GameBanshee Forums

Hm.... That video tape of himself is rather disturbing, to say at least. Anyone seen it?

Fiberfar wrote:Hm.... That video tape of himself is rather disturbing, to say at least. Anyone seen it?

Can it be found online? If it is you're more or less obliged to post it now.

Vicsun wrote:Can it be found online? If it is you're more or less obliged to post it now.

Hm... Here it is. I guess you'll be able to understand most of the comments made on it as well.

TV - Dagbladet.no

Thanks.

edit: He compared himself to Jesus Christ. If there was any question regarding his sanity, I believe the matter is now settled.

Vicsun wrote:Thanks.

edit: He compared himself to Jesus Christ. If there was any question regarding his sanity, I believe the matter is now settled.

It sounded like he was reading from a book or a piece of paper. My first thought was that he was quoting the bible.

From what I red in the newspapers, he was also blaming Christians for burning witches (I wonder how many witches he saw burning during his life? ). So we have plenty of reasons to doubt his sanity.

Gilliatt wrote:From what I red in the newspapers, he was also blaming Christians for burning witches (I wonder how many witches he saw burning during his life? ). So we have plenty of reasons to doubt his sanity.

Especially since there's not a single record of a witch being burnt by Christians. Plenty of Christians in particular were burnt, as well as some Jews, and homosexuals, and deformed people, and simple-minded folk--but no evidence of any witches. That was simply an accusation, along with sorceror (just as common), and poisoner.

fable wrote:Especially since there's not a single record of a witch being burnt by Christians. Plenty of Christians in particular were burnt, as well as some Jews, and homosexuals, and deformed people, and simple-minded folk--but no evidence of any witches. That was simply an accusation, along with sorceror (just as common), and poisoner.

You got me confused here. What about the Inquisition? What about Salem? Did you just meant that none of them where real witches?

Edit 2: @Fable, I understand what you were trying to say, your last sentence makes it very clear. If you have red my first edit, please forget it, I just had misunderstood what you were trying to say.

fable wrote:Especially since there's not a single record of a witch being burnt by Christians. Plenty of Christians in particular were burnt, as well as some Jews, and homosexuals, and deformed people, and simple-minded folk--but no evidence of any witches. That was simply an accusation, along with sorceror (just as common), and poisoner.

Were there witches during that time period? I always assumed Wicca was a twentieth century thing.

Unless your post is tongue-in-cheek, in which case I find it to be pretty clever.

Vicsun wrote:Were there witches during that time period? I always assumed Wicca was a twentieth century thing.

Unless your post is tongue-in-cheek, in which case I find it to be pretty clever.

No, I'm rather stupid, and I was being serious, too. What's more, many witches (I would say most, but I don't have any figures) aren't Wiccans, which is a development from the last 10-15 years. (Genuine Wicca dates as far back for certain as Gerald Gardner, who developed it in the late 1940s, and it has no resemblance to the stuff you'll find around, today.) Witchcraft is much older, but very diverse, usually practiced by individuals, not covens (which was part of the myth about witches, evolved during the Renaissance). I did a post on it in the recent "Your personal beliefs" etc thread.

In reference to the whole, why was there no fight put up comment.

We might never know how many of those 32 killed met their end valiantly, railing against the injustice of a man with a gun and no scrupels.

I'm a soldier, with some degree of skill in unarmed combat. An enemy with a gun 10 feet away from you is considered being in the "black" zone. You are utterly at their mercy. You honestly have no chance of taking the weapon away from them at anything more than about 4 feet. If you were lucky enough to catch the gunmen rounding a corner, close enough to act, fast enough to close the distance and grapple, and skilled enough to take the weapon away and kill him, you'd have a chance.

There are a lot of conditions there.

As to the United 93 situation, they odds are vastly in your favour. If memory serves, the highjackers used box cutters to take over the plane. Boxcutters are not particularly lethal when compared to a gun. They can only slash in one direction, and lack the blade strength to penetrate even normal clothing.

A pistol in a crowded room is an exceedingly deadly weapon, surpassed only by automatic weapons.

In my opinoin, in confined quarters, a pistol is far deadlier than an assualt rifle.

Raising a question about gun control, I'm a Canadian, and my access to weapons is pretty limited. But I'm also a soldier, and a university student. I'm sure there were people like me at VT.

Maybe if one of them had a weapon, the toll would be lower.

Maybe if one of them had a weapon, the toll would be lower.

I definitely agree with that, if more law abiding citizens in this country carried concealed firearms people planning to commit an act like this one might think twice before doing it, and if they still went through with it they would be eliminated far quicker than in this situation.

While I don't think gun control will stop the acts of crazy people, I wonder if it would lower the rate of single deaths commited on a momentary loss of control. For exemple, a husband who kills his wife when she tells him she's leaving. If that person cannot have direct access to guns, maybe he will get enough time to reconsider things and relax a bit before he can actually get one.

BTW, I used to hunt pretty much, I have guns at home. I am not the kind of person who says guns are evil. But I truly don't believe everybody needs one.

While I don't think gun control will stop the acts of crazy people, I wonder if it would lower the rate of single deaths commited on a momentary loss of control. For exemple, a husband who kills his wife when she tells him she's leaving. If that person cannot have direct access to guns, maybe he will get enough time to reconsider things and relax a bit before he can actually get one.

you dont have to have a gun to kill somebody, an man acting on impulse like that is just as likely to kill his wife with a knife if he cant get a gun. In Australia when the took away guns people actually resorted to using swords, so if a person wants to kill one or many people bad enough they will find a way, they dont have to use a gun.

TEMPLAR67 wrote:you dont have to have a gun to kill somebody, an man acting on impulse like that is just as likely to kill his wife with a knife if he cant get a gun. In Australia when the took away guns people actually resorted to using swords, so if a person wants to kill one or many people bad enough they will find a way, they dont have to use a gun.

But there is the factor when you have easy and fast access to weapons, compared to if you have to start looking around for it. It makes it harder to act deadly in "spur of the moment".
Now in this case of course, it was premeditated and not spur of the moment, however those other cases exists as well, and if the only weapon you can find within a few minutes is a big kitchen knife - there is less chance of fatality then if you can find a number of handguns.
Personally - I have never been able to phantom the "right to arms" mentality and find it both juvenile and irrational. And especially not the "more guns = safer" type arguments.
I do think the US would be wise to ban handguns in public domain, as they clearly can't control it, but seeing as guns have been such an integrated feature in American history - well.... I doubt it will happen the next many years.

However, I do not think easy access to, and many, guns are the only factor in making these things happen, as some other countries have many guns as well.
I am really intrigued in knowing which factor(s) in the US make these events possible, as there must be something which triggers this magnitude; it is rare you hear about people snapping like this in other (western) countries with such devastating result. I don't know, but it would be interesting to find out.

For Everyone's info:

Today in the US, Virgina Tech and the Virginia Tech community (alums, etc.) have asked that today be a day of support. Consequently, everyone is encouraged to wear Virginia Tech colors, Orange and Maroon. I'm not an alum, but I did dig out a maroon shirt.

Personally - I have never been able to phantom the "right to arms" mentality and find it both juvenile and irrational. And especially not the "more guns = safer" type arguments.

Its may be true that guns make it easier for someone to kill another person, but you are completely wrong in the argument that more guns = higher crime just look at Great Britain and you'll know what i mean, they actually have a higher violent crime rate than the US :speech: now that the law abiding citizens have had their guns taken away. If you believe that if a gun control law is enacted that criminals will just hand over their guns then you are very naive.

TEMPLAR67 wrote:Its may be true that guns make it easier for someone to kill another person, but you are completely wrong in the argument that more guns = higher crime just look at Great Britain and you'll know what i mean, they actually have a higher violent crime rate than the US :speech: now that the law abiding citizens have had their guns taken away. If you believe that if a gun control law is enacted that criminals will just hand over their guns then you are very naive.

I did not make the connection you claim I did, so your post is hitting past its mark.

And no - criminals will not hand over their guns, after all -they are criminal.
And I did not claim that either, so again you hit besides the mark.
However less guns in circulation, would statistically mean its more difficult to get guns illegally. Many countries does not have a general problem with handguns, despite (some) criminal elements have access to them and very restricted gun-laws.

But I fear the problem with gun circulation is already out of hand in the US, so it would take many, many years to made even just slight progress towards more control, if ever decided.

But I fear the problem with gun circulation is already out of hand in the US, so it would take many, many years to made even just slight progress towards more control, if ever decided.

Well i pray to God that that day never comes, i fear that it will spell the end of freedom in this country, governments love an unarmed citizen

TEMPLAR67 wrote:Well i pray to God that that day never comes, i fear that it will spell the end of freedom in this country, governments love an unarmed citizen

Yes, the moment Americans give their guns away, the government will transform into its corporeal form and kill them. And the government would like nothing more than to do that. Because the government is evil.

edit: I don't necessarily want to see gun ownership restricted, but don't you think you're dramatizing the issue just a little bit?