Originally posted by Kurk
He's white. But is he a terrorist? Only if he had some sort of motive; which we of course don't know as of yet.Very odd profile. Millionaire with no political or religious leanings, people thought he was normal; it doesn't add up.
Other than to possibly spread terror and fear?
Had over 30 weapons (home and hotel), thousands of rounds of ammo and explosives. Nope, doesn't sound like the actions of a terrorist at all.
Originally posted by Robtard Another stockpile of guns found in this guy’s house and explosives/materials to make explosives.Not sure the ‘quit guy who snapped’ portrait is holding.
Virginia tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho had a nice stockpile, made videos, and was obviously planning his massacre. Is there more then "He snapped"?
Oh yeah. He very mostly likely (like 99.999% sure) suffered from micro-penis, couldn't handle a woman rejecting him and had class rejection issues (these might have been imagined), iirc.
edit: Or were you talking about time in the sense if it was a spur of the moment thing or not? If so, no, he planned his attack months in advance
Originally posted by jaden101
They can make supermarket trolleys that the wheels jam up within a certain distance of the store so they can't be taken too far. They can make anti-social behaviour ankle tags that can alert authorities when someone is outside their home during their curfew hours but they can't make guns that only fire within a certain distance of their registered home or at proper gun clubs and firing rangesWeird that.
A number of companies are developing firearms with safety features inspired by smartphones, such as biometric locks, remote disabling, GPS, discharge logs, and AFID tags. There is no reason firearms should not have these features. In fact, 60% of Americans report that they would consider buying a gun if all guns were required to have these features.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A number of companies are developing firearms with safety features inspired by smartphones, such as biometric locks, remote disabling, GPS, discharge logs, and AFID tags. There is no reason firearms should not have these features. In fact, 60% of Americans report that they would consider buying a gun if all guns were required to have these features.
Ah, yes, the ol' "enforce new regulation tech to force criminals to magically start using guns legally" argument.
[...good thing you mentioned the limits. He used either an illegally modified automatic weapon or an illegal firearm. Let's regulate it even more. Maybe we don't have enough laws that talk about penalties and prison time associated with automatic weapons. Yeah, that will prevent this problem in the future. The next time a criminal wants to commit a crime with an illegally obtained and illegal-grade firearm, he or she will think twice about using that illegal gun, illegally. "Well, these laws are on the books. Perhaps I shouldn't do this illegal thing. Whew. Good thing those regulations and laws existed! ANOTHER CRIME PREVENTED!!! WEEEEEE!]
So what this tech does is it makes people, who overwhelmingly represent those that will not commit crimes with their guns, have to use this tech. While the criminals still use illicit firearms or "physical and digital hacks" to still do criminal things like crime and illegal activity and not legal things. Oh, and let's not forget criminals also break the law.
Liberals hate the idea of tougher harsher sentences, remember criminals are not bad people to liberals. They are just people who experienced "woe and poverty" a deserve a second chance.
Also Adam was just bullshitting, he knows what he said is his opinion which is shared by him and a small few, or just him. He doesn't have any statistics or data to back up what he said. And if he does, it will he from a left winged rag like vox or something similar.
Originally posted by Robtard
Oh yeah. He very mostly likely (like 99.999% sure) suffered from micro-penis, couldn't handle a woman rejecting him and had class rejection issues (these might have been imagined), iirc.edit: Or were you talking about time in the sense if it was a spur of the moment thing or not? If so, no, he planned his attack months in advance
Originally posted by Sable
Liberals hate the idea of tougher harsher sentences, remember criminals are not bad people to liberals. They are just people who experienced "woe and poverty" a deserve a second chance.
Dude...we have so much data on this, by now, that it is a shame to the US for having a "Justice System." The data is so deep that it is quite obvious that lack of education, poverty, poor mental healthcare, and general environment are the extreme majority causes of crime.
Harsher sentences is actually the worst possible way to treat, prevent, and correct crime. This is not a liberal idea. This is very basic criminology. The US Justice system sucks MASSIVE turds. It's atrocious. Our recidivism rates are worse than many 3rd world countries. Our incarceration rates are the highest in the world.
Sure, people should take responsibility for their actions. But "harsher sentences" is not a good idea, at all.
Originally posted by Sable
Also Adam was just bullshitting, he knows what he said is his opinion which is shared by him and a small few, or just him. He doesn't have any statistics or data to back up what he said. And if he does, it will he from a left winged rag like vox or something similar.
Who knows! Perhaps he can defend his opinion. I highly doubt there is any data, at all, in the US, that supports his position about forcing tech regulations on firearms, like this. That's because...the regulation doesn't exist. No data to collect much less analyze.
Originally posted by jaden101
They can make supermarket trolleys that the wheels jam up within a certain distance of the store so they can't be taken too far. They can make anti-social behaviour ankle tags that can alert authorities when someone is outside their home during their curfew hours but they can't make guns that only fire within a certain distance of their registered home or at proper gun clubs and firing rangesWeird that.
So, people should only be allowed to protect themselves if they're at home or at a gun range?
Do you know how many repeat offenders roam the streets of Chicago who been busted for possession of illegal weapons? It's cause these judges and prosecutors are weak an ineffective. I know if they handed down tougher sentences they would stop doing bad things. They(criminals) won't because they know they are getting out soon!
As for Your second part I too would laugh my ass off if he could come defend his position, three things will happen, he can't, he won't, or will try based of some illogical argument. "But my grandma said she won't by a gun without a fingerprint scanner!"
Originally posted by Sable
I know if they handed down tougher sentences they would stop doing bad things.
Oh?
And where's your evidence?
I do find harsher prison conditions may slightly increase recidivism:
"By exploiting discontinuities in the assignment of inmates to different security levels, we attempt to isolate the causal impact of prison conditions on recidivism. Our findings suggest that harsher prison conditions do not reduce post-release criminal behavior, and may even increase it."
https://academic.oup.com/aler/article/9/1/1/163059/Do-Harsher-Prison-Conditions-Reduce-Recidivism-A
And when looked at, hollistically, there is little to no evidence that harsher sentencing reduces crime:
"One of the major justifications for the rise of mass incarceration in the United States is that placing offenders behind bars reduces recidivism by teaching them that “crime does not pay.” This rationale is based on the view that custodial sanctions are uniquely painful and thus exact a higher cost than noncustodial sanctions. An alternative position, developed mainly by criminologists, is that imprisonment is not simply a “cost” but also a social experience that deepens illegal involvement. Using an evidence-based approach, we conclude that there is little evidence that prisons reduce recidivism and at least some evidence to suggest that they have a criminogenic effect. The policy implications of this finding are significant, for it means that beyond crime saved through incapacitation, the use of custodial sanctions may have the unanticipated consequence of making society less safe."
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0032885511415224
Originally posted by Sable
Yea cause clearly we need more RFID chips. I bet there are RFID chips in millions of people that don't even fcking know it. What's the matter with you? You live for the nanny state don't you, can't think a day outside of "oh big brother has my back." If you only knew😂
I did not mention RFID chips. Maybe you should learn to read. None of the safety features I listed have anything to do with a nanny state, unless you believe that anything less than total deregulation is a nanny state. Get it together.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Ah, yes, the ol' "enforce new regulation tech to force criminals to magically start using guns legally" argument.[...good thing you mentioned the limits. He used either an illegally modified automatic weapon or an illegal firearm. Let's regulate it even more. Maybe we don't have enough laws that talk about penalties and prison time associated with automatic weapons. Yeah, that will prevent this problem in the future. The next time a criminal wants to commit a crime with an illegally obtained and illegal-grade firearm, he or she will think twice about using that illegal gun, illegally. "Well, these laws are on the books. Perhaps I shouldn't do this illegal thing. Whew. Good thing those regulations and laws existed! ANOTHER CRIME PREVENTED!!! WEEEEEE!]
So what this tech does is it makes people, who overwhelmingly represent those that will not commit crimes with their guns, have to use this tech. While the criminals still use illicit firearms or "physical and digital hacks" to still do criminal things like crime and illegal activity and not legal things. Oh, and let's not forget criminals also break the law.
Regulations requiring automobiles to have safety belts did not magically force people to abide by laws requiring them to wear safety belts either, but that does not change that compliance with safety belt laws went up, and that vehicular deaths went down as a result. Also, tell us more about how common automobiles without safety belts are now that all manufacturers are required to include them, and how easy they are to purchase and register. I am sure it is right up there with clamshell mobile phones and muskets.