Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 15, 2012, 02:27 PM   #576
MacNut
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
The CT state police Lieutenant who was doing the briefings at the first two or three press conferences repeatedly said they weren't going to identify the suspect until the time was right, which happened later on in the day.

Before that happened, CNN and other sources started to report that their "anonymous law enforcement official source" said that the suspect was the 24yo brother Ryan. This went on from like 1pm to 3pm until a different "anonymous law enforcement official source" leaked that it was actually the other brother 20yo Adam. I got push notifications from CNN and AP saying the suspect was "24 year old Ryan Lanza" for a couple of hours before they learned they were wrong and corrected themselves. If they weren't sure, it never should have went to air/press.

This just points out yet another problem with the media and them quoting a single, anonymous source as fact. Before the internet and social networking, journalists would wait until they had double confirmation before reporting something like that. One anonymous source didn't used to be considered enough, but in today's "we have to be first and who cares if we are wrong or not" media, apparently it is. This is what causes discrepancies and problems like we saw yesterday.
This is a problem, you have leaks in the media feeding the news networks when they don't have all of the facts straight. Just wait until the official word comes out. The need to feed the media machine is sickening.
__________________
The thoughts in my head are rated TV-MA. Viewer discretion is advised.
Now batting, Number 2 Derek Jeter, Number 2
MacNut is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 02:38 PM   #577
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dime21 View Post
Plenty on the far-left are. This "Ugg" guy, for example, in some misguided attempt to eliminate all guns, folks like him somehow think criminals will obey the law, and will cease to use guns (and cease to commit crimes too? i dunno). It's a bizarre line of thinking that many have subscribed to. I'll repeat my analogy from earlier: Marijuana is illegal (in 48 states at least), yet you and I both know it's readily available in any city or town from coast to coast. Why? There is demand for it. If there is demand, there will be supply. In the context of guns, you can have that supply regulated, tracked, with background checks, etc. as we have today. Or you can force that supply to go black-market, like marijuana and other drugs. But only a fool would believe that making gun ownership illegal will eliminate the supply.

We are in agreement that reducing gun violence via proactive means is a good thing. I think where we disagree is on how to achieve that. Criminals don't obey laws. That's why their called criminals. Most new gun laws proposed by the left are knee-jerk reactions that do only one thing - punish law abiding citizens. Any new legislation needs to be applied intelligently, not some vague blanket wording that punishes only the law abiders.

What we need to do, is a better job of preventing specific groups from owning firearms - illegal aliens, convicted felons, those with specific documented mental health problems, those with a history of domestic violence, etc. Yes, there are certain people who absolutely should not own a firearm.
...
In summary, yes, we need intelligent dialog on this topic, however the knee-jerk "ban all guns" nut jobs come out of the woodwork after an incident like this, and the conversation becomes unproductive.
This is the best post I have ever seen you make on this forum. Props for that and you make a lot of good points here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iscariot View Post
No, it doesn't. Those may seem like good points, but they're actually just shallow talking points and empty platitudes.
All discussions have to start somewhere. These are all valid points which help to highlight a major problem that has developed in our society in recent years. Much of this is due to social media and the anonymity involved in it.

In general, people were much more civil and less angry at each other back 20, 30, 40 years ago than they are today.

Quote:
The American culture that has seen almost all forms of crime drop precipitously since 1990? With homicide rates now down to levels comparable to 1964?
And yet we have had over 30 of these mass shootings since Columbine in 1999. And it seems like more and more the shooter's involved in these incidents are dressed like they think they are a commando.


Quote:
The first Call of Duty was released in 2003. Violent crime is down 17% since then. Homicide is down 19%.
The percentages may be down, but it's pretty obvious that the glorification of violence in our media is at an all time high. 99.9% of the population would never do anything like this monster did, but for that small portion of the population that has problems this glorification can't help.

Too many small children today are being brought up in this culture of glorified violence and there is no possible way that could be a good thing.
zioxide is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 02:41 PM   #578
MacNut
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Listening to this press conference the reporters might be sicker than the shooter.
__________________
The thoughts in my head are rated TV-MA. Viewer discretion is advised.
Now batting, Number 2 Derek Jeter, Number 2
MacNut is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 02:46 PM   #579
webbuzz
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
Listening to this press conference the reporters might be sicker than the shooter.
Agreed. Especially the reporter that asked "What were the kids wearing?"
webbuzz is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 02:51 PM   #580
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
No other nation comes close to United States when it comes to the number of guns in private ownership, either in sheer number or per capita.

Ignoring that fact, and pretending it isn't an issue is not a sound approach...
Since you mentioned it, what is the sheer number of guns in private ownership in the US?

And while you're supplying numbers, do you happen to know the percentage of that number that are used in shootings of other human beings?

I'll bet there are lots of zeros to the right of the decimal point before hitting a non-zero digit.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 02:59 PM   #581
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Since you mentioned it, what is the sheer number of guns in private ownership in the US?
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 03:14 PM   #582
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
But just as a comparison, in your country, Canada, per capita (per 100 residents) gun ownership is a little over one-fourth that of the United States, 23.8 to 88.8.

http://www.gunpolicy.org
The gun ownership rate per capita is not the same as the number of guns per capita.

The 88.8 figure is the US's number of guns per capita (number of privately owned small firearms divided by number of residents).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

The gunpolicy.org site states:
The rate of private gun ownership in Canada is 23.82 firearms per 100 people.
This is also a number of guns statistic, not a number of owners. The Wikipedia article shows Canada as 30.8 per 100, but it's a 2007 statistic vs. gunpolicy's 2010 number.

For Canada, gunpolicy.org gives the licensed ownership rate as 5.42% for 2010, i.e. there are 5.42 licensed (legal) gun owners per 100 residents. I have not been able to find an equivalent statistic for the US: it's not listed on the gunpolicy.org site, AFAICT. Additional interesting statistics might be the mean (average) and median number of guns per owner.

Short version: the average gun owner owns multiple guns, even in Canada.
chown33 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 03:22 PM   #583
Mac'nCheese
macrumors 68020
 
Mac'nCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Someone please explain to me why people think the media "glorifies" these crimes? These people are not thought of as the anti-heroes of decades ago, when people actually worshipped bank robbers and such.
Mac'nCheese is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 03:28 PM   #584
Andeavor
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese View Post
Someone please explain to me why people think the media "glorifies" these crimes? These people are not thought of as the anti-heroes of decades ago, when people actually worshiped bank robbers and such.
The mere scale of reporting those crimes counts as glorification itself. For the 24/7 news stations, this is business as usual and the bigger and more spectacular the incident, the more viewers they get and the more money the sponsors throw at them.

It's like reality TV stars, we all know they are spoiled, talent-less nobodies but by watching their shows more and more because it's such trash they become more and more famous for... well, nothing really.
Andeavor is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 03:32 PM   #585
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese View Post
Someone please explain to me why people think the media "glorifies" these crimes? These people are not thought of as the anti-heroes of decades ago, when people actually worshipped bank robbers and such.
The only thing worst than being talked about is not being talked about
– Oscar Wilde

Can you name one victim from Aurora? Ft. Hood? Columbine? Oklahoma City? Can you name any perpetrator of one of those events?

If the historical record, starting a couple weeks after, began identifying the shooters as "J. Doe 17" instead of using their names and pictures, perhaps the instant fame thing might diminish a bit.

But that much is still but a fragment of the matter. I want to get at the underlying causes for this stuff. I mean, you really have to be in a bad headspace to be desperate enough to ruin lives (your own and others) in this way, what gets people into a space like that (derangement notwithstanding) and what can we do to shepherd the vulnerable away from there? That is what at least part of the discussion needs to be about.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 03:33 PM   #586
Mac'nCheese
macrumors 68020
 
Mac'nCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macaroony View Post
The mere scale of reporting those crimes counts as glorification itself. For the 24/7 news stations, this is business as usual and the bigger and more spectacular the incident, the more viewers they get and the more money the sponsors throw at them.

It's like reality TV stars, we all know they are spoiled, talent-less nobodies but by watching their shows more and more because it's such trash they become more and more famous for... well, nothing really.
I understand but the reality stars are getting rich and famous. They truly are glorified- even if u and I are disgusted by it. These people are gaining nothing but a footnote in history as animals. Really, your average joe does not remember these shooter's names. I guess I'm hung up on the word "glorify".

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
The only thing worst than being talked about is not being talked about
Oscar Wilde

Can you name one victim from Aurora? Ft. Hood? Columbine? Oklahoma City? Can you name any perpetrator of one of those events?

If the historical record, starting a couple weeks after, began identifying the shooters as "J. Doe 17" instead of using their names and pictures, perhaps the instant fame thing might diminish a bit.
I can't. That's my point. We don't remember the names of the victims or the shooters usually. There's no long lasting "glory".
Mac'nCheese is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 03:46 PM   #587
76ShovelHead
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Connecticut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reason077 View Post
Terrible, awful, sickening tragedy.

But I'm gonna come right out and say it: If the teachers at that school had been armed, it is very likely that this could have been contained and would not have been as bad as it was.

To make it a safer place, we need more responsible Americans to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
Interesting view,

I grew up in the Connecticut school system, and finished my last 6 years of schooling down here in FLA. We lived in the northeast corner of Connecticut (Windham County) and apparently I went to the same school as serial killer Michael Ross. I remember our schools were always locked and you had to be buzzed in. My Mom tells me that despite these security measures the schools didn't really care and would just buzz in anyone.

When I moved to Florida, we had Sheriff's Deputies all over our middle and high school campuses. Crazy right? Well these kids down here are out of control. But that's besides the point, if there were police on duty patrolling the schools up north then this probably wouldn't have ever happened, or it would have been nipped in the butt.

Every school down here has Sheriff's Deputy patrolling them. They even have little golf carts.

So yes, schools should have possession of guns. But more specifically, schools should have Sheriff's Deputies (or whatever you call them in your area).
__________________
Haswell i5 3 GHz 8 GB Ram 128 GB SSD Mavericks
76ShovelHead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 03:56 PM   #588
Iscariot
macrumors 68030
 
Iscariot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronteazy
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
All discussions have to start somewhere. These are all valid points which help to highlight a major problem that has developed in our society in recent years. Much of this is due to social media and the anonymity involved in it.
As I've pointed out, they are not valid points. They're not even points that can be substantiated in a meaningful way. It's disgusting empty-headed innuendo and rhetoric to drive Facebook likes and fill a gap in a 24-hour news cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
In general, people were much more civil and less angry at each other back 20, 30, 40 years ago than they are today.
I just pointed out above that people are killing each other less than they were 20 or 30 years ago. I don't disagree that the media is becoming more crass and shrill, but it's pretty irrelevant to this thread until a link is suggested by more than a news outlet attempting to circulate papers or generate advertising hits and Facebook likes on the back of a tragedy. This is exactly the kind of unproductive news story that adds nothing to the discussion but finger pointing to apocryphal boogie men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
And yet we have had over 30 of these mass shootings since Columbine in 1999. And it seems like more and more the shooter's involved in these incidents are dressed like they think they are a commando.
Unsubstantiated innuendo and filler. What exactly is a commando, how many exactly were dressed as one, what evidence is there that they emulated a specific commando or commando-esque character? How do you control access to and consumption of pro-commando materials? And perhaps of far greater importance, do you have any actual evidence at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
The percentages may be down, but it's pretty obvious that the glorification of violence in our media is at an all time high.
So? This again is completely unsubstantiated, unmeasurable, and has no proven correlation, much less in a society with a violence rate that continues to plummet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Too many small children today are being brought up in this culture of glorified violence and there is no possible way that could be a good thing.
Prove it. You've provided no meaningful analysis or data. I refer you back to the mod note in post 464, and ask that you provide relevant and reliable sources or stop posting offensive unsubstantiated remarks from media sources looking to capitalize on what should be a national tragedy.

I am not trying to ignore that mass killings appear to be a new and dangerous phenomena in the modern US, or that there may be a role played by the media or a lack of mental health care or the proliferation of fire arms, but these are all measurable things. Useless platitudes alluding to some nebulous moral failing(s) add nothing to the discussion and only serve to reduce the likelihood that a meaningful discussion can be had at all or that a useful solution can be found.
__________________
Don't feed the you-know-what.
Iscariot is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 04:24 PM   #589
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by chown33 View Post
Short version: the average gun owner owns multiple guns, even in Canada.
Thank you for correcting my wording.

I was not intending to state otherwise.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 04:44 PM   #590
leenak
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by dime21 View Post
In summary, yes, we need intelligent dialog on this topic, however the knee-jerk "ban all guns" nut jobs come out of the woodwork after an incident like this, and the conversation becomes unproductive.
That is as much knee jerk as the people saying we should arm everyone. Maybe we agree on 1 thing though, dialogue is required.
leenak is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 05:16 PM   #591
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by leenak View Post
Maybe we agree on 1 thing though, dialogue is required.
I think several different dialogues will be required.

There are multiple statistics being presented on guns and gun-related deaths, with little or no context. For example, what percentage of gun deaths in the US are due to gang-related causes? What percentage are due to (for lack of a better term) "lone psycho" causes?[1] What percentage are suicides as opposed to homicides?

For the gun deaths from gang-related causes, how likely is it that the gun-deaths part of the problem can be solved or even addressed, without addressing the gang problem? If the gang problem is solved or even reduced, reducing the gun-deaths, would that be considered a success?

If there were a tradeoff, such as having more gangsters with other weapons, say knives, but fewer guns, would that be worthwhile? What if the death rates were higher, even with fewer guns? What if the "collateral damage" rates were lower (i.e. fewer innocents killed), but the "combatants" rates were higher (more gang-bangers killed). Would that be considered a success or a failure?

How do we begin to address the "lone psycho" causes? Or do we forego addressing it directly, and only address larger problems (measured in deaths) first? In other words, do we go for the percentages, or do we go for the shocking and dreadful ones that are nonetheless rarer?

If the major numbers are regional or even municipal in character, say localized to LA & Chicago, is it reasonable to address those problems using Federal or State legislation, or leave it to the locality to address? What about funding?


[1] Personally, I would call Columbine a "lone psycho" case, even though there were two killers.
chown33 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 05:40 PM   #592
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by chown33 View Post
I think several different dialogues will be required.
Dialogues are one thing.

I want some studies.

Detailed, definitive (as if), long-term studies to help remove the fog and confusion and attempt to determine scientifically the risks/rewards of guns in society and best practices in regulating the ownership of them.

That IMO should be our first step ... a federally-funded, multi-disciplinary attempt to delve into these issues and establish facts that only hard-core deniers could dismiss.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 05:57 PM   #593
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iscariot View Post


Prove it. You've provided no meaningful analysis or data. I refer you back to the mod note in post 464, and ask that you provide relevant and reliable sources or stop posting offensive unsubstantiated remarks from media sources looking to capitalize on what should be a national tragedy.



Does this work?

Published in the journal of the American Psychological Association (yes the APA that developed the citations style you had to write your college papers in).

If you can't be bothered to read this, I'd suggest that you have no business telling anyone that these points are "empty talking points and rhetoric" or whatever the hell you were saying earlier.

And I'll bet you won't.

Last edited by SLC Flyfishing; Dec 15, 2012 at 06:11 PM.
SLC Flyfishing is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 06:01 PM   #594
MacNut
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
So why is it a policy to not show a person who runs across a baseball field during a game but it is ok to plaster a murders name everywhere?

I going to leave this here and head out fot the night. It is a great read and explains my feelings on the issue with the media.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/com...ing_to_say_to/

And here are the names of the victims, have a good night.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-released?lite
__________________
The thoughts in my head are rated TV-MA. Viewer discretion is advised.
Now batting, Number 2 Derek Jeter, Number 2
MacNut is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 06:04 PM   #595
MadeTheSwitch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ucfgrad93 View Post
And how do we do that? Did making drugs illegal work? Did making alcohol illegal work? Trying to make guns illegal will be just as effective.
So what actions do you propose in the wake of such events? Nothing at all? Stay the course because it is working out so well?
MadeTheSwitch is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 06:12 PM   #596
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
So why is it a policy to not show a person who runs across a baseball field during a game but it is ok to plaster a murders name everywhere?
Because the consequences of running across a baseball diamond don't reverberate through families, friends, and communities for years on end.

Just guessing.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 06:13 PM   #597
MacNut
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Because the consequences of running across a baseball diamond don't reverberate through families, friends, and communities for years on end.

Just guessing.
I would rather give a streaker 15 minutes of fame over a murderer.
__________________
The thoughts in my head are rated TV-MA. Viewer discretion is advised.
Now batting, Number 2 Derek Jeter, Number 2
MacNut is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 06:29 PM   #598
ucfgrad93
macrumors G5
 
ucfgrad93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch View Post
So what actions do you propose in the wake of such events? Nothing at all? Stay the course because it is working out so well?
Of course not. All I meant by that is that a ban on guns will be as effective as a ban on other things.

I used to be a member of the NRA. However, I stopped supporting them due to some of their extreme beliefs. That said, I still support the 2nd amendment. As to what needs to change, I'm not sure. I don't think that there is a single solution to the problem. Mental health issues, access to guns, etc. all need to be addressed in order to stop these heinous actions.
ucfgrad93 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 06:41 PM   #599
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by dime21 View Post
Plenty on the far-left are. This "Ugg" guy, for example, in some misguided attempt to eliminate all guns, folks like him somehow think criminals will obey the law, and will cease to use guns (and cease to commit crimes too? i dunno). It's a bizarre line of thinking that many have subscribed to.
It's just as bizarre as those people that think everyone should be armed to the hilt, like this guy:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reason077 View Post
But I'm gonna come right out and say it: If the teachers at that school had been armed, it is very likely that this could have been contained and would not have been as bad as it was.

To make it a safer place, we need more responsible Americans to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
So, kindergarden teachers who are carrying guns. Is this seriously what anyone thinks is the best idea? Is this really the point that we've gotten to? That we have people who actually think that kindergarden teachers should be packing?

Back to your original point: every time someone brings up gun control, some right-wing wacko says "YOU WANT TO BAN ALL GUNS!!1'11111!11" No. So, so few people are advocating for complete gun bans. Control ≠ ban.

I hate guns. I see no practical use for them outside of hunting, which I also don't have any interest in. I also think a lot of hardcore gun people are hardcore about guns for one reason: because Teh Conztitooshun says they can have them. In fact, I think that very thought was substantiated earlier in this thread by maybe r.j.s., who said "As long as the Constitution says I can own them, I will." or something to that effect. I think people should be able to have a small handgun for home defense and possible carry, and whatever gun they might need for hunting. I see zero, none, nada, need for anyone to have a fully-automatic machine gun. I do not think that anyone should be able to take their gun anywhere they want.

Control ≠ outright ban, as much as some wackos want to think that's what us on the left want.

I also have to ask: unless every person is armed, how long would it take for someone to respond, even if from the next room over, to stop the situation. And think about something like the shooting where the guy killed the Pantera guy...if everyone in that audience was armed, what would have happened? Would it have been a good outcome as several hundred people started firing toward the stage?
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2012, 07:06 PM   #600
Mac'nCheese
macrumors 68020
 
Mac'nCheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
So why is it a policy to not show a person who runs across a baseball field during a game but it is ok to plaster a murders name everywhere?

I going to leave this here and head out fot the night. It is a great read and explains my feelings on the issue with the media.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/com...ing_to_say_to/

And here are the names of the victims, have a good night.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-released?lite
Confused with that guy's rant about the media. The media wanted this? Give me a break. What are they supposed to do, not report about this? You can't honestly believe the media folks want this to happen. That's just sick.
Mac'nCheese is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
At Least 194 Children Have Been Shot to Death Since Newtown lannister80 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 196 Dec 18, 2013 01:48 PM
No Homicide Charges For Teen Who Shot And Killed A Man With An Illegal Gun, SYG rdowns Politics, Religion, Social Issues 99 Aug 15, 2013 11:14 AM
Navy SEAL Chris Kyle "American Sniper." Shot and killed. Happybunny Politics, Religion, Social Issues 347 Feb 8, 2013 04:22 PM
Shooting at Atlanta Middle School Leaves 8th Grader Shot in the Head bradl Politics, Religion, Social Issues 169 Feb 3, 2013 09:03 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:06 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC