Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Ok, now you ticked me off, heading for NORAD
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 5 2004, 05:34 AM
http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=f1b7b1de-0abe-421a-00b2-969a8d1d9ea3&TEMPLATEID=5991da4c-ac1f-02d8-0055-99a54930515e
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/06/05/bulldozer.rampage/index.html
Never a Great Dragon ATM or chromed Troll around when you need one. Someone call Lone Star fast!
Posted by: Phaeton Jun 5 2004, 05:45 AM
...Holy frelling shit.
...Which also makes me wonder why Barrens gangs don't use more civil utility/construction vehicles as mobile assault fortresses.
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 5 2004, 05:54 AM
Luckily no ones got hurt so far that they know of.
While this guy is cracked hes sure planned well for it. Seems like someone would either catch it on fire, gas him, or (my personal favorite) use Thermite. 
Posted by: KillaJ Jun 5 2004, 05:59 AM
That was pretty fucking amusing. Thanks for the link.
Posted by: Phaeton Jun 5 2004, 06:09 AM
Sheesh...Why bother trying to get ahold of milspec-grade hardware when you could cause just as much destruction with some civilian earthmover equipment? Hell, during WW2, the Marines (I think) managed to take out plenty of Japanese armored units at Okinawa just by taking their engineering bulldozers and tipping the Japanese's tanks right over. Amazing what ingenuity and several tons of heavy-duty grinding mobile metal will do.
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 5 2004, 06:29 AM
Agreed. Wondering why this nut is the only one in town with a CAT. Surely a couple of equally stout CATs could push him push to a safe area in case he is boobytrapped.
I can hardly wait to see what type of stupid legislation comes of this.
Stand by for the 2005 ABB (Assault Bulldozer Ban).
In addition to banning Caterpillar D-9s outright, all semi-automatic bulldozers with a blade width greater than {fill in blank} will be banned if also equipped with any of the following options:
* Armor plating
* Gun ports
* Cup/propane torch holders
* Fixed or removeable armaments
* Magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.
* Laser guidance systems.
* Night vision devices
Posted by: FlakJacket Jun 5 2004, 06:32 AM
Yeah but Japanese tanks were pretty much crap. Even beat out the Italians in those stakes, just.
Posted by: Arethusa Jun 5 2004, 06:32 AM
Not when those CATs are unarmored and he has a gun. I sure as hell don't want to try, anyway. Anyway, this is what hapens when you bar civilians from owning assault rifles and M72A2s.
In all seriousness, it really isn't that funny. Just sad, really. At least almost no one's been hurt.
[edit]
Yes, the Japanese tanks were absolutely terrible and outdated, as was much of their ground equipment. The Ha-Go and Chi-Ha were somewhat mobile, but notoriously easy to knock out and rather impotent.
Posted by: Phaeton Jun 5 2004, 06:32 AM
| QUOTE (cutter07) |
| Agreed. Wondering why this nut is the only one in town with a CAT. Surely a couple of equally stout CATs could push him push to a safe area in case he is boobytrapped. |
Better yet, take a Barrett rifle and put a slug into the components of the treads.
Posted by: Arethusa Jun 5 2004, 06:35 AM
I assume you mean a .50BMG rifle of any sort, as Barrett makes many types of small arms? Probably wouldn't do a hell of a lot of good. If that were the case, tanks would be ridiculously easy to knock out of commision.
Posted by: FlakJacket Jun 5 2004, 06:36 AM
How fast can those things go anyway? I figure all you had to do was break one of the tracks and he's pretty much immobalised.
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 5 2004, 06:37 AM
Its only funny because no ones got hurt. This guy could have really killed tons of unsuspecting people but he didn't. I'd rather see 10 of these guys stump the LEOs then 1 Timothy Mcvay kill innocent women and children.
They are currently putting some .50 cal rounds into it, blew most of the propane tanks but the armor is very very thick. They took out his radiator last I heard so he isn't using the engine much or at all. At this point theyre trying to talk him out.
Posted by: Arethusa Jun 5 2004, 06:40 AM
I agree, it wouldn't be remotely amusing had innocents gotten hurt, and I really don't mind that lots of property got destroyed. Doesn't mean the situation isn't sad, though.
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 5 2004, 06:44 AM
Whats saddest is this guys pissed over losing in court for some zoning issue at this muffler shop. How weak is that? I mean I can understand if you push a guy too far and he cracks but this guy must have went choo-choo for cocopuffs years ago.
I'll give him an A for effort, originality, and stamina. F for reasoning, finish, and lack of chrome. 
Posted by: Arethusa Jun 5 2004, 06:49 AM
I'd say it's more prudent to withold judgement, considering that there very well could be details that have yet to reach the public. Seems rather unlikely he or anyone else'd go this far for only $2,500 out of his or her muffler shop.
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 5 2004, 06:55 AM
Yeah your right. A guy this prepared know he isn't walking away. Hes got some ace in the hole most likely, but hopefully if he uses it alone. Hopefully the local LEOs\mayor will swallow thier pride and ask the Guard to step in before this goes too far.
Posted by: Connor Jun 5 2004, 07:05 AM
Is this thing still going on this late? Is there anyone carrying coverage of this? Should I turn on the tv?
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 5 2004, 07:52 AM
CNN isn't covering, nor headlien news. Just news bullets. Not sure why,..
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 5 2004, 07:54 AM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040605/480/ny11606050130
Posted by: Connor Jun 5 2004, 07:57 AM
I thought it had been resolved awhile back. It still went on longer than I thought I guess. I suppose that guy could still be holed up in that bulldozer though, since I haven't read anything about him coming out or being verified as dead in there or anything.
[edit]
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/06/05/bulldozer.rampage/
Looks like as of 1am eastern CNN is reporting that the guy is still in there and they haven't tried to open it up yet.
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 5 2004, 08:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| The episode came to an end about 4:30 p.m. Friday, when Heemeyer's self-styled assault vehicle came to a halt in the attack on Gambles Store and was cornered by emergency responders driving a road grader. It was not immediately known if Heemeyer was still alive inside the vehicle. Unofficial reports said he had welded the vehicle's door shut. Jim Holahan, director of emergency services for Grand County, said at one point deputies from the sheriff's special response team were on top of the 53.8-ton Caterpillar D9 Bulldozer, firing at Heemeyer through its jury-rigged viewport. Remarkably, authorities said, no injuries among townspeople were reported in the incident. |
Its 3am CST and the end hasn't been called. Hes got to be in there deep if they haven't pulled him out in 10+ hours.
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_2939053,00.html
Posted by: GreatChicken Jun 5 2004, 08:02 AM
Won't see it in the news until tomorrow, maybe. It wasn't exactly that long a rampage compared to what happened when this guy got a hold of an M60 tank back in 1998....(was on World's Wildest Police Chases)
Biggest problem is that nobody wants to kill the poor insane bugger unless absolutely necessary. As always is the case in such situations, even when they destroyed thousands of dollars worth of property and homes 
Posted by: Connor Jun 5 2004, 08:03 AM
Yeah, he must be. He's probably killed himself if he isn't talking. Fox News has on their website article that they've tried on three occasions to blow the door open on the thing too.
Craziness...
Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 5 2004, 08:38 AM
They could always just fire tear gas at it until he gives up. A few hours exposed to that stuff will make anyone unhappy.
My bet is either suicide or a lucky police shot entering the viewslits and hitting him. He may actually be alive (in the second scenario) but wounded/unconcious.
Don't blame them for not wanting to get close, though.
Posted by: Arethusa Jun 5 2004, 08:42 AM
| QUOTE (GreatChicken) |
| Biggest problem is that nobody wants to kill the poor insane bugger unless absolutely necessary. As always is the case in such situations, even when they destroyed thousands of dollars worth of property and homes |
Right. Because, clearly, property eventually adds up to be worth more than a human life.
Posted by: KillaJ Jun 5 2004, 08:54 AM
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| Right. Because, clearly, property eventually adds up to be worth more than a human life. |
There are over six billion people in the world, god only knows how many of them die every day, many of those without ever having done anything to hurt anyone else. If some crazy bastard ran my house over with a bulldozer he had deliberately converted into some makeshift tank I could sleep well at night after putting a bullet in his miserable ass.
Posted by: Connor Jun 5 2004, 09:08 AM
Well, in the reports I've read one of the Sheriff deputies was at one point on the bulldozer as the guy was driving it firing his gun through one of the view ports. I've read he fired multiple clips. So, obviously they weren't trying to keep him alive if they could stop him some other way.
Posted by: Thistledown Jun 5 2004, 09:22 AM
This is what Patlabors are for. The entire premise of the show is around police vehicles designed for stopping construction vehicles.
This kind of thing is a lot like what I designed GarbageMan's truck to be able to do. See the latest 'quick question' thread for more details.
On a side note, I've heard that after WW1, they'd drive the tanks through a building to take it down. Thought that was a cool use in peace-time.
Posted by: KillaJ Jun 5 2004, 09:25 AM
Not to mention a morale booster for bored soldiers!
Edit- Upon careful consideration I believe that the paragraph that previously occupied this space may have been in violation of certain OPSEC documents that I have signed and in the interest of not endangering our brave service members at home and abroad it has been removed. God bless America.
Posted by: Joker9125 Jun 5 2004, 09:56 AM
You know what would be funny as hell? If he had the set up on remote and was controling it with a camera and a remote control from like 5 miles away. Lol I can see the headlines now "police are baffled as to how the man escaped."
News Reporter: "So Officer Jo have you apprehended the suspect?"
Officer Jo: "Its the wierdest thing. We got inside and their was no one their, he musta escaped but I dunno how. All we found was a camera and this little electronic box with some antennia do-hicky. Maybe its a CB?"
LMAO!
Posted by: Xirces Jun 5 2004, 10:16 AM
Be funnier if there was a life-like mannequin in there (or the Airplane! automatic pilot which for some reason I just had a mental image of)
On the other hand that story is just sad. It's kinda hard not to feel some sympathy for the guy... until one actually realises WTF he's done.
Posted by: JaronK Jun 5 2004, 10:19 AM
Heh, yeah, can you imagine a blow up autopilot in that thing?
JaronK
Posted by: Mr. Man Jun 5 2004, 05:06 PM
| QUOTE (FlakJacket) |
| How fast can those things go anyway? |
Transmission
1 Forward 3.9 kph / 2.4 mph
2 Forward 6.8 kph / 4.2 mph
3 Forward 11.9 kph / 7.4 mph
1 Reverse 4.8 kph / 3 mph
2 Reverse 8.4 kph / 5.2 mph
3 Reverse 14.7 kph / 9.1 mph
I got that from http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=983108.
The latest http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121872,00.html confirms that the guy punched his own ticket. It also has some new pics of and details about the vehicle.
Posted by: Solstice Jun 5 2004, 05:56 PM
| QUOTE (cutter07) |
| CNN isn't covering, nor headlien news. Just news bullets. Not sure why,.. |
They don't have any way to blame this one on Bush so they are obviously ignoring it.
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 5 2004, 08:40 PM
| QUOTE |
| They don't have any way to blame this one on Bush so they are obviously ignoring it. |
No doubt, surprised Kerry isn't there getting face time and pushing gun control.
Anyway the nuts dead. he shot himself in the head. Took 3 attempts with charges for them to open it up.
from CNN:
The first two explosive devices were "completely ineffective" at penetrating the armored bulldozer, Dailey said.
"The machine had a half-inch steel plate with a layer of concrete, and another steel plate," he said. "On the front of the machine, there were two rifles mounted where he could shoot straight ahead."
Posted by: Solstice Jun 6 2004, 12:14 AM
| QUOTE (cutter07) | ||
No doubt, surprised Kerry isn't there getting face time and pushing gun control. Anyway the nuts dead. he shot himself in the head. Took 3 attempts with charges for them to open it up. from CNN: The first two explosive devices were "completely ineffective" at penetrating the armored bulldozer, Dailey said. "The machine had a half-inch steel plate with a layer of concrete, and another steel plate," he said. "On the front of the machine, there were two rifles mounted where he could shoot straight ahead." |
The man clearly had no regard for human life and/or property. Clearly in those instances we still have this naive belief that they should somehow be "subdued" and "rehabilitated". At least he capped himself and no public servant was injured/killed while trying to non-violently stop him on orders from some pantywaist paper pusher whose ass isn't in the line of fire.
Posted by: CircuitBoyBlue Jun 6 2004, 12:30 AM
| QUOTE (cutter07) | ||
No doubt, surprised Kerry isn't there getting face time and pushing gun control. Anyway the nuts dead. he shot himself in the head. Took 3 attempts with charges for them to open it up. from CNN: The first two explosive devices were "completely ineffective" at penetrating the armored bulldozer, Dailey said. "The machine had a half-inch steel plate with a layer of concrete, and another steel plate," he said. "On the front of the machine, there were two rifles mounted where he could shoot straight ahead." |
| QUOTE |
Yes, obviously CNN has a liberal bias. And FOX is truly fair and balanced, I'm sure.
CNN looks biased for the left if you're way out on the right, just like it looks balanced for the right if you're way out on the left. At the end of the day, I don't think it's biased journalism, it's just crappy journalism. The myth of a liberal media is just a holdover from the days of McCarthyism that hasn't been dispelled yet because the media's too afraid to stand up to conservatives that make idiotic remarks, exactly the same reason so many people named names in the fifties. And I think that history will remember the Bill O'Reillys of the world about as fondly as it remembers the Joe McCarthys and Roy Cohns.
Posted by: Bob the Ninja Jun 6 2004, 01:40 AM
My Aunt lives in a nearby town, like 40 miles from this nut's place. I think that it's a sad tale of a man that just snapped after he perceived the town screwing him.
Let's not make too many tjokes on this; it's in really poor taste.
Posted by: JaronK Jun 6 2004, 02:02 AM
We have no idea if this guy had respect for human life or not... he didn't kill anyone, and seemed to be only targetting property. I'm not condoning his actions, but let's not make snap judgements about his life because he snapped, if that makes sense.
JaronK
Posted by: Phaeton Jun 6 2004, 02:30 AM
I personally think it's the stress of the times. If it weren't for summer being in session right now, I dunno what I'd do...
Posted by: Arethusa Jun 6 2004, 03:46 AM
| QUOTE (JaronK) |
| We have no idea if this guy had respect for human life or not... he didn't kill anyone, and seemed to be only targetting property. I'm not condoning his actions, but let's not make snap judgements about his life because he snapped, if that makes sense. JaronK |
I completely agree. I find it very obnoxious that people want to make judgements about the worthiness of his life or his sanity. Certainly, what he did was not acceptable, but that doesn't make the situation any less sad nor the cowboys who want to shoot him because they can any less wrong. Until there's more information, I'd say it's wisest to not jump to conclusions about what an awful, crazy man he must've been.
Posted by: GreatChicken Jun 6 2004, 04:05 AM
If the guy had any respect whatsoever for human lives, he would have been the one who would warn the peds in his way, not the police. Even a loudhailer mounted would be good enough...he definitely isn't on a stealth job anyway, so no loss. Clearly, he had no qualms about plowing through his targeted buildings even if there was someone inside. At least he didn't run over any homes.
Hell, he doesn't even want to face the music for his actions.
Yeah, I know the local mayor might have antagonized him first, but who was the one that resorted to violence?
Edit: Ethics is one heckuva mind blowing subject. 
Posted by: Solstice Jun 6 2004, 05:04 PM
| QUOTE (CircuitBoyBlue) | ||||||
Yes, obviously CNN has a liberal bias. And FOX is truly fair and balanced, I'm sure. CNN looks biased for the left if you're way out on the right, just like it looks balanced for the right if you're way out on the left. At the end of the day, I don't think it's biased journalism, it's just crappy journalism. The myth of a liberal media is just a holdover from the days of McCarthyism that hasn't been dispelled yet because the media's too afraid to stand up to conservatives that make idiotic remarks, exactly the same reason so many people named names in the fifties. And I think that history will remember the Bill O'Reillys of the world about as fondly as it remembers the Joe McCarthys and Roy Cohns. |
Every aspect of the media screams liberal-bias. It's painfully obvious. I can even detect bias in the little 10 min. AM radio broadcasts every hour. It's rediculous what kind of bias they show in terms of what stories get how much time and often they won't even touch stories that don't fit their agenda. It should be a crime. Oh well I learned many years ago not to listen to the garbage on the news anyway.
Posted by: Zazen Jun 6 2004, 06:45 PM
| QUOTE (Solstice) |
| Every aspect of the media screams liberal-bias. It's painfully obvious. I can even detect bias in the little 10 min. AM radio broadcasts every hour. It's rediculous what kind of bias they show in terms of what stories get how much time and often they won't even touch stories that don't fit their agenda. It should be a crime. Oh well I learned many years ago not to listen to the garbage on the news anyway. |
Are you joking?
Where I live I'm flooded with sensationalist conservative news written at a 7th grade level, like FOX "News" or the New York Post. People really dig it because real newspapers are too hard to read and the Post always tells you who the Bad Guy is. It's disgusting.
Posted by: CircuitBoyBlue Jun 6 2004, 10:26 PM
In addition, respectable media outlets are forced by "free" market constraints to adopt the same anti-left sensationalist tactics in order to compete with an ever-dwindling public attention span fueled by a failing education system under attack by right-wing extremists.
Posted by: Siege Jun 7 2004, 04:11 AM
And to think, I had almost forgotten why the Forum was closed.
-Siege
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 7 2004, 04:48 AM
| QUOTE (Solstice) |
| they won't even touch stories that don't fit their agenda |
It's true. That's why we never heard that Bush was asking to reinstate the US chemical weapons program on the big news outlets.
Movies and soforth have a liberal bias most of the time. NPR arguably has a slight liberal bias. Otherwise, the press is usually pretty conservative unless they've got some good blood in the water that they can attack from the liberal direction.
Meanwhile, a ban on certain construction equipment would be possible with the Urban Renewal spell. Too bad it vanished.
~J
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 7 2004, 06:18 AM
| QUOTE |
| The man clearly had no regard for human life and/or property. |
Actually the man had a huge regard for life as in several cases he went out of his way not to kill anyone. Everyone on the scene said if the guy wanted to kill people he'd easily been successful. Besides any guy that can do that much welding work on that big a Cat without someone knowing could have just as easily made a fert bomb such as in Oklahoma city.
BTW whether the media is playing favorites or not, anyone would plays SR but supports Kerry and/or this runs Democrats is a just as nutty as the dozer guy. Not saying all Democrats are bad but this year,..
| QUOTE |
| he definitely isn't on a stealth job anyway, so no loss. |
Player to GM "I want to sneak my D-9 w/ nutjob armor pack upgrade and hardpoints past those 2 cops, that diner full of patrons, and that cement fatory."
Gm to player "....
"Player to GM " so whats my target number?"
Gm to player ".... uguh"
Player to GM "no, really"
Posted by: GreatChicken Jun 7 2004, 06:30 AM
^ Passive Masking Mods to the rescue~! 
Edit: PS - I don't support any current candidates. I happen to miss the Clinton days. Rather a playboy foregin relations advocate than a hardline 'whack'em all, let God sort em out' character.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 7 2004, 06:30 AM
| QUOTE (cutter07) |
| BTW whether the media is playing favorites or not, anyone would plays SR but supports Kerry and/or this runs Democrats is a just as nutty as the dozer guy. Not saying all Democrats are bad but this year,.. |
Funny, you've just summed up my opinion on anyone who would consider voting Bush 2004. It's clear that we both take things as basic common sense, and that the things we take as basic common sense are completely different. Being as we're not here for political debates, shall we stop the political observations, as obvious as they may seem to you?
~J
Posted by: CircuitBoyBlue Jun 7 2004, 06:39 AM
You know what? I'm used to Bushies calling everyone else crazy and comparing them to murderers. But now you've brought Shadowrun into it, Cutter, and I'm just not cool with that. What exactly is it that makes Kerry supporters THAT PLAY SHADOWRUN just as mentally ill as the guy in the bulldozer? And if it has nothing to do with us playing shadowrun, why did you say it?
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 7 2004, 10:49 PM
I think you mistook me. Kerry is pro-gun control. Comment was directed towards gun control pushers that play shadowrun. It wasn't a serious statement, just an elbow nudge at Kerry fans.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 7 2004, 11:08 PM
Are you kidding? As either a sec-guard or a Shadowrunner, I'd want as little lead in the air as possible.
Not to mention that the corps would love gun control. No skin off their nose, they're extraterritorial.
~J
Posted by: Zazen Jun 8 2004, 12:04 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Not to mention that the corps would love gun control. No skin off their nose, they're extraterritorial. |
Well, some of them might like it. Others sell guns, body armor, and anti-gun security measures to the general public. They surely want their market to be as large as possible.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 8 2004, 12:20 AM
That's true, Ares wouldn't be thrilled.
WEAPONS WORLD!!!
~J
Posted by: John Campbell Jun 8 2004, 01:12 AM
| QUOTE (cutter07) |
| I think you mistook me. Kerry is pro-gun control. Comment was directed towards gun control pushers that play shadowrun. It wasn't a serious statement, just an elbow nudge at Kerry fans. |
So your assertion, then, is that because we play a game in which our characters frequently make use of guns, that we must therefore support the use of guns in real life, and should therefore be against Kerry because of his position regarding gun control, and are therefore insane if we do not base our voting decisions on that single issue?
Interesting logic. I'll skip any commentary regarding real-world gun control, Kerry's position on it, my position on it, and the implications that any of this has regarding who I'm voting against in November, and simply point out that, by the same logic, you could say that because we play a game in which our characters frequently murder innocents for money, we must therefore support murdering innocents for money in real life, and should therefore be against both major candidates because neither of them have come out in favor of murder-for-hire, and are therefore insane if we vote for either of them, despite their opposition to murder-for-hire.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 8 2004, 01:19 AM
I hate it when people discriminate against me just because of what I do for a living…
~J
Posted by: Squire Jun 8 2004, 01:34 AM
| QUOTE (John Campbell) |
| ...the implications that any of this has regarding who I'm voting against in November... |
Interesting you should word it that way...
Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Jun 8 2004, 01:56 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| I hate it when people discriminate against me just because of what I do for a living… ~J |
Up the results.
When you kill one person it is a crime, when you kill one million it is a statistic. (slight variant of a quote I almost remember that might have been said by Stalin.)
Posted by: Siege Jun 8 2004, 02:03 AM
| QUOTE (Squire) | ||
Interesting you should word it that way... |
Actually, a lot of people word it that way.
Vote for the lesser of two evils means you're voting against the greater evil.
Or the person who offends you less.
-Siege
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 8 2004, 02:21 AM
| QUOTE |
| Are you kidding? As either a sec-guard or a Shadowrunner, I'd want as little lead in the air as possible. |
Too bad criminals don't respect gun laws.
John whether you support gun in real life or not isn't the issue. You think, act and believe how you want. It is after all a free country. You vote how you want, I'm not trying to pull anyone one way or another. Its your rights, give them away if you want to, along with your self-defense. Lords knows the criminals support gun laws, they like thier victims unarmed.
Its just interesting to see people support a view then turn around and fantasize about performing the total opposite. The logic your suggesting was not suggested by me and I will not comment on how you rationalized it or came to it in the first place. As you point out people play differently then they live. This goes without saying. However gun control advocates playing SR is like Pentacostals playing Vampire the gathering. Anyway, I didn't start the political talks and have no wish to. People can vote how they want, as its hard enough now days and doing so, regardless of who you vote for, is patriotic.
Posted by: JaronK Jun 8 2004, 02:38 AM
Thing is, criminals DO respect gun laws, out of necessity. If they can't get to the guns easily, most criminals won't try. I mean, unlike shadowrun, most criminals don't think these things out so far in advance. Do you really think that guy who robs a 7-11 would have gotten a gun if the only way to do it was through some shady illegal mastermind contact? No way, if the guy was motivated enough to find one of those contacts, he'd be motivated enough in life not to need to rob a 7-11. Easy proof... check out the murder rates in England vs. the USA. One has strict gun laws, one does not. Is it because criminals in England are simply not as violent? I doubt that. Is it because people in the USA are more primative? I doubt that too. Unless you can see something I'm missing as to why else there's such a big difference...
Anyway, it's besides the point. I fail to see how playing a game in which guns are used to kill people means a person ought to want to see them used to kill people in real life. In shadowrun, I play assassins, gangsters, and blade weilding psychos, but I certainly don't want to be those in real life. If anything, I'd go with the opposite: how can you play a game where everyone has easy access to plenty of weapons, and runs around killing people with them, and then want to make access to weapons easier in real life?
Of course, the answer to that is simple: it's a freaking game, not a model of a Utopian society or a clear cut proof of what happens when gun controll laws disappear.
JaronK
Posted by: mcb Jun 8 2004, 02:42 AM
| QUOTE (cutter07) |
| ...regardless of who you vote for, is patriotic. |
Damn Skippy!
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 8 2004, 02:53 AM
| QUOTE |
| Thing is, criminals DO respect gun laws, out of necessity. If they can't get to the guns easily, most criminals won't try |
Actually they don't. Most of the gun on the street are stolen and/or used in past crimes. NRA and FBI have both confirmed this. The most used weapon used in murders is a jennings .380, street value of about $80. No self-respecting CCW would carry one of these as they are prone to jams, slide breaks, weak firing pins, and of course exploding chambers. If you use P+ ammo each of these risings even greater. The major use for such a gun is drop gun. In other words they tape the tripper/hammer with surgical tape for prints and drop the gun after a murder.
Also England is just as violent just less guns. And you can get one there, its just alot more expensive. Most murder weapons are knives, clubs or numbers of unarmed. Walk the streets of London alone at night if you ever go. I bet there is nearly as many murders there per cap as the US.
| QUOTE |
| Anyway, it's besides the point. I fail to see how playing a game in which guns are used to kill people means a person ought to want to see them used to kill people in real life. |
Thats not what I'm saying at all. In fact the opposite. I fail to see how people who see the protect use of a firearm in the game fail to see how they are just as vunerable out of game from those that wish them harm. I think if you seen the horrors of Luby's Cafeteria killings in Killeen in 91 first hand you'd see there is a time and a place for an armed civilian.
Posted by: JaronK Jun 8 2004, 03:02 AM
Where do you think those guns come from originally? A secret network of underground black market gun makers? A stolen gun is one stolen from someone who bought it legally, usually. And because it's harder to kill someone with a knife, the murder rate in England is FAR lower per capita.
Besides, armed civilians just doesn't help at all. Bringing a gun into a situation always raises the chances of death... it doesn't lower them.
Bah, you know what? This isn't the place for this discussion. I'm in favor of stricter gun controll, you're against, and neither one of us has a chance in hell of changing the other's point of view. People who play shadowrun do so because they enjoy the game... it is not a comentary on their political beliefs or wishes for social change. It's just a game.
JaronK
Posted by: Person 404 Jun 8 2004, 03:11 AM
| QUOTE (cutter07) |
| Also England is just as violent just less guns. And you can get one there, its just alot more expensive. Most murder weapons are knives, clubs or numbers of unarmed. Walk the streets of London alone at night if you ever go. I bet there is nearly as many murders there per cap as the US. |
No need to guess (and especially no need to guess wrong) when there's http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap
I'd say that this discussion was veering off target, but it didn't really start off about SR particularly...
Posted by: Camouflage Jun 8 2004, 03:13 AM
| QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm) | ||
Up the results. When you kill one person it is a crime, when you kill one million it is a statistic. (slight variant of a quote I almost remember that might have been said by Stalin.) |
Stalins quote was "The death of one person is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic".
And then there is this nice quote from a movie:
"If you kill one person, you're a criminal, if you kill millions, you're mighty warlord, if you kill them all, you'll be a god".
Posted by: Zazen Jun 8 2004, 03:17 AM
| QUOTE (cutter07) | ||
Actually they don't. Most of the gun on the street are stolen and/or used in past crimes. |
I always loved that line, "criminals don't respect gun laws", as if by not respecting them they are no longer subject to them. In such a world a criminal with no respect for gun laws need only drop by the Firearm Grove and pick a pistol off of a gun tree. The only thing stopping him is a sign stating that you can't have guns, which he need only ignore. Later, when questioned by the police, he simply answers "Yes, it's mine, but I don't respect gun laws. I guess I'll be on my way!".
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 8 2004, 03:34 AM
| QUOTE (Siege) | ||||
Actually, a lot of people word it that way. |
Looking at recent presidential elections, the only ones that would have gotten me motivated enough to vote were cases of my disliking one of the candidates to a significant degree. I have yet to encounter a candidate that has made me very excited about them in any capacity other than their not being the other candidate.
~J
Posted by: Siege Jun 8 2004, 03:41 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||||||
Looking at recent presidential elections, the only ones that would have gotten me motivated enough to vote were cases of my disliking one of the candidates to a significant degree. I have yet to encounter a candidate that has made me very excited about them in any capacity other than their not being the other candidate. ~J |
Heh.
Well said.
-Siege
Posted by: JaronK Jun 8 2004, 03:53 AM
In case anyone was too lazy to find the UK on that link, the murder rate per capita in England is four times lower.
JaronK
Posted by: GreatChicken Jun 8 2004, 04:01 AM
^ The smartest way to use guns is not to use them at all. 
You know, if the civvie folk didn't have access to guns, that's a good excuse to lobby for more funds and training for the local law enforcement. A VERY good excuse.
On a side note: If it comes down to the pinch, I'm for Kerry, because he's untested whereas Bush is too much a chip off the old block for my tastes.
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 8 2004, 04:11 AM
<reads Zazen's post>
Respect as in if they're going to break a fleony they might as well break two. Criminals that do drive-bys, robberies, dealing drugs, etc don't go into a Wal-mart and fill out the paperwork on a gun. They instead steal one or buy one that is stolen. These types of people don't talk to the police, they shoot at them and/or run like hell.
| QUOTE |
| In case anyone was too lazy to find the UK on that link, the murder rate per capita in England is four times lower. |
I stand corrected on England. However Russia, no 5, has gun control,.. it would be interesting to see how many of those murders are with stolen firearms.
But think what you want about gun control. You have the right to your opinion as do I. There is no right answer. No right opinion. Only the right to free express what you feel. Thats why I think the Us is still a great place to live. One of the few places you can express your dislike of the government, speak against it in public, and have a choice in who runs it next.
I'd rather you vote for Kerry, even if I don't like him, then not vote at all. Use your rights or they will be taken from you.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 8 2004, 04:17 AM
Two felonies are more effort than one.
~J
Posted by: Siege Jun 8 2004, 04:20 AM
| QUOTE (GreatChicken) |
| ^ The smartest way to use guns is not to use them at all. You know, if the civvie folk didn't have access to guns, that's a good excuse to lobby for more funds and training for the local law enforcement. A VERY good excuse. |
You're joking, right?
-Siege
Posted by: GreatChicken Jun 8 2004, 04:23 AM
Yes and no, actually. You figure it out.
Posted by: Capt. Dave Jun 8 2004, 04:25 AM
{deleted}
I'm not getting into this.
Posted by: Kanada Ten Jun 8 2004, 04:26 AM
| QUOTE |
| Use your rights or they will be taken from you. |
Defend them perhaps, but use them? I think not. I wouldn't trust myself with a gun, therefore I don't own one. I also support background checks, ballistics tracking, and a seven day wait. But I certainly think some people can have them. I just want those Shock Bullets, then you can have personal defense with out having to kill.
Posted by: BitBasher Jun 8 2004, 04:35 AM
http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/International/BritvsUSA.htm
And if you are a sheep and listen to the mass media why you believe gun ownership is a bad thing:
http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/International/BritvsUSA.htm
Posted by: JaronK Jun 8 2004, 04:37 AM
Russia is a poor comparison, because the standard of living and other conditions are very different. The best evidence would be to find a very similar country, where the main difference is different gun laws, which was why I chose England.
And you have to defend your rights, but that doesn't mean use them. Now I am a firm believer in the constitution, and if any candidate jumped out and said "all guns must go" I'd be very much against him... I just believe in making it as hard as possible for criminals to get access to guns. If that makes it rather annoying for other people as well, that's fine, as long as it's still possible for them to do it. I'd rather have 10 annoyed people than one murdered one. Criminals are, unlike in the movies, not generally masterminds. More often they're the sort of people who can't fit in to normal society, and are looking for the easy way. If you make crime hard, a lot of criminals just give up.
JaronK
Posted by: BitBasher Jun 8 2004, 04:40 AM
| QUOTE |
| The best evidence would be to find a very similar country, where the main difference is different gun laws, which was why I chose England. |
I kind of have to disagree that england and the US are similar at all. They speal a common language, but they are very very different in a lot of social attitudes, including guns.
Posted by: JaronK Jun 8 2004, 04:44 AM
Well, yes, but it was the closest I could think of.
JaronK
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 8 2004, 04:52 AM
Actually I think its fairly difficult top commit just a single felony during a crime.
Considering many crimes such as the one in St Louis a few months ago where they caught that serial rapist. Before they even pegged him for the other rapes they had him on possession of stolen property (the firearm), discharging of a firearm, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, attempted sexual assault, unlawful transport of firearm, and a string of other that escape me.
Even if they busted him before he started the first driving around with a stolen firearm is 3 offenses.
That said if your going to be a criminal, be a smart one.
| QUOTE |
| The best evidence would be to find a very similar country, where the main difference is different gun laws, which was why I chose England. |
Hey I thought Russia was a Democracy now, England isn't. Your starting to sound like one of dem dare Red Coats, no wonder you want my rifle.
jkingBut Jaronk I think I agree with you on some points. While I'm a big defender of rights I don't see alot of need for even a "collector" to legally own full autos, silencers, or some of the other whacked stuff out there. I believe we should be armed for protection against threats foreign and domestic but giving people the ability for one person to kill great numbers very quickly is not in the peoples best interests. Then again "very quickly" is an opinion isn't it? Thus another thing the people of the US must weigh.
[edit] Lots of editing for spelling, grammer, as always
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 8 2004, 04:55 AM
And a dikoted Ares Viper Slivergun ally spirit dos not count.
~J
Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Jun 8 2004, 05:02 AM
But a bound spirit can not legally give consent.
Posted by: Zazen Jun 8 2004, 05:34 AM
| QUOTE (cutter07) |
| <reads Zazen's post> |
Considering the rest of your post, I do not believe you.
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 8 2004, 07:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Considering the rest of your post, I do not believe you. |
I read it. You were making a response on the terminalogy commonly used. Not sure what other response you were looking for. <shrugs>
| QUOTE |
| I wouldn't trust myself with a gun, therefore I don't own one. I also support background checks, ballistics tracking, and a seven day wait. But I certainly think some people can have them. I just want those Shock Bullets, then you can have personal defense with out having to kill. |
I understand what you mean and agree not all people deserve or are ready for guns. Some people are just unfit mentally or emotionaly for some a heavy responsbilty. Other such as yourself have a deep moral respect for life which you should. I think Eastwood said it best "it's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have". Killing someone is a point you can never return from, a point of innocence lost. Its something you have to live with and perhaps pay for in the afterlife. Who knows. I have made my peace with it, its something unfortunate that has to be done.
But is a right, but not a law. No ones forced to get a gun when they come of age. I respect those that choose not, as they have every right. However I feel strongly that you should have the right to choose unless the law dictates otherwise. Some laws work very well and help protect the public (such as checking for domestic abuse convictions). Other laws,.. not so good. But the right to bear arms is as important now as ever. One need only read the Federalist papers for that answer.
I only on hope theres never another incident like Killeen in 91. But if there is I hope a CCW holder or LEO protects those that have made the choice such as you have. Twenty two or more people had to die that day before the CCW was passed in Texas.
http://www.sacsconsulting.com/ccw_RealStories.htm
Posted by: cutter07 Jun 9 2004, 04:24 AM
BTW if this doesn't prove CCN is pro-blue I don't know what would.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/08/congress.survivor.ap/index.html
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 9 2004, 05:05 AM
If the Reps are Red and the Dems are Blue, who are the Whites?
~J
Posted by: Arethusa Jun 9 2004, 05:23 AM
They're soon to be defeated and forgotten. Just like the first time.
Or, I guess, if you want to stick to American history jokes, they're the.. Know Nothings?
Posted by: Zazen Jun 10 2004, 07:19 AM
| QUOTE (cutter07) |
| BTW if this doesn't prove CCN is pro-blue I don't know what would. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/08/congress.survivor.ap/index.html |
Way to prove that CNN is "pro-blue" by linking to an Associated Press article that makes democrats look petty and foolish.
Posted by: JaronK Jun 10 2004, 07:22 AM
Heh, seriously.
JaronK
Posted by: CircuitBoyBlue Jun 10 2004, 07:35 AM
Actually, the person who wrote the story apparently saw fit not to interview anyone connected with the site, whereas they DID interview a Republican about it. I think an unbiased column would have a) given the creators of the site a chance to justify the cartoon and answer questions and b) gotten a more level-headed Republican to give the other side of the story. I don't like Republicans generally, but I will say that most of them, especially the ones used to speaking for the party, know better than to make snide remarks like "They'll try anything right now" or whatever it was that he said in a story that could very easily be turned into an opportunity to make Democrats look petty. I think that was an opportunity missed by the particular republican they interviewed for this one.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)