Another Shooting -

Bullet Magnet · #91 12-17-2012, 03:39 PM

On the radio today they made a point of focusing on the victims, not the killer. Because everyone always focuses on the killer, he becomes infamous, and that inspires others.

mr.odd · #92 12-17-2012, 04:36 PM

Okay, now this is sick.

Just heard on the news today that someone placed an anonymous call to the police that they saw a guy walk into a school carrying a gun. School was placed on lock down, but it turned out to be a joke. Now what kind of sick and immature person thinks that is funny is beyond me.

Also an eleven year old grabbed a gun from his parents gun safe and took it to school. The kid said he was scared another shooter might come to his school and he thought he could protect everyone from them.

Wings of Fire · #93 12-17-2012, 04:44 PM

:

Also an eleven year old grabbed a gun from his parents gun safe and took it to school. The kid said he was scared another shooter might come to his school and he thought he could protect everyone from them.

If that isn't a good argument for gun control I don't know what is.

Havoc · #94 12-18-2012, 07:39 AM

Courtesy of our own Lorne Lanning.

Wings of Fire · #95 12-18-2012, 09:15 AM

Oh fuck Lorne Lanning.

People who do things like that are edgy faggots.

OANST · #96 12-18-2012, 10:39 AM

:

Oh fuck Lorne Lanning.

People who do things like that are edgy faggots.

My point being that the only thing I would change about that statement is that I would say it louder.

STM · #97 12-18-2012, 01:32 PM

It is true though...

No one gives to fucks about this sort of thing unless it's white westerners getting killed. You know this happened in China within 24 hours? A guy went to town in a primary school and stabbed 22-24 kids aged 5-12? Anyone care about that?

Since it's impossible to get gun control in place in the US, they need a public health service to pay for psychologists to treat these psychos before they detriment society.

MeechMunchie · #98 12-18-2012, 02:05 PM

In the case of Americans, I think they have every right to be more worried about this because firstly it's closer to them and therefore more of a direct threat, and OH YEAH AMERICA ISN'T A WARZONE.

Is the massacre of American children any "worse" than that of Middle Eastern children? Of course not. But it's certainly more surprising, hence the media blitz.

OANST · #99 12-18-2012, 02:07 PM

I bet people in China cared when it happened in China. I bet the people in China see what happened in the U.S. as an unfortunate tragedy, but ultimately didn't care. People care more deeply when a tragedy happens within their own culture. Whining about it is stupid, and pointless, and pointing it out publicly while the family is mourning is faggotry.

Meech is a speedy shit.

Manco · #**100** 12-18-2012, 03:14 PM

:

People care more deeply when a tragedy happens within their own culture. Whining about it is stupid, and pointless, and pointing it out publicly while the family is mourning is faggotry.

The same as trying to start a discussion about gun control mere days after the tragedy is?

Bullet Magnet · #**101** 12-18-2012, 03:42 PM

All the China stabbing spree victims survived.

Phylum · #**102** 12-18-2012, 04:58 PM

They reported a lost dog on the news last night rather than listing every Afghan child who has been killed in the last week. I think that was very insensitive.

Wings of Fire · #**103** 12-18-2012, 05:00 PM

And next on the news at six: People still dying without end.

Bullet Magnet · #**104** 12-18-2012, 07:44 PM

I read that poem about how happy the kids are up in heaven. I felt sick.

Nepsotic · #**105** 12-18-2012, 10:04 PM

:

And next on the news at six: People still dying without end.

We get news about a woman who had her meerkat ornaments stolen.

STM · #**106** 12-19-2012, 05:28 AM

We get BBC London so it's still people getting murdered. There's a murder story in the news every day.

OANST · #**107** 12-19-2012, 06:39 AM

:

The same as trying to start a discussion about gun control mere days after the tragedy is?

No. Don't be dumb. If there is a nuclear melt down would it be inappropriate to discuss new safe guards for nuclear power plants? People who say that it's inappropriate to discuss how we can get rid of the tools that are used to kill human beings right after human beings have been killed with them are fucking retards. It's not disrespectful. It's fucking respectful. I respect your loss enough to not want it to happen again. I don't want gun control because I'm a dirty hippy. I want gun control so that we can limit how often lives are taken by guns. It's not a political agenda. It's a human, and compassionate agenda. So, suck my dick.

Manco · #**108** 12-19-2012, 09:40 AM

:

No. Don't be dumb. If there is a nuclear melt down would it be inappropriate to discuss new safe guards for nuclear power plants? People who say that it's inappropriate to discuss how we can get rid of the tools that are used to kill human beings right after human beings have been killed with them are fucking retards. It's not disrespectful. It's fucking respectful. I respect your loss enough to not want it to happen again. I don't want gun control because I'm a dirty hippy. I want gun control so that we can limit how often lives are taken by guns. It's not a political agenda. It's a human, and compassionate agenda. So, suck my dick.

So what’s the difference between that and using a tragedy to highlight how other, similar tragedies happen frequently and go unreported?

Like, what makes one a Good Thing and the other a Bad Thing? Because one involves people in another country? Because it points out that these aren’t the only deaths in the world? Why?

OANST · #**109** 12-19-2012, 10:30 AM

:

So what’s the difference between that and using a tragedy to highlight how other, similar tragedies happen frequently and go unreported?

Like, what makes one a Good Thing and the other a Bad Thing? Because one involves people in another country? Because it points out that these aren’t the only deaths in the world? Why?

Because it purposely trivializes the recent tragedy, by comparing it with others, and asking a question that should be self evident to anyone who doesn't have to wear diapers to keep from shitting themselves. We are more concerned with dangers in our own society, and how to stop them than we are going to be about another society that we have no control over. How stupid would a person have to be to not understand that? Lorne Lanning stupid. That's how stupid.

Nepsotic · #**110** 12-19-2012, 10:36 AM

Plus, it's not like the media can cover every single death that ever happened.

Manco · #**111** 12-19-2012, 10:53 AM

:

Because it purposely trivializes the recent tragedy, by comparing it with others, and asking a question that should be self evident to anyone who doesn't have to wear diapers to keep from shitting themselves. We are more concerned with dangers in our own society, and how to stop them than we are going to be about another society that we have no control over. How stupid would a person have to be to not understand that? Lorne Lanning stupid. That's how stupid.

Except it never trivializes anything.

It’s saying: “You find these deaths sad? How come you don’t find these deaths sad too?”

It never says “man fuck these kids, these guys are way more important”. That’s an important distinction to make.

Now, it is being critical of people who find things they hear about in the news sad by implying they only care about the things they hear about. And yeah that’s hella dumb because you can’t expect people to know everything that happens in the world.

But it’s doing that so as to make people think a little more. And that’s no bad thing.

MeechMunchie · #**112** 12-19-2012, 11:01 AM

:

It never says “man fuck these kids, these guys are way more important”. That’s an important distinction to make.

This would be true if the news was old. It is not.

Which means that the odds are, to bring up another tradgedy, you have to interrupt that person's current concern for the massacre closer to home. And interruption implies that the thing that's just been brought up is more important.

That was a bit mangled.

You know when a person you're talking to answers their phone in a middle of the conversation? It's like that. You wouldn't mind them talking to the person on the phone if they finished talking to you first. But if they start the new conversation in the middle of the one you're already having, they're giving the phone priority i.e. they think it's more important.

EDIT: Plus, the average American citizen doesn't have the power to end Middle Eastern war crimes. They can make a decent impact on local(ish) gun control laws, with a little encouragement. So there's another reason why local news is important news - the transmission of information is more likely to have an actual impact.

OANST · #**113** 12-19-2012, 11:03 AM

:

Except it never trivializes anything.

It’s saying: “You find these deaths sad? How come you don’t find these deaths sad too?”

It never says “man fuck these kids, these guys are way more important”. That’s an important distinction to make.

Now, it is being critical of people who find things they hear about in the news sad by implying they only care about the things they hear about. And yeah that’s hella dumb because you can’t expect people to know everything that happens in the world.

But it’s doing that so as to make people think a little more. And that’s no bad thing.

It sooo does trivialize it. Look at that comic, and just try to keep the smarm from seeping into your brain. The faggot who made that comic knew exactly which tragedy the person was upset about, and led with "Oh, which one." Oh, fuck you. How about that? You want to say that there are other tragedies too? Say it like a person. Say it like a human being who isn't using a tragedy to prove how goddamn cool, and smart you are. He has tried so hard to be big minded, that he has narrowed himself to being just another smarmy hippy piece of shit.

MeechMunchie · #**114** 12-19-2012, 11:10 AM

The only people who care about all deaths equally are the people who don't actually care about any of them.

Manco · #**115** 12-19-2012, 11:24 AM

:

This would be true if the news was old. It is not.

Which means that the odds are, to bring up another tradgedy, you have to interrupt that person's current concern for the massacre closer to home. And interruption implies that the thing that's just been brought up is more important.

That was a bit mangled.

You know when a person you're talking to answers their phone in a middle of the conversation? It's like that. You wouldn't mind them talking to the person on the phone if they finished talking to you first. But if they start the new conversation in the middle of the one you're already having, they're giving the phone priority i.e. they think it's more important.

When is a good time to bring it up?

:

EDIT: Plus, the average American citizen doesn't have the power to end Middle Eastern war crimes. They can make a decent impact on local(ish) gun control laws, with a little encouragement. So there's another reason why local news is important news - the transmission of information is more likely to have an actual impact.

How does the average American citizen make an impact on gun control law? By pushing for those with the political power to change the law.

It doesn’t have to be a problem that the average American citizen can make a decent impact on for it to be relevant or worth bringing up.

:

It sooo does trivialize it. Look at that comic, and just try to keep the smarm from seeping into your brain. The faggot who made that comic knew exactly which tragedy the person was upset about, and led with "Oh, which one." Oh, fuck you. How about that? You want to say that there are other tragedies too? Say it like a person. Say it like a human being who isn't using a tragedy to prove how goddamn cool, and smart you are. He has tried so hard to be big minded, that he has narrowed himself to being just another smarmy hippy piece of shit.

It’s a comic. It has to be punchy and memorable. That’s how they have to work.

Perhaps the comic is insensitive and smarmy. Does that invalidate its point?

OANST · #**116** 12-19-2012, 11:27 AM

:

Perhaps the comic is insensitive and smarmy. Does that invalidate its point?

No. BUT EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE EXPLAINED THAT WAS WRONG WITH IT DOES. THE SMARMY PART JUST MEANS THAT LANNING IS A SMARMY CUNT WHICH HE IS.

MeechMunchie · #**117** 12-19-2012, 12:02 PM

:

When is a good time to bring it up?

Later. When people have moved it from "unfolding disaster" to "recent tradgedy".

:

How does the average American citizen make an impact on gun control law? By pushing for those with the political power to change the law.

And that's a damn sight more likely to work than sending a sternly-worded letter to the President of Yemen. Just like the rest of us, politicians are mainly concerned with the people in their own country.

:

It doesn’t have to be a problem that the average American citizen can make a decent impact on for it to be relevant or worth bringing up.

Very true. Good thing nobody here said that it did.

Wings of Fire · #**118** 12-21-2012, 03:49 PM

Don't mind this, it's just one of the only good Penny Arcade strips I've ever seen.

Wings of Fire · #**119** 12-24-2012, 08:09 AM

I hate Piers Morgan as much as the next man, but the NRA and their lackeys are a danger to democracy.

mr.odd · #**120** 12-24-2012, 11:03 AM

Been watching the news lately. People have been buying up the assault rifles and other firearms because they're afraid guns are going to get outlawed all together. I never understood why people think they needed a weapon that is designed to kill in masses.

It almost seems like it's too late for gun control now. Even if we get assault rifles banned, the guns are already out there in the general populace. People will just buy and sell them illegally or stalk up before a ban takes affect.