liar

Your musical compatibility with MorbidRitual is High

Music you have in common includes Sigh, Big L, Death, Agalloch and maudlin of the Well.

Your musical compatibility with Lunacide is High

Music you have in common includes Slint, My Bloody Valentine, Pixies, Nas and Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band.

P.S. FUCK DEATH GRIPS

Your musical compatibility with RudolphHess is Very Low

Music you have in common includes Pig Destroyer, Agalloch, Burzum, Godspeed You! Black Emperor and Electric Wizard.

well, the bands we have in common are sick

Your musical compatibility with Zigzter is Very High

Music you have in common includes Wu-Tang Clan, Masta Ace, DANGERDOOM, Eric B. & Rakim and Raekwon.

he loves you too

big l 4 lyfe rip

I HAVE BECOME EUROTRASH

MUST BUY STIPPLED WIFEBEATER AND INEXPLICABLE FEDORA

Your musical compatibility with Bio_404 is Super

Music you have in common includes Big L, Nas, Wu-Tang Clan, Rakim and GZA/Genius.

2009 mustardoverlord loves you

Your musical compatibility with myuserwastaken is Medium

Music you have in common includes Comus, Can, Electric Wizard, My Bloody Valentine and Killing Joke.

chill son

haven't used my last.fm since october 2009 :X

http://www.last.fm/user/sweetlikegravy

it'd be way different now

sorry, it was to dopewolf

1) most of the school shooters put a lot of planning into their actions which is why it's prolly the hardest gun violence to completely avoid

2) your plan sounds wildly expensive and unpractical

3) it would still have a much smaller OVERALL effect on rates of gun homicide than simple gun control

4) since cops/the military would still be allowed to have guns and this dude would essentially be a cop/police officer, the two ideas arent mutually exclusive

they are if you're a poor, inner-city 17 year old

Because some of the anti-gun control people in this thread are using hyperbole to attack arguments I didn't actually make, let me clarify.

I didn't say that people owning one handgun and people owning 6 assault rifles were like co-dependent, and that having one be legal instantly meant the other would be as well. I just think both should be illegal. It's instances like this where killers go so overboard with crazy weapons and ammo that it seems difficult to enforce, but I'm willing to bet 95% of the TWELVE THOUSAND GUN HOMICIDES PER YEAR IN THE U.S. HOLY SHIT are committed by a dude who has way fewer guns, probably used a handgun, and didn't put a lot of planning or effort into it.

Let me give an example of what I'm talking about so people can stop using their interpretation of this particular shooting to somehow argue ALL gun control is futile.

For those who don't know, Scotland is kind of a shithole. A LOT of violent crime occurs there, committed by youth gangs. By far the worst example of this crime can be found in Glasgow, where certain areas are like some of the worst ghettos in the Western world. Knives are the primary source of homicide. People call it the most dangerous city in all of Western Europe.

According to this document:
http://www.scccj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/0124207_homicide_scotland_10-11.pdf

From 2010-2011, there were 97 homicide victims in all of Scotland. The amount committed in Strathclyde (the region which Glasgow is in, which has 2.5 million people) was 61. The amount in the city of Glasgow itself (which has about 600,000 people) was 26.

Almost all these homicides were committed with knives, because guns simply are not available.

Compare that to the homicide rate of Baltimore, the most violent major city in the United States, which is only very slightly bigger than Glasgow (620,000 people). Baltimore reported 196 homicides in 2011, which was actually its lowest rate since 1978 (the year before, it had 223 and Glasgow only had 20).

SO STOP SAYING GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE GUNS IT'S A HELL OF A LOT TOUGHER.

I don't understand why you're getting so worked up when it seems to me like (other than my oh-so offensive use of the dreaded caps lock key) we see eye-to-eye on this issue. I too agree that we cannot take about past events conclusively, which is why I don't understand when you say things like:

"You can not start discussing gun regulation by thinking that what you're doing would not have had an impact on what just happened."

I think we can discuss gun regulation by completely avoiding how to answer that question. Regardless of what happened here, I feel like it's just as important that cases like this are the anomaly in that it's even in question whether gun control could play a role in changing things. In most cases, it's 100% clear that it could. Isn't that enough? Why are you arguing about this one unknowable case?

Yes, I do believe gun culture is a serious and existing problem, IN ADDITION to the question of access to guns (which is I also acknowledge).

I don't think gun culture is any more abstract a factor than any of the others, because the extent to which access to guns and the like would go down with stricter gun control is really just conjecture on our parts, just like any sort of gun culture that may exist. I think talking about access to guns going down is concrete because sometimes common sense can replace actual statistics when none are available, and the same is true in terms of gun culture.

I did, you just misunderstood it.

You're essentially nitpicking when both of us feel very similarly overall. Honestly, this whole thing feels like you misread my first post, attacked the misinterpretation, and are now too proud to back out of it.

You COMPLETELY misread my first post.

I said that it's illogical that we can ONLY talk about gun control when a big milestone like this happens, and that it seems to be forbidden discourse otherwise. If it were up to me, we'd talk about it a lot more.

You're reading way more into the "huge emotional response" thing than I intended. How is it not an optimal time to talk about it? How would we do something we'll regret? By passing gun control laws? Which I want? Why would I ever say anything like that? It make no sense

Look at the context of how I was saying that. I was defending against those saying "well this guy would have still got illegal access to guns anyways so gun control does nothing herp derp". You choose to argue against them by making the case that, in this particular instance, fewer people would have died if gun control were stricter. I am making the argument that, even if that weren't true, cases like this would be a far outlier with stricter gun control laws, the last holdouts of an issue that is otherwise dead. Neither of us are capable of proving what we're arguing because of the reality, which is such laws are not in place. I don't understand how you can therefore act like your argument is stronger than mine, or that the two are exclusive. I don't care whether this particular scenario was avoidable or not, because IT ALREADY HAPPENED. I just care about reducing the overall number of gun homicides in the future, because that is preventable.

cont'd below

again

WHY DOES THAT MEAN GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE A BAD IDEA

let's compare two numbers

one is the number of gun homicides we have per year in the United States- roughly 11,500

one is the number of gun homicides we'd have with gun control- INARGUABLY LESS THAN 11,500

there will still be outliers

BUT DONT YOU WANT LESS PEOPLE TO BE MURDERED BY GUNS

WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE