Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About xPsYcHoTiKx

  • Rank
  • Birthday 12/26/1985

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Toddler Killed His Mother

    Here's an interesting take. No clue if his data is accurate but it seems believable enough, or easily disprovable if that's the case. He primarily compares violent crime/murder in the US from 1992 to current, and then current US violent crime rates to United Kingdom crime rates, (since the media always talks about how other countries are safer and such).
  2. Toddler Killed His Mother

    Fair enough ;-) I can see your point to where arming teachers would be senseless in 99.999999% of situations. I would be against any sort of mandatory arming, but I don't see the harm in changing policy to allow *approved* teachers or professors to conceal and carry. I do think it would be at least some sort of a step towards at least allowing a law abiding citizen the choice to be prepared for an event and to be able to possibly defend the defenseless. Wouldn't requiring a mandatory 2-3 day training camp specific to a gunman shooting up a school for any teachers who choose to conceal and carry provide at least a baseline for teachers who chose to conceal and carry to be prepared? Obviously it's impossible to prepare for every scenario, but heck, I think it'd be better than nothing? In our current state, I just don't see what there is stopping anyone from going out and shooting up a school. My high school back in 2004 had 1 rent a cop patrolling around, but there were 2400+ students and against a prepared assailant there is easily the opportunity there to have a tragedy of a much larger scale than anything that's happened up to this point. I know that I don't want psychopaths to have that freedom if there are any possible steps to fight it, which is why I came here to discuss this topic. I knew you guys would vary in opinions and it'd be nice to pull something away from this besides the political talking points that're on every channel. Disco - I'd be for accidental deaths to be included, wounds I'd be on the fence with depending on the scope of how in depth you want to analyze gun statistics. What it really comes down to is that I don't think there's any statistics to support that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens would directly lead to an increase in gun related deaths. There's so many ways to interpret "law abiding citizens" and "gun related deaths" though that even with statistics anyone can link numbers that support their position. *Edit* RD - I agree that you can't deter people on suicidal rampages, but don't you think that there is something to how they mostly seem to go after areas with the most potential for murder with the least potential with anyone fighting back? Violence won't deter them, but I would think there's an obvious desire to make a name for themselves in the media due to the nature of many of these shootings, and making it less certain that a specific target is defenseless could be a deterrant.
  3. Toddler Killed His Mother

    Far as teachers go, what's stopping them from shooting up a school right now? Nothing really, when you honestly think about it. You also argue that teaching is a stressful job, I'd argue that so is being a police officer, yet there aren't any officer caused mass shootings that I can think of off the top of my head. Arming cashiers and bus drivers? I'd be ok with it as long as they took the same strict, necessary psychological testing and firearms/conceal and carry classes that should be required of anyone desiring to conceal at their job. Pan - You say teachers will get to the point where they say things like, "Stop fucking texting in class, or I'll blow your head off". It's simple, if a teacher actually crossed that line, instant loss of job, forever banned from teaching in any capacity again and criminal charges brought against him for terroristic threats. Yeah, I'm sure any sane teacher would really cross that line because he's annoyed with Jimmy, the class clown. As far as your example of the student pushing the teacher until he stormed out of the classroom - Why wouldn't the teacher send the student to the principals office? Why would the *teacher* the one who has the authority, (oh that's funny, they already have authority in the classroom so technically it's already an authoritarian environment. I'd be interested in why you think it isn't? Just because teachers don't assert their authority anymore?) be the one to submit control to the student and allow that student to basically run the classroom. I understand some students can be unbearable, but that's a failure of the system to address those students - which is another topic entirely. Deity - I don't think arming cashiers and bus drivers would be the most effective way to prevent said tragedies. I do think that allowing private individuals the choice to pursue whether or not to conceal and carry on their own would be the most effective way. That uncertainty gives lunatics like this pause, it makes them think twice. All of these cowards that commit such unthinkable crimes want to go down in history, none of them wants to be the psychopath that wounded 2, killed 1 and then took a bullet in the head and doesn't even make the highlight real in the local news. Remove areas where we require legal citizens to be unarmed and we remove areas where psychopaths have nearly guaranteed 5-10 minutes of carnage before authorities can arrive (5-10 min at the absolute best). Do you honestly believe that "gun free zones" deter non-law abiding citizens from being armed there? Or psychopaths from committing crimes like these? Here's a follow up question to my earlier thoughts, you guys are for gun free zones. Do you feel that this shooting, (or any other school shooting) would have taken place if teachers were in fact allowed to conceal and carry? Do you feel that the carnage would be equally as bad? Reading into gun deaths a little - in 2007 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths were caused by suicide. Do those numbers you linked Disco about the US having the 9th highest gun related deaths per 100,000 exclude these numbers? If they don't, those statistics are biased and serve no purpose in this discusson, (the argument of how many of those people would have still committed suicide without access to firearms is again, a separate debate). Doing some math, I found the average guns per 100 citizens as 88.8 in 2007 (wikipedia) and the population estimated at 302.2 million. This equals out to be about 268,353,600 guns in the country that year. 31,224 - 17,352 = 13,872 non suicidal gun related deaths. So 13,872/268,353,600 = .0000051693 deaths per gun abouts, (of course, I'm only in basic college algebra so this math could be completely screwy and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). So yeah, at that rate I'm not too worried about more guns on the streets in the hands of law abiding citizens. I'm sure if you look further at the numbers where you remove accidental deaths from that total, so it only reflects intentional gun related deaths that number drops even lower, (because face it, gun laws or not won't stop criminals from having/acquiring weapons).
  4. Toddler Killed His Mother

    In this scenario, I'd consider Fort Hood to be an exception, that is, different from the majority (if not all) mass shootings by deranged psychopaths. First the guy was a trained military member, secondly it seems as though he did it for religious reasons, as opposed to suicidal reasons, he specifically targetted military members over civilians and in fact, being shot 5 times is what stopped him. If not for that equal force, it looks as though he would have only stopped when he ran out of ammunition, (which in the article I just perused, he had over 100 unfired rounds left on him). I've never been on a military base, but correct me if I'm wrong, it's not like soldiers are concealing and carrying on the base at all times - in fact, I've always been of the belief that for the most part the firearms are secured away unless they're checked out for specific, approved purposes, (obviously that's not the case, considering he was able to just buy the gun for what appears to be little to no direct reason). Even still, I read about people rushing him to try and stop him - that doesn't strike me as something anyone would do had they been armed when he started unloading. This is all besides the point though as this doesn't answer the question or even attempt to address the issue here, which is how vulnerable schools are to this sort of violence. I know you're intelligent RD, as are many here, I expected a better response from you than that ;-)
  5. Toddler Killed His Mother

    As far as teachers are concerned, I personally believe trusting them with a gun (the proper training is assumed and necessary, perhaps even more stringent due to their vulnerable and unpredictable environment) is much less dangerous than trusting them with our childrens education. I would believe the potential repercussions of a bad teacher are as severe as any affected by the school shootings, maybe even moreso due to the sweep it under the rug nature of public education in this country. For that article, and my similar view point, I don't believe it mentions arming the kids/students or permitting them to conceal and carry. So the threat of "standing in front of 100 students packing heat" would never happen, as it shouldn't. I also don't believe it would create an authoritative environment, at least no more so than having rent a cops patrolling the hallways and metal detectors at the entrances, (which, how many shootings have those prevented?). It's not like you'd be using a gun in any detectable manner, when properly done, it wouldn't even be noticeable to the untrained eye, (students for example). It would be similar to fire extinguishers, present but mostly unnoticed except in times of emergency. I'd agree with you if teachers were wearing the holster and slinging pistols around in the middle of a lecture and quoting John Wayne, but they wouldn't be. I wouldn't see it negatively impacting the classroom at all, once past the initial introduction. No one made a counter point to the discussed thought that these mass shootings always or mostly happen in places where there is the largest possibility for massive casualties, and very little chance of equivalent force being used in defense (example, gun free zones) - so is it safe to say the three of you agree that the nature of these "gun free zones" is in fact detrimental to the overall safety of people in general and merely provides easy areas for psychopaths to target? I will say, that I'm on the fence with the types of guns like the one used in this shooting being available to the public. I believe they should be, but it's obvious there should be stricter regulation for them specificly. I would be all for requiring assault rifles to be registered and stored in a gov't controlled place - because let's face it - who's grabbing the assault rifle and not the pistol/shotgun for defense if an intruder breaks in? Or enact stricter psychological testing, perhaps not only for the owner of said weapon but anyone who lives or has regular access to the household it would be stored in. If these gun were illegal to have before 2004, then I don't see why strict regulations on them would be such a bad thing. It's better than them being illegal, without the easier access that these nutjob's have to them right now. Deity - You don't believe more guns or arming teachers is a solution. Rather than just say nay, what do you feel could be done, realistically and in a short amount of time, (lets face it, disarming the US will never happen and no one wants to propose legislation that'll take 10 years to get through as a solution)? I'm all for constructively debating, but without countering with a realistic way to address tragic events like this we'll never get anywhere as a society.
  6. Toddler Killed His Mother

    Link that explains exactly how I feel - written by an expert (not verified, taking one of my respectable family members word for it). http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lott-guns-Connecticut-shooting/2012/12/15/id/467903?s=al&promo_code=111C9-1 I'm honestly curious to hear the counter argument, because I just don't see how there is one.
  7. New vid card

    I'll be doing a complete reformat of my hard drive. I'm still currently running Vista, (kept hoping it would die, but it never did. Good news is student discounted Win 7 is nice) and want to clear out all the junk/crap I have on my current desktop. Would you recommend still using the DriverSweeper to clear out the old drives, or would a re-format take care of that for me?
  8. New vid card

    I've had this problem with this specific setup for years and through multiple driver updates. It's never gone completely away, and has persisted through multiple games I've played, (World of Warcraft, Eve, Starcraft II and in the last 3-4 days World of Tanks). It's odd because it's never acted up while playing World of Tanks, tho they did just patch it and are continuing to tweak the graphics, so I'm guessing something in the last patch hit whatever nerve it takes to get the display driver to act up. I'm inclined to suspect the hardware, after spending some time googling the issue, the best I could come up with was some jury rigged tweaks that worked for some, (didn't fix mine) and that most think it's a hardware issue with some cards. Although to be fair, there were numerous cases of people who've never had the problem, went to updated drivers, developed the problem and then switched back to old drivers and the issue never showed up again. For me, the lack of Nvidia directly addressing the issue or fixing it, after several years has turned me off to them as a company and I'm inclined to try out a Ati card instead. I know that I don't ever plan on overclocking any of my hardware, I'm a recreational gamer and I honestly don't know a ton about the hardware. I want a system that runs well, and preferably with as few problems as possible while still playing games with the graphics level higher than low.
  9. New vid card

    Hey guys, I'm thinking I'm going to upgrade some hardware to fix an ongoing problem that I've had. For those curious, the problem is that I continuously get the error message, "display driver has stopped working but has recovered" whenever I'm playing a game. I've not encountered it up to 4 days ago playing World of Tanks, however now every time I play it shows up and either makes the game unplayable or my computer locks up until reboot. Here's some of my current specs. Asus P5K-E Mobo http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131196 Nvidia 8800 GT graphics card http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150252 Intel Core 2 Quad CPU ~2.4 GHz Power Supply is 600 watts, don't remember what brand. Everything except the power supply is about 4-5 years old. Should I do a complete rebuild from scratch or just update the graphics card? I'm leaning towards Radeon for my next card, as there's been shit all for support from Nvidia for this ongoing display drivers issue with many of their different cards. I don't need anything super high end, as most of my gaming is not high end, but I do like the games I do play to run smoothly and well. I'm comfortable spending about $200-300 for a graphics card, or about $1,000 if I end up doing a complete rebuild. Thanks in advance guys!
  10. Star Wars: The Old Republic Guilds Forming Now

    Turns out trying to copy the same format that's been out for 10+ years isn't the formula for success. No matter how much money you throw at it trying to shine it up and make it seem like new.
  11. XCOM: Enemy Unknown

    It looks like a turn based game with variable camera views. Maybe prior to contact it's more of a zoomed out tactical viewpoint and when you get into combat it zooms you in closer for more of a over the shoulder 3rd person view, or it could be variable at all times to suit different people's preferences. I'm positive that I've read it's 100% turn based though.
  12. David Frum, and the New Yorker

    Well ok, I'll expand on that. The social programs of this country are a good thing. I do believe that they are easily exploited by people who have no need to be on them, thus hindering the economy and the country. Course, I shouldn't even say they and I do believe that it varies state to state, (most social programs are state run, federal backed? That's a complete guess though). Welfare is the biggest example and the one that always comes to mind. Welfare to me is the guy who feeds the birds everyday. Sure yes, there's likely some birds that wouldn't get by without assistance, but what happens when you stop feeding the birds? Turns out they figure out ways to feed themselves. I've also read articles over the years, two of which come to mind. One compared the standard of living to a mother of one who was working full time and going to school to a mother of 3 who lived off of welfare. The standard of living was compareable, if you ignored the difficulty of managing work+school+single mother to no responsibilities+living off welfare. The other example was an article that discussed the numerous abuses of residents of Chicago who had false residences in Minnesota because of the lucrative/better welfare system we have here and would routinely travel up here for their checks. This could very easily become a welfare thread if we explore my (admitted!) ignorance of social programs in general. This is generally why I avoid politics and if it makes anyone feel better, voting in general.
  13. David Frum, and the New Yorker

    I don't follow politics closely, I never have. That being said, I personally feel that the climate of republican/conservatives is different now than it was during Bush's term, even though he was from said republican party. I have a hard time with political discussions though, because my views are based purely on opinion and what I think I know. Which is admittedly, not nearly enough to have what I'd consider a well informed opinion. To be fair though, I think most political goings on can be interpreted any number of ways based on any number of related events, so everyone's opinion is relative to their own experiences and viewpoints, one of the primary reasons it's so difficult for people to compromise politically. I do think that Obama is far from the answer, and that to continue to blame things on Bush is the democratic party grasping at straws. I think his health care plan will bankrupt the country beyond recovery and his attempts at "stimulus" to stimulate the economy were bandages on a gushing wound, (besides being ineffective, a waste of time and resources that could have been better spent and had much greater effect/results). I do believe that social programs are beneficial, but I also believe that the "poor" of this country are mostly there by choice because we afford them the luxury of it. I don't think any politicians in the current political field have the pull, willpower or even desire to "fix" anything that is important. Beyond the bi-partisan bullshit that gridlocks the country, they're all too worried about getting re-elected and their peers to do anything to jeopardize their careers. Yes this is mostly strung together rambling that is unrelated to the original link presented. I'm not pursuing a career in writing so take it as you may
  14. XCOM: Enemy Unknown

    Game trailer on the website made it look like an fps game with tactical and strategy elements. I never played the original, I might have to pick that up on Steam
  15. David Frum, and the New Yorker

    Cat's a very rational person, at least in my experiences with him and observing/reading his posts on here. Disco, you've shown in e-battles of the keyboard with Nate, that you are absolutely not open to other points of view and as is evident here, vehemently attack people who disagree with your stance. I can agree with what Cat said, discussion and idea exchange about politics, (or anything for that matter) is a good thing. When it turns into berating each other, it's no better than elementary school kids arguing who's father can beat up the other kids' dad. Also, your initial post is so completely biased, I don't think there was any sort of a response outside of Cat's. I don't think a single person here disagrees with you on that Bush was a bad president. The problem is you are unmoving in your belief that it's anyone but the republican party's fault for the country's current mess and because of that any possible discussion and idea exchange turns immediately into a mud slinging mess. On a side note, "trolling" as it seems undermines any attempts at thoughtful discussion, something for which you are known for and have admitted to doing. What kind of a response were you looking for, seriously? It's been several weeks, (months?) since any political posts were made and you decide to post a clearly 100% pro-liberal link. I personally took it as a trolling attempt, because I couldn't see any thoughtful debate coming out of it and figured you must be bored with your the other forums you visit and were looking for some entertainment here.