Well, unless I am just not finding what I remember (memory is never perfect) it looks like I might be mixing up 2 different news stories. One involving a witness to killings before being sent to Guantanamo and another about tactics that were used at Guantanamo being used in Abu Ghraib (where interrogation death(s) were covered up).
I seem to remember reading in a newspaper that there were one or two people who died while being "vigourously interrorgated" in GITMO. I read this before the Abu Ghraib events happened.
Terrorism has been around for a LONG time and countries have been dealing with it. For instance the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center resulted in fairly normal arrests and trials.
Crap. my buffer pasted the wrong fracking quote of text.
The quoted text should have said: "The extra shots would explain the large number of dead vs wounded. But it just reinforces my point - a defensive shooter would of had a very good chance of getting this guy before he managed over thirty murders."
"And most of the Eurotrash socialists don't realize that large portions of the US cannot be without "firearms" being very "wild" in nature. While it seems to be useful in cities and such, banning firearms is useless in Rural Wyoming and Utah, and in the vast waste stretches of Nevada, Texas and Arizona."
I agree with you except one thing that really pisses me off is the assumption by many here (not you) that is only they had been there they would have saved the day (despite many of them never firing to kill another living human or dealing with the fear/confussion/adrenilin rush that goes on). You at least used the word chance, however I disagree that it was a "very good" chance. Sometimes shit happens and nothing can stop it.
Sorry to go back to the "blow by blow".
One of the 4 survivors of one class described hime coming in. She thinks it was about 20 shots that went off before he reloaded. 13 people aparently went down for the count. She stayed down and was quiet/didnt move in the hope he wouldnt shoot her.
Since we are playing fantasy what if. What if there was one or more armed students/teachers in the room and they were part of the initial group that was wounded/killed. He wouldnt have been slowed down or prevented from continueing in that scenario. I frankly think it's almost as insulting to spout all these hero fantasy scenarios as the one poster in this thread who blames the victims for being pussies and not overpowering him.
Sorry if that turned into an angry rant (it isnt aimed at you), but people here are just not thinking or considering what did happen (or aparently who it happened to and why) and have instead turned the whole issue into guns or no guns instead os something more constructive.
The least helpful thing has been everyone posting about what they think/hope is/was going on rather then what did.
Read the text with that photo. The person was on the way home from the practice range. They had no ammo. It was as useful as a baseball bat for shooting at that point.
"And most of the Eurotrash socialists don't realize that large portions of the US cannot be without "firearms" being very "wild" in nature. While it seems to be useful in cities and such, banning firearms is useless in Rural Wyoming and Utah, and in the vast waste stretches of Nevada, Texas and Arizona."
Why exactly. I spent a number of years in "wild" West Virginia and didnt feel a pressing need to be armed.
Did you read the text for that photograph? The person was returning from target practice and had no amunition. AFAIK the law there says apart from going to/from a place where you need the weapon you are issued it is kept at home.
If the person in that photograph was assulted by an armed gunman the most that person would have been able to do would have been club someone with the rifle.
According to the epople in the emergency rooms where victims were brought, no one had less then 3 bullet wounds. It would appear that once he had people down/wounded he was firing into them again. The survivor who was pinned under classmates bodies said that was what he was doing.
"Good point; however, its also possible that the honey has just past a threshold that its no longer "honey" to other creatures."
When is that? Honey is highly stable against microbial growth because of its low water activity, low moisture content, low pH, and antimicrobial constituents according to everyting I have seen.
"This tells volumes to anyone with a hint of a clue about biology. It says that whatever is happening is natural, and has happened enough for Nature to have built in defenses against whatever it is. The only time in nature you leave food untouched is when your instincts tell you it is BAD. For that to happen takes evolution a longtime to perfect, thus this crap isn't new. It tells me it is something very nasty but very old, older than H. sapiens and certainly cell phones."
Slashdot Mirror
Well, unless I am just not finding what I remember (memory is never perfect) it looks like I might be mixing up 2 different news stories. One involving a witness to killings before being sent to Guantanamo and another about tactics that were used at Guantanamo being used in Abu Ghraib (where interrogation death(s) were covered up).
576P?
You know what they say about million to one chances...
"Do you think that the computer systems which keep track of people are _more_ efficient than 25 years ago, or _less_ ??"
That depends on who provided the hardware and what software they are running.
I seem to remember reading in a newspaper that there were one or two people who died while being "vigourously interrorgated" in GITMO. I read this before the Abu Ghraib events happened.
The threat of terrorism is new?
Terrorism has been around for a LONG time and countries have been dealing with it. For instance the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center resulted in fairly normal arrests and trials.
Crap. my buffer pasted the wrong fracking quote of text.
The quoted text should have said:
"The extra shots would explain the large number of dead vs wounded. But it just reinforces my point - a defensive shooter would of had a very good chance of getting this guy before he managed over thirty murders."
Have you tried buying fruits, vegtables, dairy and meat recently? It's sad that the junk is cheaper then eating healthfully.
scruffy.
I forgot to add.
Thanks for keeping it civil and giving things some thought.
"And most of the Eurotrash socialists don't realize that large portions of the US cannot be without "firearms" being very "wild" in nature. While it seems to be useful in cities and such, banning firearms is useless in Rural Wyoming and Utah, and in the vast waste stretches of Nevada, Texas and Arizona."
I agree with you except one thing that really pisses me off is the assumption by many here (not you) that is only they had been there they would have saved the day (despite many of them never firing to kill another living human or dealing with the fear/confussion/adrenilin rush that goes on). You at least used the word chance, however I disagree that it was a "very good" chance. Sometimes shit happens and nothing can stop it.
Sorry to go back to the "blow by blow".
One of the 4 survivors of one class described hime coming in. She thinks it was about 20 shots that went off before he reloaded. 13 people aparently went down for the count. She stayed down and was quiet/didnt move in the hope he wouldnt shoot her.
Since we are playing fantasy what if. What if there was one or more armed students/teachers in the room and they were part of the initial group that was wounded/killed. He wouldnt have been slowed down or prevented from continueing in that scenario. I frankly think it's almost as insulting to spout all these hero fantasy scenarios as the one poster in this thread who blames the victims for being pussies and not overpowering him.
Sorry if that turned into an angry rant (it isnt aimed at you), but people here are just not thinking or considering what did happen (or aparently who it happened to and why) and have instead turned the whole issue into guns or no guns instead os something more constructive.
The least helpful thing has been everyone posting about what they think/hope is/was going on rather then what did.
Read the text with that photo.
The person was on the way home from the practice range. They had no ammo. It was as useful as a baseball bat for shooting at that point.
"And most of the Eurotrash socialists don't realize that large portions of the US cannot be without "firearms" being very "wild" in nature. While it seems to be useful in cities and such, banning firearms is useless in Rural Wyoming and Utah, and in the vast waste stretches of Nevada, Texas and Arizona."
Why exactly. I spent a number of years in "wild" West Virginia and didnt feel a pressing need to be armed.
What sucks is he bought both guns and the ammo legally.
Did you read the text for that photograph?
The person was returning from target practice and had no amunition.
AFAIK the law there says apart from going to/from a place where you need the weapon you are issued it is kept at home.
If the person in that photograph was assulted by an armed gunman the most that person would have been able to do would have been club someone with the rifle.
According to the epople in the emergency rooms where victims were brought, no one had less then 3 bullet wounds. It would appear that once he had people down/wounded he was firing into them again. The survivor who was pinned under classmates bodies said that was what he was doing.
Except for law enforcement didnt stop him. They just surrounded the building while he continued his work. The only thing that stopped him was himself.
"False, ANY law abiding citizen with a CCL shoots this motherfucker before he kills 31. "
Would you put your life on that?
Do you believe there is no chance he would get the drop on someone?
Nah, ESDI is the way to go.
"Production means nothing"
Thats odd, because many of the advertisements for albums I see/hear sell the producer over the actual artist.
Is botanical piracy such a huge problem that companies need DRM? Why is there even a terminator gene other then to be evil?
"Good point; however, its also possible that the honey has just past a threshold that its no longer "honey" to other creatures."
When is that? Honey is highly stable against microbial growth because of its low water activity, low moisture content, low pH, and antimicrobial constituents according to everyting I have seen.
"This tells volumes to anyone with a hint of a clue about biology. It says that whatever is happening is natural, and has happened enough for Nature to have built in defenses against whatever it is. The only time in nature you leave food untouched is when your instincts tell you it is BAD. For that to happen takes evolution a longtime to perfect, thus this crap isn't new. It tells me it is something very nasty but very old, older than H. sapiens and certainly cell phones."
My money is on Old Ones raiding the hives.
John Whorfin tells me Planet 10 is the place to go, real soon. YMMV
Be careful, they might have employed Dastardly and Muttley.