Respinning Colombine and the new pyschos are?

[Climbnsink]

All of you who are wealthy enough to stock up on guns and ammo:
"One of the scary things is that money was one of the limiting factors here," Cullen says.

Had Harris, then 18, put off the attacks for a few years and landed a well-paying job, he says, "he could be much more like Tim McVeigh," mixing fertilizer bombs like those used in Oklahoma City in 1995. As it was, he says, the fact that Harris carried out the attack when he did probably saved hundreds of lives.

"His limited salary probably limited the number of people who died."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm?se=yahoorefer

 

[TomH]

More propaganda and bullshit assumptions from the left... nothing new here.

 

[theGringo]

Another compeeling reason for government to regulate incomes and control the amount of discretionary spending that we are capable of. Best thing is for government to take all earnings, and dispense to people the neccesities of life according to their need.

Without "extra" money in the hands of private citizens, things are not only "fair", but there'll be less killings and bombings, too.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Kalahari]

I don't think that's what they were trying to argue at all. Its a little disingenuous to twist the author's words like that.

 

[theGringo]

I don't think that's what they were trying to argue at all. Its a little disingenuous to twist the author's words like that.

Uh huh.

 

[Kalahari]

Tell me, then, where the hell is the logical step between saying "His limited salary kept him from making bigger bombs" and the implication that the author thus wants limited salaries on everyone? Hmm? Do you have any evidence that this is what the author is implying? Is there any evidence the author is in favor of such wage controls?

Because it otherwise seems like you're just being paranoid about an article that is supposed to be informative, not persuasive.

 

[GSG]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_shooting

In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. A rifle and the two shotguns were bought in what was perhaps a straw purchase in December, 1998 by a friend, Robyn Anderson, who had purchased the shotguns at the Tanner Gun Show in December, in private sales from individual(s).[41] Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from a friend, Mark Manes for $500. Manes was jailed after the massacre for selling a handgun to a minor,[42] as was Philip Duran, who had introduced the duo to Manes.[43]

With instructions from the Internet, they also built 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes. They also sawed the barrels and butts off their shotguns in order to make them easier to conceal.[4] The two perpetrators committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, even before the massacre began.

But clearly, lax gun laws are at fault here. If we only had 7 or 8 more laws, this never would have happened.

And from http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/13/columbine.manes.01/

Later in the tapes, both teens said if Manes had not gotten them the gun, they would have gotten it from someone else.

Whoa whoa whoa. You mean to tell me that if the people planning a massive suicide attack couldn't get illegal guns from one source, then they would get them from another illegal source?

We clearly need more gun laws for people to break before they can get illegal guns.

 

[theGringo]

Tell me, then, where the hell is the logical step between saying "His limited salary kept him from making bigger bombs" and the implication that the author thus wants limited salaries on everyone? Hmm? Do you have any evidence that this is what the author is implying? Is there any evidence the author is in favor of such wage controls?

Because it otherwise seems like you're just being paranoid about an article that is supposed to be informative, not persuasive.

Informative ... Persuasive ... Hmm.

Oh, I get it! You're taking a Freshman English class!

Next semester, try Journalism. Or History. Something with "Propaganda" in the course description.

 

[GSG]

Because it otherwise seems like you're just being paranoid about an article that is supposed to be informative, not persuasive.

The media is trying to persuade people. If they wanted to inform, they'd leave out all those adjectives they throw into every story.

 

[Kalahari]

Next semester, try Journalism. Or History. Something with "Propaganda" in the course description.

You are out of your mind if you think saying that money was a factor in someone's behavior is "propaganda."

I mean, it's pretty f***ing obvious that if anyone had more money they'd do more things on a bigger scale. For instance, you'd buy more guns, or more ammo. Or someone who wants to kill people before taking their life would buy bigger weapons to kill more people.

When the f*** did common sense become propaganda?

 

[GSG]

At a time when our government is "nationalizing" banks, industry, and millions of foreclosed houses (all because of people's spending habits), maybe theGringo is just reading into the story a little more than you or I.

 

[hminsky]

It's interesting that the thesis of the article is that the guy who planned and carried out the attack was not the bullied loner that the media was making out him to be at first. All over the country kids who were perceived as 'outsiders', i.e., had interests that weren't regular jock and sports types ,were persecuted after this crime, hauled out of school to be interrogated.
But the article asserts that Eric Harris was just a sociopath with delusions of grandeur.
All the crap that went down in schools around the country after these attacks, that was basically a witch hunt, not all that different from the Salem witch trials.

The more things change , the more they remain the same. The one important lesson to remember is that whatever the mass media says, the opposite is most likely what is true.

 

[GSG]

Deleted