Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
samusaran253

I just got a phone call from the FBI...

Recommended Posts

About 15 minutes ago I e-mailed the FBI telling them about a man who posted a thread on the internet about how he is going to go his high school with guns and shoot massacre the students. And then 5 minutes ago the FBI just called me, it only took them about 10 minutes to call me, and it's midnight right now. How awesome is that? The sad part is that the kid was probably joking and now his entire life will be ruined over a joke he made over the internet.

Here's the thread he posted: http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=59013775

Share this post


Link to post

-sees bungie.net-
-already know its a troll-

@Mithran: Oh yeah, these were the days.

Share this post


Link to post

You shouldve suggested to the Feds that putting Sam Fisher in this investigation is the perfect solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Radon said:

You shouldve suggested to the Feds that putting Sam Fisher in this investigation is the perfect solution.


Forget Fisher, send in Snake

Share this post


Link to post
Lawstiker said:

Forget Fisher, send in Snake

Forget Snake, send in Otacon

Share this post


Link to post
samusaran253 said:

The sad part is that the kid was probably joking and now his entire life will be ruined over a joke he made over the internet.

You jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
samusaran253 said:

...posted a thread on the internet about how he is going to go his high school with guns and shoot massacre the students.

Poster has to be chronically stupid and/or trolling to start a thread like that.

Share this post


Link to post

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Well, if he had actually shot up his school, then yeah.

Although, being a situation where you have to call the FBI like that is kind of like curing the symptoms and not the disease. Maybe, just maybe it's too easy for kids to access guns?!

Share this post


Link to post
GreyGhost said:

Poster has to be chronically stupid and/or trolling to start a thread like that.


Or be a kid. I'm sure you were 13 and angry at the world once.

Share this post


Link to post
Mr. T said:

Although, being a situation where you have to call the FBI like that is kind of like curing the symptoms and not the disease. Maybe, just maybe it's too easy for kids to access guns?!

No, part of the problem is that guns are hidden from kids enough that they aren't taught basic gun safety...

but that mainly applies to accidents from them. Shooting up a school is a totally different issue.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm all for flexible gun laws, guns are a) fun, and b) a good way to protect yourself from someone who wants to murder/rape/rob you. Another discussion for another time, though.

But allowing youngsters access to firearms while unsupervised is indescribably stupid and irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post
DoomUK said:

b) a good way to protect yourself from someone who wants to murder/rape/rob you.

No. They're not.

Share this post


Link to post
kristus said:

No. They're not.

The above statement was a summarisation of what I think. Obviously there's several quite complex and delicate factors involved in how effective a gun is as a means of self-defense, both in ethical and pragmatic terms. If you really want to debate it out then one of us will have to start a new thread ;)

But the bottom line is I think decent citizens have a right to defend themselves with lethal force. Criminals are laughing at everyone who is helpless to defend themself on the spot, where laws prohibit them from doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Mr. T said:

I'm sure you were 13 and angry at the world once.

I was. But back then there was no World Wide Web, so when I blew off steam it only went as far as my voice would carry and the neighbors usually managed to tell the difference between teenage angst and homicidal mania.

Share this post


Link to post
DoomUK said:

But the bottom line is I think decent citizens have a right to defend themselves with lethal force. Criminals are laughing at everyone who is helpless to defend themself on the spot, where laws prohibit them from doing so.

I'm not sure I agree with that. What I do think is that if someone defends themselves from an agressor and this accidentially results in the agressor dying. That is unfortunate but an acceptable premise to not keep the original victim morally and legally accountable.

But using the term "lethal force" suggests that you think you're in the right to kill someone who is trying to kill you even if that is not necessary to protect yourself from death or severe bodily harm.

Share this post


Link to post

So you just admitted to being a slimy stool pigeon snitch? If I was that guy you "ratted out", I'd make it certain that you got a taste of your own medicine before I got locked in some dungeon, since I would have nothing to lose anymore.

kristus said:

I'm not sure I agree with that. What I do think is that if someone defends themselves from an agressor and this accidentially results in the agressor dying. That is unfortunate but an acceptable premise to not keep the original victim morally and legally accountable.


Sounds like an elaborate way of saying "turning the other cheek". I'd take "busting a cap in the punk motherfucker's ass who threatened me with lethal force" anyday, thank you. I tend to think in simple terms: A CRIMINAL THREATENS TO KILL YOU *NOW* WHAT DO YOU DO? *BANG* or *STAB* is the right answer, not *whimper whimper please don't kill me mr. criminal*.

kristus said:

But using the term "lethal force" suggests that you think you're in the right to kill someone who is trying to kill you even if that is not necessary to protect yourself from death or severe bodily harm.


One word: cops.

They are allowed to pass on this subtlety, and are not accountable for how much "extra" harm they inflict on someone they "immobilize".

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Sounds like an elaborate way of saying "turning the other cheek". I'd take "busting a cap in the punk motherfucker's ass who threatened me with lethal force" anyday, thank you. I tend to think in simple terms: A CRIMINAL THREATENS TO KILL YOU *NOW* WHAT DO YOU DO? *BANG* or *STAB* is the right answer, not *whimper whimper please don't kill me mr. criminal*.


You always were a fool Maes. There are more ways to deal with a threat than to use terminal force or cower in fear. I'm not willing to kill anyone without due reason(I make this last specification, because I am in favor of euthenasia). The reason for that being that I don't believe in that eye for an eye bullshit. Also, I do consider that if you take someone's life when you could have opted out of doing so, you make yourself into a criminal. Regardless of if the law says so.

Maes said:

One word: cops.

They are allowed to pass on this subtlety, and are not accountable for how much "extra" harm they inflict on someone they "immobilize".

Ever heard of the term "excessive force"? I dunno what kind of police state Greece is. But here in Sweden, cops are supposed to be held accountable for their actions. If they always are however, that is another question.

Share this post


Link to post
kristus said:

You always were a fool Maes. There are more ways to deal with a threat than to use terminal force or cower in fear.


Sure. It would be cool to fire off a series of precise, impressive and non-lethal but effective karate kicks, but I'm pretty sure pressing a trigger (or simply threatening to do so) will be easier and more effective.

kristus said:

Ever heard of the term "excessive force"? I dunno what kind of police state Greece is. But here in Sweden, cops are supposed to be held accountable for their actions. If they always are, that is another question.


Of course I have, but people seem to justify the actions of the police in any case. Of course cops are legally accountable anywhere, but in practice every police force in the world has a "our men first" policy, and will protect its members from prosecution by covering things up, if necessary.

What I vouch for is for the laws to permit citizens to be potentially as well armed and as fully entitled to defend themselved as cops: if someone picks a fight with a cop, none is going to pity the poor SOB if the cop shoots him, breaks his spine, makes him a quadraplegic and forces him to shit in a colostomy bag forever...in prison, while the cop gets a medal for bravery.

Similarly, I want the same thing to apply for any law abiding, tax-paying citizen vs any criminal.

Oh and in any case, I'm more for the dissuasive value of legalized weapons carry, rather than actually having to use them. Cops are trained and better equipped to deal with the ethical and legal consequences, while ordinary citizens usually are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Sure. It would be cool to fire off a series of precise, impressive and non-lethal but effective karate kicks, but I'm pretty sure pressing a trigger (or simply threatening to do so) will be easier and more effective.

I would advice you to think two seconds longer before blurting out stupidities like this.
A gun, for starters is a very poor close combat weapon. You would be doing a lot better with a knife. When I was in the army. We had guard training. That involved taking care of agressors that came running from a distance of about 30-50 meters. Even with the rifle in my hands. Cocking it and getting a precise shot off was extremely difficult to do before you had the person on you. And that was when you knew he was coming.

How would you do it with your gun? A weapon that is A LOT more imrecise. You're more likely to hit someone else than the person you're actually aiming for in a heated situation. Plus that you'll unlikely be having him coming straight at you from 50 meters away. Etc.

A person that is actual genuine about wanting to protect themselves would do better with getting a short blade that they can stab the agressor in the leg or torso with. It would most likely be non lethal. But it has great stopping power. And yes. I would rather be informed of the weak spots of the human physiqe. Like throat, eyes and groin. Than have a gun that I most likely wouldn't even get out before I was overrun anyway.

And I know there are people who have grand illusions about their ability to use the gun they own effectively. But that is all that is. Illusions. I don't believe any of them for a second before I've actually seen them do it.

Maes said:

Of course I have, but people seem to justify the actions of the police in any case. Of course cops are legally accountable anywhere, but in practice every police force in the world has a "our men first" policy, and will protect its members from prosecution by covering things up, if necessary.

What I vouch for is for the laws to permit citizens to be potentially as well armed and as fully entitled to defend themselved as cops: if someone picks a fight with a cop, none is going to pity the poor SOB if the cop shoots him, breaks his spine, makes him a quadraplegic and forces him to shit in a colostomy bag forever...in prison, while the cop gets a medal for bravery.

Similarly, I want the same thing to apply for any law abiding, tax-paying citizen vs any criminal.

Do you get all your information from hollywood movies? I'm not saying that these things doesn't happen. But you make it out to be like this is the daily grind for any police officer.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I do agree that a long rifle would make a poor close quarters weapons, and even a short handgun takes a lifetime to master, and let's not even start discussing the choice of ammo and caliber...

A blade, as you said, is probably better if you want to actually inflict focused damage with as little room for collateral damage, the problem is that most aggressors will not be scared off by the blade and instead of running away from you screaming (as they would in 99% of cases if you produced a gun), they will start dancing around you and try to grab it from you (especially multiple attackers).

That's the problem: A KNIFE HAS NO DISSUASIVE VALUE ON ITS OWN, and a blunt weapon has even less (if someone was so stupid as to go around with e.g. a pair of nun-chakus...he would end up getting them sticked up his ass, literally)

If you produce it, then you'd better do so for a split second and then USE IT RIGHT AWAY, because if you simply show it to the aggressor, you can bet their next move will be trying to disarm you and use it on you. Similarly, if you produce a Taser or one of those Bulgarian "keychain guns" you'd better be ready to actually fire them, because a small metal rectangle or what looks like a packet of cigarettes has no dissuasive value, until someone actually has a bullet in his body or is on the ground twitching.

Even for a knife, I doubt any mugger would be scared unless FIRST you gave them some cm. of steel and drew some blood, kinda like a snake would strike. And doing THAT with any semblance of speed and precision requires just as much skill as using a handgun.

You also seem to overlook the various "fast draw" and "concealed carry" modes in which a handgun can be carried on one's person for street use. If you DO carry a gun for self-defense you surely don't keep it in your lunch box or student backpack!

And remember: I'm all about giving citizens the DISSUASIVE power of legal gun carry, rather than full cop powers. If that's in place, along with a clear and permissive legal framework, violent criminal-to-citizen crime would plummet and criminals would turn to other more lucrative and less risky sectors of criminality like e.g. criminal-to-criminal violence (which happens anyway), illegal trade, drugs etc.

Because why risking a bullet and colostomy bag for a "booty" of maybe $100, when any law-abiding citizen has the legal power to do so?

Then again, no government would like his citizens to be this proud, armed and initiative taking...you see, this would create political implications. If you take no shit from a mugger and you have the right to make him a vegetable with your state-sanctioned gun, then why take shit from a crappy government? So yeah, it's also a political stance (and I admit to being on the elitist side here).

Share this post


Link to post

I thought this would of deserved it's own thread. Oh well.

kristus said:

A person that is actual genuine about wanting to protect themselves would do better with getting a short blade that they can stab the agressor in the leg or torso with. It would most likely be non lethal. But it has great stopping power.

So you consider a knife a non-lethal weapon? Moreover, a knife to the torso or some major artery in the leg or somewhere is less likely to result in death than a bullet?

It's true that gunshot wounds are more difficult for a surgeon to treat than a knife (or sword) wound, but personally I wouldn't want to take my chances if I was on the receiving end. "Shoot to kill" and "Stab to kill" are pretty synonymous adages, to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×