The "beta uprising" I believe he called it.
Yet another US college gun slaughter - "at least 10" killed in Oregan shooting
- Thread starter TomUS
- Start date
The "beta uprising" I believe he called it.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i don't suppose anyone would want to go out with him after seeing his youtube a/c
cantsin
Well-Known Member
just reading a thread on the /r9k board ( superhardcore anti - nomies/normals/anyoone with a sex likfe/social life ) on 4 chan - that 'Beta uprising " seems like a wind up, they basically fed CNN false news that it was some dude 'Eggman' straight after the shootings (there's load of photos of him up there ) - I feel bad ( a bit ) but was pissing myself just now
their summation :
Someone shot people.
Someone from 4chan baited the press into believing it was someone from 4chan.
The press bought it.
4chan fed them lies about Egg.
The press bought it again.
Proceeded to slander him on national television for about six straight hours, CNN especially.
Oh whoops, it turns out it wasn't Egg at all.
All other media outlets switched to the real perp, CNN continued slandering him and 4chan and the "beta uprising", despite it not even being relevant to the story anymore.
CNN goes into panic-mode and switches to talking about the weather instead.
Egg better be lawyering the fuck up right now. If he had a brain in his fucking skull, he'd be hiring the Jewyest New York Jew lawyer to sue CNN.
His days as a beta are over.
cantsin
Well-Known Member
um, yeah, they're not ones for niceties over there
cantsin
Well-Known Member
yep, that seems to be the general consensus
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
not the sort of thing i expected you to post.
for a start, i think it would be 'jewiest'.
Not sure if it's a nicety to object to racist stereotyping, but whatever.
cantsin
Well-Known Member
can edit out if people want, was momentarily conflicted : ' liberal censorship of what was there vs casual racism' etc
gimesumtruf
pedant fodder
And now! The Wall of Sound by The Exceptionals.
Movie to follow.
Americans do it
shoot loop awoo shoot loop
Do it, do it, do it
Can't help it
Shoot, shoot awoo shoot, shoot
Do it, do it, do it
Make me a movie
ooowaa, oowaa
Movie to follow.
Americans do it
shoot loop awoo shoot loop
Do it, do it, do it
Can't help it
Shoot, shoot awoo shoot, shoot
Do it, do it, do it
Make me a movie
ooowaa, oowaa
cantsin
Well-Known Member
who are you calling a liberal?
me, during this brief internal quandary
likesfish
You can't park here sir
Illegal guns are linked to the drug trade/ gangs.
These shootings are carried out by legal guns because if some pasty faced loser turns up on the wrong side of town looking to by an illegal arsenal he gets killed and his money stolen end of problem
they wont be missed.
So to entirely diffrent problems dunblane and the change in gun laws didnt effect operation trident as yardies and the like dont join the Brixtion mac10 and glock shooting in the hood club
These shootings are carried out by legal guns because if some pasty faced loser turns up on the wrong side of town looking to by an illegal arsenal he gets killed and his money stolen end of problem
they wont be missed.So to entirely diffrent problems dunblane and the change in gun laws didnt effect operation trident as yardies and the like dont join the Brixtion mac10 and glock shooting in the hood club
MrsDoyle
ahh, go on...
I have done some research to better understand the second amendment and why the uk is different and this article: http://thelibertarianalliance.com/.../the-british.../ seems factual and well balanced despite the source. So, it seems 'we' the uk are culpable somewhat in the existence of the 2nd amendment, heck the whole Bill of Rights in the first place. But that doesn't explain how over three centuries later the US still hang on so tightly to this inalienable right even in the face of very similar events to those which have shaped UK gun control. Fact is that the defining uk legislation; the Firearms Act of 1968 came about because three (not 30, 300 or 3000...THREE) policemen were shot dead by a recently released criminal in London in 1966.
Maybe its because the state legislatures very rarely can be persuaded to align their thoughts exactly, maybe it's because the lobbyists do have too much power in the US government. (I personally think this is a political deception that is one of the most the most offensive aspects of US culture and makes a mockery of any concept of 'the land of the free' - not even free to influence your own representatives in government because you're not a powerful corporation - but that's a different debate) I doubt we'll ever know but there does seem to be an issue of skewed priorities, have a look at this book review: http://www.spectator.co.uk/.../americans-and-their-gun.../
What keeps coming back to my mind after every one of these instances are two questions: 1. how could the death of the Idaho mother shot in Walmart by her own toddler son when he reached into her bag and accidentally squeezed the trigger of her concealed carry pistol been prevented? Simple, by her NOT HAVING THE GUN and 2. even if the teachers at Sandy Hook, Columbine and the various other mass shootings that people always cite in the 'you can't legislate for crazy' argument had been armed could any of them have reacted fast enough to stop the perpetrators? I don't think so personally, because y'know the perps were 'crazy.'
Just to clarify, we had a mass shooting by a 'crazy' in UK, in 1987 Michael Ryan went on the rampage in the sleepy town of Hungerford and killed 16 people including his own mother before turning the gun on himself. It did not lead to a rise in the acquisition of firearms by the general populace as a reaction; it DID lead to an amendment, a tightening, of the Firearms Act further controlling how allowable weapons (especially shotguns and rifles) were licensed and managed. Since then there have only been two instances of gun massacres in UK; in Dunblane in 1996 and in Cumbria in 2010. So whatever the influence of culture, of media, of the proliferation of violence in popular culture and the increased freedom of access to those influencing factors, the facts remain: UK has far fewer gun massacres and firearms deaths (even when taken as a per capita figure to mitigate for the difference in size to USA) for one reason only - lack of opportunity to access firearms. Why? Gun control. Why gun control? Common sense. This article is also good and maybe indicates a shift in the minds of some key thinkers? Gun deaths involving children are devastating. The NRA has no idea what to say about them.
Maybe its because the state legislatures very rarely can be persuaded to align their thoughts exactly, maybe it's because the lobbyists do have too much power in the US government. (I personally think this is a political deception that is one of the most the most offensive aspects of US culture and makes a mockery of any concept of 'the land of the free' - not even free to influence your own representatives in government because you're not a powerful corporation - but that's a different debate) I doubt we'll ever know but there does seem to be an issue of skewed priorities, have a look at this book review: http://www.spectator.co.uk/.../americans-and-their-gun.../
What keeps coming back to my mind after every one of these instances are two questions: 1. how could the death of the Idaho mother shot in Walmart by her own toddler son when he reached into her bag and accidentally squeezed the trigger of her concealed carry pistol been prevented? Simple, by her NOT HAVING THE GUN and 2. even if the teachers at Sandy Hook, Columbine and the various other mass shootings that people always cite in the 'you can't legislate for crazy' argument had been armed could any of them have reacted fast enough to stop the perpetrators? I don't think so personally, because y'know the perps were 'crazy.'
Just to clarify, we had a mass shooting by a 'crazy' in UK, in 1987 Michael Ryan went on the rampage in the sleepy town of Hungerford and killed 16 people including his own mother before turning the gun on himself. It did not lead to a rise in the acquisition of firearms by the general populace as a reaction; it DID lead to an amendment, a tightening, of the Firearms Act further controlling how allowable weapons (especially shotguns and rifles) were licensed and managed. Since then there have only been two instances of gun massacres in UK; in Dunblane in 1996 and in Cumbria in 2010. So whatever the influence of culture, of media, of the proliferation of violence in popular culture and the increased freedom of access to those influencing factors, the facts remain: UK has far fewer gun massacres and firearms deaths (even when taken as a per capita figure to mitigate for the difference in size to USA) for one reason only - lack of opportunity to access firearms. Why? Gun control. Why gun control? Common sense. This article is also good and maybe indicates a shift in the minds of some key thinkers? Gun deaths involving children are devastating. The NRA has no idea what to say about them.
Probably would go through quicker than gun bans anyway.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
could you quote your source for harry roberts being released from prison shortly before the killing of wombwell et al?
1) you can say 'if they hadn't had x then y wouldn't have happened' about anything. it is not a meaningful argument. you do not know why they had guns in this case, or drugs or whatnot in another. you see one snapshot of someone's life and think you know better than them about what they should or shouldn't have done.
2) by the time the guns are in the school corridors it is a mite late to be thinking of teachers or other students having guns. i am not persuaded that countermeasures have been taken in america after e.g. columbine or the various campus killings unlike the countermeasures around schools in this country which were put in place after dunblane. as people have a legal right to bear arms in the united states it seems to me that if you cannot abridge that right - and i don't believe you can - then you need to make it harder for people to bring guns into workplaces, schools and colleges. in part this can be done by technical means, but a more important part perhaps can be played by highlighting the commonalities around preparations for massacres which may help earlier interventions to prevent mass killings.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Fuck VHS.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
I'll think you'll find that the vast majority of mass shootings are carried out with legally owned firearms.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh. it would be daft in america to use an illegal weapon in a mass shooting when it's so much easier to lay your hands on a legal one.
but tbh the issue seems to me more social than legal.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Utterly depressing in every aspect.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
new urban slogan thread >>>>>
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Whether the issue is social or legal Australia has clearly demonstrated that if legally held firearms are restricted in society mass shooting and the suicide rate drop drastically.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what people mean by 'gun control' in a US context. Just from a practical perspective, any attempt to prevent further sales would do nothing in respect of the c.300,000,000 in circulation. And, given that figure, and the place of guns in American culture, it's hard to see that they would be surrendered willingly - the likely result being a significant number guns remainim=ng at large, and often in the hands of those who are least suitable to hold them! So that really only leaves the option of tinkering with the laws slightly, which seems a bit pointless given most of these incidents seem to involve legally owned guns. And that's before you even come onto the question of whether or night a state ought to disarm the citizenry. But it seems to be a bit of a dog-whistle issue for liberals, calling for a ban after each such (admittedly tragic) incident; nobody calls for busses to be banned every time one crashes, after all.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
A massed forced buy back has worked before in the UK and Australia.
It's worth pointing out the rate of gun ownership in the US has dropped drastically. in the US in the 1970s every second home owned a firearm now it's one in five. There are a lot of firearms in the US but they are owned by a smaller and smaller group.
Just because a by back in the US would be hard it's not impossible
Athos
Well-Known Member
True enough. The same way similar restrictions on legally held firearms imposed by [Godwin's alert ]Hilter, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc., etc. made it easier for them to do what they liked.
Comparisons with the UK and Aus are weak; they're completely different cultures, with regard to firearms. Apart from anything else, do you think the US govrnment knows where all these 300,000,000 guns are? And then what happens to the hundreds of thousands that slip through the net? Who holds them? What do they d with them, and to whom? And how do those people deter that/defend themselves?
And that's not even looking at the bigger issue as to whether it's a good thing for a state to disarm ins citizens, in principle.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Yeah come back when you are not channelling glen beck and Alex Jones.
You're right ones a conservative rugged country with a wild frontier that brutally subjected its native population and other is um..,
So because the law won't be 100 effective we should bother.
A better question is should the only country in THE WORLD were mass shootings are A DAILY OCCURRENCE reevaluate its position on gun ownership.?
Similar threads
