Conquer Club

Baron Von PWN wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:The system allowed him to get the tools he needed to go out and murder or injure 50+ people. This doesn't sound like a problem to you?

1.This isn't a problem at all. the system allows you to buy a car and go kill thousands of people with it. Just get enough speed and start running them over. Think we should ban all cars? Of course not.

Baron Von PWN wrote: surely the actions of a few crazies who might blow up some buildings cannot justify restricting the rights of the rest of society!

2.Correct. Just because a few crazies do something, doesn't mean that everybody has to loose their rights. Just cause your 1 year old can't eat a steak, doesn't mean they should be banned. Just because some kids are allergic to peanuts, doesn't mean we wipe them off the face of the planet.

Baron Von PWN wrote:If anything random crazies are a very good reason to restrict access to firearms.

No. Random crazies are a reason for mental health clinics, training, education etc. You attack the CAUSE, not the result.

1. Your car example is silly. A car cannot achieve nearly the same amount of death as a firearm or explosive. Find me one instance where someone has gone on a murder spree with a car. Also you are arguing against something I have not said. I did not say ban all guns, I said restrict access to certain kinds of guns such as automatic or semi automatic weapons.

2. So explosives should not be restricted? Anybody should be able to go to explodo mart and pick up a block of C-4 just like that? you see no problem with that?

3. sure have all that too. However what is enabling crazies to go on killing rampages? I would argue easy access to tools of extensive murder. such as semi automatic and automatic weapons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/2 ... 29425.html

General Brock II wrote:Interestingly enough, the OP has it right. If somebody had have had a gun or some other weapon capable of firing a projectile, then perhaps not as many people would have died. Ever wondered why crime rates are low in the Texas countryside? Why people still feel comfortable keeping their doors unlocked?

Nebraska isn't a state full of gun-carriers. We certainly have our share, and they are pretty competent and confident with them. But it's not to the extent that Texas is, not even close. Yet Nebraskans live in the same sort of environment, as far as feeling safe and feeling comfortable with our doors unlocked. Why? Because Nebraskans are typically pretty good people in a state with a pretty good job market (one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation), and so you don't have as much crime for those reasons as well. I guess my point is...it's not necessarily a "gun result", as you're trying to paint it.

General Brock II wrote:In this society, the majority of people do not respect guns or treat them as a normal, every day implement... Since it's difficult to obtain them, there is mystique surrounding them and a surreal feeling of power.

Guns are not difficult to get in the United States. This is patently and demonstrably false. I don't believe that in the United States, they have any such mystique surrounding them, either.

2010-
In 2010 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms.


2010 vehicle deaths- 32,885

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Ok, can someone tell me how exactly you envision things going down if someone else did have a gun?

Do you open fire as soon as a costumed weirdo enters the theater, despite probably half the theater also being in costume?
Do you open fire when he throws the gas canister, despite the fact that it could easily be a harmless smoke bomb from some kind of prank / publicity stunt ?
Or do you open fire once he starts shooting, i.e. in a dark theater with people running all around in a panic and with you holding a handgun versus his shotgun/automatic rifle + body armor ?

How exactly do you guys envision this going well ?

Hey, since I would be THORNHEART in this situation, I would be seated in the top right corner--already expecting someone to come from that exit door. I see a dark costumed figure enter through the exit, so I smile coldly as I reach inside my jacket and grab my Snickers bar. I frown in frustration, grope around, then finally find my S&W .44 Magnum--yeahhhh. The gas canister is thrown, so I awkwardly roll outta my seat and onto the sticky floor. As the bullets start flying, I try to get up and take aim, but my arms, head, and torso are glued to the corn syrup floor. After struggling for several painfully long moments, I give up, reach inside my jacket, and grab my Snickers bar, which I enjoy until the shooting stops and finally until the paramedics scrape me off the ground.

-THORNHEART, American Hero

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Ok, can someone tell me how exactly you envision things going down if someone else did have a gun?

Do you open fire as soon as a costumed weirdo enters the theater, despite probably half the theater also being in costume?
Do you open fire when he throws the gas canister, despite the fact that it could easily be a harmless smoke bomb from some kind of prank / publicity stunt ?
Or do you open fire once he starts shooting, i.e. in a dark theater with people running all around in a panic and with you holding a handgun versus his shotgun/automatic rifle + body armor ?

How exactly do you guys envision this going well ?

Hey, since I would be THORNHEART in this situation, I would be seated in the top right corner--already expecting someone to come from that exit door. I see a dark costumed figure enter through the exit, so I smile coldly as I reach inside my jacket and grab my Snickers bar. I frown in frustration, grope around, then finally find my S&W .44 Magnum--yeahhhh. The gas canister is thrown, so I awkwardly roll outta my seat and onto the sticky floor. As the bullets start flying, I try to get up and take aim, but my arms, head, and torso are glued to the corn syrup floor. After struggling for several painfully long moments, I give up, reach inside my jacket, and grab my Snickers bar, which I enjoy until the shooting stops and finally until the paramedics scrape me off the ground.

-THORNHEART, American Hero

Thanks for the laugh.

I live to laugh, my good sir.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Ok, can someone tell me how exactly you envision things going down if someone else did have a gun?

Do you open fire as soon as a costumed weirdo enters the theater, despite probably half the theater also being in costume?
Do you open fire when he throws the gas canister, despite the fact that it could easily be a harmless smoke bomb from some kind of prank / publicity stunt ?
Or do you open fire once he starts shooting, i.e. in a dark theater with people running all around in a panic and with you holding a handgun versus his shotgun/automatic rifle + body armor ?

How exactly do you guys envision this going well ?

lax gun laws themselves are a deterrent.

the possibility that someone might have a gun to stop you can prevent as much crime as an actual gunshot would once the crime is already underway.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Ok, can someone tell me how exactly you envision things going down if someone else did have a gun?

Do you open fire as soon as a costumed weirdo enters the theater, despite probably half the theater also being in costume?
Do you open fire when he throws the gas canister, despite the fact that it could easily be a harmless smoke bomb from some kind of prank / publicity stunt ?
Or do you open fire once he starts shooting, i.e. in a dark theater with people running all around in a panic and with you holding a handgun versus his shotgun/automatic rifle + body armor ?

How exactly do you guys envision this going well ?

Once you see that everyone around you is being killed, yeah that's a pretty good time to take a couple shots. It's not like a bunch of people were running towards the mass shooter or standing right next to the mass shooter, so you can stop pretending that taking a couple shots at the mass shooter will somehow make things worse. If anything, it will draw the mass shooters attention and have it focused on you, and everyone else can get away? Not to mention, the defensive shooter has the element of surprise.

Just a basic thought

You strike me as someone who is scared of their own shadow. Is this true?

Phatscotty wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Ok, can someone tell me how exactly you envision things going down if someone else did have a gun?

Do you open fire as soon as a costumed weirdo enters the theater, despite probably half the theater also being in costume?
Do you open fire when he throws the gas canister, despite the fact that it could easily be a harmless smoke bomb from some kind of prank / publicity stunt ?
Or do you open fire once he starts shooting, i.e. in a dark theater with people running all around in a panic and with you holding a handgun versus his shotgun/automatic rifle + body armor ?

How exactly do you guys envision this going well ?

Once you see that everyone around you is being killed, yeah that's a pretty good time to take a couple shots.

fixed

Scotty, we get the point. Can you stop doing this whole "internet tough guy" thing? It's not convincing anyone.

Phatscotty wrote: You strike me as someone who is scared of their own shadow. Is this true?

Was that really neccessary?

Lootifer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: You strike me as someone who is scared of their own shadow. Is this true?

Was that really neccessary?

Of course! It comes with Open Carry for Cyber Handguns. Only the toughest Super Information Highwayman can say such things.

bedub1 wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:The system allowed him to get the tools he needed to go out and murder or injure 50+ people. This doesn't sound like a problem to you?

1.This isn't a problem at all. the system allows you to buy a car and go kill thousands of people with it. Just get enough speed and start running them over. Think we should ban all cars? Of course not.

Baron Von PWN wrote: surely the actions of a few crazies who might blow up some buildings cannot justify restricting the rights of the rest of society!

2.Correct. Just because a few crazies do something, doesn't mean that everybody has to loose their rights. Just cause your 1 year old can't eat a steak, doesn't mean they should be banned. Just because some kids are allergic to peanuts, doesn't mean we wipe them off the face of the planet.

Baron Von PWN wrote:If anything random crazies are a very good reason to restrict access to firearms.

No. Random crazies are a reason for mental health clinics, training, education etc. You attack the CAUSE, not the result.

1. Your car example is silly. A car cannot achieve nearly the same amount of death as a firearm or explosive. Find me one instance where someone has gone on a murder spree with a car. Also you are arguing against something I have not said. I did not say ban all guns, I said restrict access to certain kinds of guns such as automatic or semi automatic weapons.

2. So explosives should not be restricted? Anybody should be able to go to explodo mart and pick up a block of C-4 just like that? you see no problem with that?

3. sure have all that too. However what is enabling crazies to go on killing rampages? I would argue easy access to tools of extensive murder. such as semi automatic and automatic weapons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/2 ... 29425.html

Second paragraph of you own article. did you even bother to read it?

" At least 40 cyclists were injured, with most suffering cuts and broken bones, but nobody was killed, authorities said."

some murder spree.

john9blue wrote: lax gun laws themselves are a deterrent.

the possibility that someone might have a gun to stop you can prevent as much crime as an actual gunshot would once the crime is already underway.

Maybe. I was talking about this specific case though.
Don't think gun laws would have dettered this guy.

Phatscotty wrote: Once you see that everyone around you is being killed, yeah that's a pretty good time to take a couple shots. It's not like a bunch of people were running towards the mass shooter or standing right next to the mass shooter, so you can stop pretending that taking a couple shots at the mass shooter will somehow make things worse. If anything, it will draw the mass shooters attention and have it focused on you, and everyone else can get away? Not to mention, the defensive shooter has the element of surprise.

Just a basic thought

So, if you're sitting somewhere at random in the theater there's what, like 10 rows of seats between you and the shooter.
The people previously sitting in those rows and now running all over the place wouldn't get in your way or anything? Remember we are talking about a dark theater with tear gas ...

Element of surprise? The guy is already mowing down everything that moves. It's gonna take him 0.5 seconds to move his weapon 15 degrees to the left and start shooting in your general direction.

You strike me as someone who is scared of their own shadow. Is this true?

Unlike you, I'm confident enough in myself to not have to engage in online pissing contests regarding how much of a badass I am. But thanks for trying.

Btw, you strike me as someone who really really wants to live in one of the fantasy words you enjoy watching/ reading about so much. I'm sorry, but as much as you want it to be true, Rorshach cannot actually exist in the real world.
Hopefully you'll be able to accept at some point that in the real world nothing is black and white, there are no pure heroes and villains. No one sane wakes up in the morning and thinks to himself "ok, today I'm the bad guy".

patches70 wrote:2010-
In 2010 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms.


2010 vehicle deaths- 32,885

Is there a correlation between the number of drivers and the number of deaths . Can you provide the numbers of licence holders/ cars / deaths for say 1920 , 1940, 1960 and 1980 to see if there is an emerging picture. I would expect to see a progressive decrease in the percentage of fatalities because of improved vehicle reliability and safety coupled with a higher standard of driver instruction. Despite this no doubt fatalities increased in line with car miles driven , its inevitable . just as more guns will inevitably lead to more deaths , why will some people not face up to this?

comic boy wrote:

patches70 wrote:2010-
In 2010 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms.


2010 vehicle deaths- 32,885

Is there a correlation between the number of drivers and the number of deaths . Can you provide the numbers of licence holders/ cars / deaths for say 1920 , 1940, 1960 and 1980 to see if there is an emerging picture. I would expect to see a progressive decrease in the percentage of fatalities because of improved vehicle reliability and safety coupled with a higher standard of driver instruction. Despite this no doubt fatalities increased in line with car miles driven , its inevitable . just as more guns will inevitably lead to more deaths , why will some people not face up to this?

I like what you're asking, which reminds me:

what's the acceptable homicide rate for gun-related homicides, car fatalities, etc.?


It can't reasonably be 0 any time soon, and perhaps in the near future because as one strives to approach a 0 death rate, the costs marginally increase (i.e. law of diminishing returns).

if someone starts shooting a gun at me, I'll just use my the One powers and stop the bullets.

comic boy wrote:

patches70 wrote:2010-
In 2010 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms.


2010 vehicle deaths- 32,885

Is there a correlation between the number of drivers and the number of deaths . Can you provide the numbers of licence holders/ cars / deaths for say 1920 , 1940, 1960 and 1980 to see if there is an emerging picture. I would expect to see a progressive decrease in the percentage of fatalities because of improved vehicle reliability and safety coupled with a higher standard of driver instruction. Despite this no doubt fatalities increased in line with car miles driven , its inevitable . just as more guns will inevitably lead to more deaths , why will some people not face up to this?

Oh, sorry, I missed this.



1920- Deaths 12,155 No data for Vehicle Miles Traveled or # of deaths per million VMT. % of population- 0.00011417 Up 9.51% from previous year.

1940- Deaths 32,914, VMT (in billions) 302.19, deaths per million VMT 10.89, % of pop. 0.00024912, Up 5.53%

1960- Deaths 36,399, VMT 718.76, Deaths per million VMT 5.06, % of pop. 0.00020147, Down -1.09% from previous year

1980- Deaths 51,091, VMT 1,527.30, Deaths per million VMT 3.35, % or pop. 0.00022485, Down -.96% from previous year

Yearly vehicle deaths in the US peaked over 50K in the '66-'73 (each year more than 50K killed) and '78-'80 (each year more than 50K killed.

Deaths per million Vehicle Miles Traveled has decreased constantly, in 1921 24.09 people died per million VMT. In 2010 1.11 killed per million miles traveled.

From '93-'07 over 40K a year killed in each year.

As for percentage of population killed-



That chart is deaths per 10,00, which today stands at 1 (one). So that makes it 10(ten) per 100,000*

US gun deaths per 100,000 as of 2009 is 3.6 per 100,000**

11,127 people died one way or another from a firearm where as in 2009 33, 261 vehicle deaths.


*Actually, it's 11 per 100,000 vehicle deaths as the percentage isn't quite at 1 per 10,000 yet.

*United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Homicides by firearm statistics claims there were 3 per 100,000 killed in the US in 2009. The 3.60 figure quoted in the post above is the statistics that Micheal Moore claimed in his movie "Bowling for Columbine".

Only in the last three years has the number of deaths fallen below 40K for a very long time. The last time less than 30K people died in vehicle deaths was in 1945. Since then it's been at least 30K and then most often over 40K every year.


Vehicle safety has certainly gotten better overall. More miles are traveled with fewer deaths to be sure. But vehicle deaths per 100,000 are way higher than gun related deaths per 100,000.

One has a much greater chance of dying in a car wreck than being shot dead somewhere, like a movie theater. Which seems pretty obvious doesn't it?

I would suspect, that depending on what area one may live, the chance of getting shot would rise as well as lower, depending on the location. Inner city one would have a much greater chance of being shot than say, in the middle of nowhere county bumpkin setting.
I would also think that lifestyle and habits would contribute, to gun deaths and vehicle deaths. If you are a drug dealer in the inner city you have a greater chance of being killed by a gunshot one day. If you are a chronic speeder, or drunk driver, you probably have a greater chance of being killed in an auto accident.

I can't really quantify that last bit, just seems kinda common sense to me and I don't feel like delving into it much further.

comic boy wrote:
Despite this no doubt fatalities increased in line with car miles driven , its inevitable .

No, no! Deaths per Vehicle Mile has consistently been dropping since practically day one.

comic boy wrote:just as more guns will inevitably lead to more deaths , why will some people not face up to this?

Around 10-11 people per 100,000 will die in a car wreck in the US.
Around 3-4 people per 100,000 will be shot dead in the US.


One has a much greater chance to die in a car wreck than being shot dead. That's just a fact. More people drive (stupidly I might add) than people who own guns and are willing to shoot someone.

I personally know I have a better chance of dying in a car wreck than being shot. I don't worry too much about being shot, ever.
Driving on the other hand, there are lots and lots and lots of bad drivers.

I had to shake my head one day, driving down I95 in the middle lane at about 70 mph. A car blows by me in the fast lane.

I happen to look over and see the girl driving with one hand and in the other texting furiously on her phone. I laughed. Not a humorous laugh mind you, more of an incredulous laugh. I didn't bother to take her license plate and report her. Crap like that (and worse) happens all the time.

patches70 wrote:

comic boy wrote:
Despite this no doubt fatalities increased in line with car miles driven , its inevitable .

No, no! Deaths per Vehicle Mile has consistently been dropping since practically day one.

Agreed. I would suggest this is true because some folks (my parents are like this) will not wear their seatbelts for short trips "because we won't need it".

patches70 wrote:

comic boy wrote:just as more guns will inevitably lead to more deaths , why will some people not face up to this?

Around 10-11 people per 100,000 will die in a car wreck in the US.
Around 3-4 people per 100,000 will be shot dead in the US.

One has a much greater chance to die in a car wreck than being shot dead. That's just a fact. More people drive (stupidly I might add) than people who own guns and are willing to shoot someone.

And thankfully who use their guns stupidly.

Iliad wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:You asked for it!!!!!

The timing of this tragedy screams "False Flag" to me with Obama trying to sign the gun treaty with the UN in a week and needing support. The media jumped on this like a pack of hungry wolves, saying "What can be done about this?"
There is already conjecture that James Holmes may have been involved in mind-altering neuroscience research and ended up becoming involved at a depth he never anticipated. His actions clearly show a strange detachment from reality, indicating he was not in his right mind. That can only typically be accomplished through drugs, hypnosis or trauma (and sometimes all three).

His behavior doesn't add up
His behavior already reveals stark inconsistencies that question the mainstream explanation of events. For example, he opened fire on innocent people but then calmly surrendered to police without resistance. This is not consistent with the idea of "killing everyone."

Furthermore, he then admitted to police that his apartment was booby-trapped with explosives. If you were really an evil-minded Joker trying to kill people (including cops), why would you warn them about the booby trap in advance? It doesn't add up.

In other words, this guy was equipped with exotic gear by someone with connections to military equipment. SWAT clothing, explosives, complex booby-traps... c'mon, this isn't a "lone gunman." This seems like somebody who was selected for a mission, given equipment to carry it out, then somehow brainwashed into getting it done.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James ... z21D3hGD76

I'm quoting this so Scotty can't edit his way out of shame.

Jesus fucking Christ man, is there anything you can't turn into political fodder? And when did you turn into outright conspiracy theory level of idiocy and delusion? People died Scotty, FFS have some decency.

Why would I edit anything when it turns out I was right and you are wrong?

Oopsy for Iliad! It turns out the shooter did get his money from a federal government handout. I was asking where he got $20,000 from, and it turns out he was granted $26,000 earlier this year. Also, on the ammunition purchases, unemployment checks totally funded his ammunition. The purchases matched his free money from the government (each purchase right around $286).

It's not political fodder. It's pertinent information and the theory I shared about where he got his money turned out to be 100% true. So, I guess that means I am not a conspiracy theory toting delusional idiot. It turns out you are naive and ignorant, and clueless. It almost seems like you were trying to protect the shooters financial information...the way you attacked me and slandered my information, which again, turned out to be true.

I guess an apology is in order

Phatscotty wrote:

Iliad wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:You asked for it!!!!!

The timing of this tragedy screams "False Flag" to me with Obama trying to sign the gun treaty with the UN in a week and needing support. The media jumped on this like a pack of hungry wolves, saying "What can be done about this?"
There is already conjecture that James Holmes may have been involved in mind-altering neuroscience research and ended up becoming involved at a depth he never anticipated. His actions clearly show a strange detachment from reality, indicating he was not in his right mind.That can only typically be accomplished through drugs, hypnosis or trauma (and sometimes all three).

His behavior doesn't add up
His behavior already reveals stark inconsistencies that question the mainstream explanation of events. For example, he opened fire on innocent people but then calmly surrendered to police without resistance. This is not consistent with the idea of "killing everyone."

Furthermore, he then admitted to police that his apartment was booby-trapped with explosives. If you were really an evil-minded Joker trying to kill people (including cops), why would you warn them about the booby trap in advance? It doesn't add up.

In other words, this guy was equipped with exotic gear by someone with connections to military equipment. SWAT clothing, explosives, complex booby-traps... c'mon, this isn't a "lone gunman." This seems like somebody who was selected for a mission, given equipment to carry it out, then somehow brainwashed into getting it done.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James ... z21D3hGD76

I'm quoting this so Scotty can't edit his way out of shame.

Jesus fucking Christ man, is there anything you can't turn into political fodder? And when did you turn into outright conspiracy theory level of idiocy and delusion? People died Scotty, FFS have some decency.

Why would I edit anything when it turns out I was right and you are wrong?

Oopsy for Iliad! It turns out the shooter did get his money from a federal government handout. I was asking where he got $20,000 from, and it turns out he was granted $26,000 earlier this year. Also, on the ammunition purchases, unemployment checks totally funded his ammunition. The purchases matched his free money from the government (each purchase right around $286).

It's not political fodder. It's pertinent information and the theory I shared about where he got his money turned out to be 100% true. So, I guess that means I am not a conspiracy theory toting delusional idiot. It turns out you are naive and ignorant, and clueless. It almost seems like you were trying to protect the shooters financial information...the way you attacked me and slandered my information, which again, turned out to be true.

I guess an apology is in order

And I'm quoting this so it can't be modified later.

Scotty's gradual descent into paranoia and delusion is somewhat interesting from a clinical perspective. But mostly just sad.

This is why people like Haggis want to take our guns

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Iliad wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:You asked for it!!!!!

The timing of this tragedy screams "False Flag" to me with Obama trying to sign the gun treaty with the UN in a week and needing support. The media jumped on this like a pack of hungry wolves, saying "What can be done about this?"
There is already conjecture that James Holmes may have been involved in mind-altering neuroscience research and ended up becoming involved at a depth he never anticipated. His actions clearly show a strange detachment from reality, indicating he was not in his right mind.That can only typically be accomplished through drugs, hypnosis or trauma (and sometimes all three).

His behavior doesn't add up
His behavior already reveals stark inconsistencies that question the mainstream explanation of events. For example, he opened fire on innocent people but then calmly surrendered to police without resistance. This is not consistent with the idea of "killing everyone."

Furthermore, he then admitted to police that his apartment was booby-trapped with explosives. If you were really an evil-minded Joker trying to kill people (including cops), why would you warn them about the booby trap in advance? It doesn't add up.

In other words, this guy was equipped with exotic gear by someone with connections to military equipment. SWAT clothing, explosives, complex booby-traps... c'mon, this isn't a "lone gunman." This seems like somebody who was selected for a mission, given equipment to carry it out, then somehow brainwashed into getting it done.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James ... z21D3hGD76

I'm quoting this so Scotty can't edit his way out of shame.

Jesus fucking Christ man, is there anything you can't turn into political fodder? And when did you turn into outright conspiracy theory level of idiocy and delusion? People died Scotty, FFS have some decency.

Why would I edit anything when it turns out I was right and you are wrong?

Oopsy for Iliad! It turns out the shooter did get his money from a federal government handout. I was asking where he got $20,000 from, and it turns out he was granted $26,000 earlier this year. Also, on the ammunition purchases, unemployment checks totally funded his ammunition. The purchases matched his free money from the government (each purchase right around $286).

It's not political fodder. It's pertinent information and the theory I shared about where he got his money turned out to be 100% true. So, I guess that means I am not a conspiracy theory toting delusional idiot. It turns out you are naive and ignorant, and clueless. It almost seems like you were trying to protect the shooters financial information...the way you attacked me and slandered my information, which again, turned out to be true.

I guess an apology is in order

And I'm quoting this so it can't be modified later.

Scotty's gradual descent into paranoia and delusion is somewhat interesting from a clinical perspective. But mostly just sad.

All I said was he got his money from the gov't. All you did was slander the facts, and you added nothing. Which makes your post a typical liberal response. That is to say you said nothing. You should at least try to match the caliber of the post that you are responding to. Of course, you prove over and over again that you can't, so you act like an immature baby. You aren't even in the same league as me. The reason you try to belittle me and what I say is because I absolutely destroy your false narratives, over and over and over again. That's why calling me names is all you can do.

What we have here is a 100% gov't handout funded mass shooting. I think I know why you are soooooo scared about what that means, because, with the way you think, you are fearing that our next step would be to act the way you do, and say "we need to take away all federal education grants, because it caused a mass shooting. If he didn't get thefederal money, there would not have been a mass shooting!

Most of the conjecture (read: guesswork) in that article is useless crap; however, there's one interesting scenario from that article if it's modified.


The author mentions that the FBI could've been involved. He cites examples of the FBI posing as Al-Qaeda, or some terrorist organization, in order to supply willing, domestic terrorists the means to achieve their goals, which (for all we know) are always cut short of completion. Before the plot is carried out, the FBI arrests the person. (This is basically entrapment, but from what I've heard, the courts say, "Nah-uh!").

The author uses a 80-20 hypothesis for law enforcement (80% are good, 20% are bad), and applies it to the FBI. Then he concludes that (it could be possible that) bad FBI agents let this happen intentionally. I find this to be unbelievable because the FBI screens and continually assesses its agents much better than other law enforcement agencies. To me, this scenario is as likely as Santa Claus being real.


Modified version:
What could be the case is that the FBI, going through their normal counter-terrorism routine, bungled it, and accidentally let this guy kill a bunch of people, but to me this is extremely unlikely, because (from what I've read) the FBI have several agents in place and at least one right next to the person who they're trying to arrest. Furthermore, why would they allow Holmes to activate his 12AM music bomb at his apartment (i.e. Holmes played music late at night to entice people to open the door, thus setting off the bombs)? I don't see why the FBI would allow that to happen--assuming they would be in position to stop that.

Again, it's extremely unlikely, but it is probable... whatever that's worth.