out on. Very counter intuitive that removing something from your diet can increase it's diversity so much.

Cheers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Remind me to send you some recipes. It wasn't until I quit eating meat that I discovered all the great food (and spices) I'd been missing out on. Very counter intuitive that removing something from your diet can increase it's diversity so much.
> 
> Cheers.


Reminder: send recipes.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------

