Page 8 of 11
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:58 am
by ek
The plays are filled with diatribes against Catholic priests and Michael Jackson, along with references to government conspiracies to kill Marilyn Monroe and John Lennon.
In Richard McBeef, the mother of a 13-year-old named John, who claims his stepfather tried to molest him, slaps her husband's face and hits him on the head with her shoe.
"You fat piece of pork," she yells at her husband.
"Oh my god," she yells. "You are a pedophile."
"No. No ... Honey-poo," he responds, before making a graphic suggestion that they have sex.
John rants in the play about the need to kill his stepfather Richard: "I hate him. Must kill Dick. Must kill Dick. Dick must die."
umm the fuck
? english major? :icon23:
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 10:23 am
by Nightshade
MKJ wrote:
lol?
No. Not lol in the least bit.
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:28 am
by 4days
ek wrote:umm the fuck
? english major? :icon23:
aye, was wondering about that. how did he even graduate from junior school with such terrible english? i only saw a few seconds of the interview with his teacher and she was just saying that he was barmy. does she mention later in the interview how he got into college in the first place?
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:32 am
by MKJ
Nightshade wrote:MKJ wrote:
lol?
No. Not lol in the least bit.
exactly
for the record, its a serious pic, not a omglollers4chan!1one post.
train of thought of some people... it upsets me
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:12 pm
by GONNAFISTYA
Looks like thought upset MKJ.
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:13 pm
by SplishSplash
MKJ wrote:Nightshade wrote:MKJ wrote:
lol?
No. Not lol in the least bit.
exactly
for the record, its a serious pic, not a omglollers4chan!1one post.
train of thought of some people... it upsets me
hahaha
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:31 pm
by 4days
just watched the video, what a fucking spakker. if you took that guy's irons away, i bet you could make him piss down his own leg just by talking at him.
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:59 pm
by R00k
I think being able to kill that many people in that particular environment isn't nearly as impressive as some are thinking.
Just imagine. You have a vest full of clips, let's say 15 rounds per clip.
You chain the doors of the building shut, and it's during class so there's no one in the halls.
You walk from room to room, just opening the door, barely walking in, and quickly unloading your clip into a room full of students who are still sitting in their chairs. After the first couple of shots, they're up, but you still have a mass of people to fire straight into.
It's like shooting ducks in a barrel. They have nowhere to go, and you've caught them completely by surprise.
I'm guessing he had about 10 or 12 different classrooms he could do this to in one building.
I don't think it's hard to believe that he killed 3.2 people in each room.
All I'm saying is that I don't think what this guy did is impressive in any way. By the time he went to the second building, he already knew he was a dead man. He didn't have anything to lose, and he cowardly shot a bunch of unarmed and captive students, probably playing out some kind of psychotic fantasy in his mind.
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:45 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
At least one of the weapons he used was banned under the 94 assault weapons ban which Bush and congress let lapse even though every major law enforcement agency in the USA asked for it's renewal.
In the five year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law's enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime -- a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate. Moreover, ATF trace data show a steady year-by-year decline in the percentage of assault weapons traced, suggesting that the longer the statute has been in effect, the less available these guns have become for criminal misuse.
Indeed, the absolute number of assault weapons traced has also declined. This decline is extremely significant to law enforcement and has clearly enhanced public safety, especially since these military-style weapons are among the deadliest ever sold on the civilian market. For example, if the Act had not been passed and the banned assault weapons continued to make up the same percentage of crime gun traces as before the Act's passage, approximately 60,000 additional assault weapons would have been traced to crime in the last 10 years -- an average of 6,000 additional assault weapons traced to crime each year.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/#50719
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:51 pm
by Sevensins
who cares if Bush let the federal statute pass, it shouldn't be controlled by the federal government anyway.
The states should have their own laws and that should be what is followed.
*The above in no way says that I agree that all firearms should be available for public use.
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:01 pm
by Nightshade
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:At least one of the weapons he used was banned under the 94 assault weapons ban which Bush and congress let lapse even though every major law enforcement agency in the USA asked for it's renewal.
In the five year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law's enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime -- a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate. Moreover, ATF trace data show a steady year-by-year decline in the percentage of assault weapons traced, suggesting that the longer the statute has been in effect, the less available these guns have become for criminal misuse.
Indeed, the absolute number of assault weapons traced has also declined. This decline is extremely significant to law enforcement and has clearly enhanced public safety, especially since these military-style weapons are among the deadliest ever sold on the civilian market. For example, if the Act had not been passed and the banned assault weapons continued to make up the same percentage of crime gun traces as before the Act's passage, approximately 60,000 additional assault weapons would have been traced to crime in the last 10 years -- an average of 6,000 additional assault weapons traced to crime each year.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/#50719
YEP BETTER BAN THOSE GUNS 'CAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S THE FUCKING CRAZY PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY DOING THE KILLING.
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:20 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:28 pm
by Nightshade
Why are you bringing up irrelevant points?
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:30 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
It's hardly irrelevant.
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:32 pm
by Nightshade
It's completely irrelevant. Who gives shit what kind of gun he used? If you damn hippie pansies would stop crying about guns and start looking at why people kill each other maybe this shit wouldn't happen.
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:35 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
lol
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:44 pm
by Survivor
motivation + means.
Removing one of the two would severely hamper this from happening.
Sad thing is because of the fact that guns (means) are so widespread already a ban would in the short term provide the low and medium level thugs/gangs with an advantage but in a serious long run like 20 years or so only the highly organized crime organizations would have access to serious armaments.
A ban is ideal, but only if it had been there from the start. Now it's a liability.
And sometimes we know why people kill, and mostly it's because they've been either completely misguided, have no hope to better their lives or criminal gain.
All are offspring of that idea you are so fond off nightshade iirc. About people being able to make or break their lives themselves.
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:16 pm
by lithiµm
I watched a (french) Tv show yesterday, they blamed video games one more time, and also Old boy (because of the pic with a hammer)
Elephant is a better way to think about such tragedies imo, well this is sad
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:28 pm
by Massive Quasars
?
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:32 pm
by Nightshade
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:lol
Go ahead and laugh, I'm right. No one wants to back away from the way we wallow in abdication of personal responsibility so we can keep blaming everyone and everything else.
So he chose to use guns, what if it had been a bomb? You wouldn't have said shit. A truck full of ANFO is a lot more effective and easier to get, but I don't hear you calling for fertilizer bans.
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:42 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
If it had been a bomb then my post about previously banned, highly effective assault weapons wouldn't have been relevant.
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:43 pm
by CaseDogg
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:46 pm
by Foo
People make me laugh. This guy was bullied, being laughed at, pointed at, etc. People didn't give one fuck then. They didn't care that they made him suffer, that his self-esteem took a hit every time they mocked him.
"Who cares? He's here for our entertainment! He's the Korean guy to make fun of!"
But now that he gets back at them, "he's the bad guy!" People cry over their lost ones, but WOULD HAVE THEY CRIED if he committed suicide because of what society did to him? PEOPLE KNOW that when they bully someone it has a powerful, dangerous effect on the bullied. Yet, they don't care. Their entertainment comes first, of course.
Well guess what, the roles are now switched. Now it's their turn to fucking suffer. FUCK THE MEDIA, he IS the true victim. Stop making him look like a monster! This guy earned the right to such actions. I stand by his side 100% and pray his soul rest in peace
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:46 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
On a side note does anyone else get the impression this guy was at least partially so fucked up because someone had molested him in the past?
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:48 pm
by Foo
How the fuck would you get an impression of someone who's been molested? "oh yeah he acts just like those fiddled kids I know"?