Printable View
I think 'overused' would only apply to the hindsight comment if people didn't continue saying what people should have done but didn't. Until then it's the most accurate and concise response to such assertions.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Ajax
Hindsight is all we have - we can't read that play without knowing what that guy later did, any more than we can read Mein Kampf without knowing what it's author later did. I can't be sure how I would have reacted to that play script if I had read it before yesterday, but it does strike me as grossly inappropriate for a university class and the product of a disturbed mind. I can quite understand his classmates and professor thinking the same at the time. But maybe you are right and we are all just more "frail" than you. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
I know someone who, when they were younger, would write the same type of stuff when they were upset. They scribbled little pictures of people they didn't like and who hurt them falling into fire pits. They would act up and say bad things. They never hurt anyone. They never threatened anyone. They never killed anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Cho's script is a "funfact". Hitler's Mein Kampf is a "funfact". We only pay attention to them because these people actually did something. Go to Live Journal, or MySpace or where ever and you'll see the same thing. Maybe in a little less detail than Mein Kampf, but in any case I'm sure that there's not going to be rivers of blood or all ending darkness descending all over the place because some nonconformist teen calls for it.
Think about it.
So, CrossLOPER suggests that anyone's writing should be ignored as irrelevant, based on the number of non-executed poison-pen pieces published on the internet.
Is it therefore your opinion that any forensic inquiries into guys who have carried out their fantasies is useless as a predictor?
Should society-at-large merely step back, sheep-like, and accept the randomness of violence, without trying to understand its motivation, with an eye to preventing a recurrence?
I think that in this case, the problem is that even though he was identified as troubled, and offered counseling, there is no mechanism to compel or mandate that treatment.
What struck me when reports first came out on the police investigation was the utter lack of success they had finding anyone who could be remotely described as a friend of this person. He seems to have been totally alienated.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
If not, then we need to lock up all the muslims, christians, moaist, anarchists, fiction/history/fantasy authers, speech writers, comlumnists, editors, anyone that has ever written a nasty letter to the editor, and of course about 90 % of Org Backroom dwellers, along with you damned Mods because of the possiblity that violence might occure from what they have written in the past. There is no one, no situation, no act of nature, and no possiblity to predict this kind of ####. Face it, the guy was an :daisy: and :daisy: are unpredictable. So instead of pointing fingers and talking out of the hindsight manual of Removing Personnal Responsibility...
It happened.
Not a :daisy: thing can be done about it or anything to prevent it in the future.
Everyone's time on earth is short and we are all sheep lined up for the slaughter.
Say a prayer for the poor folks that bought it this way but remember you might get it worse.
Now, cheer up, you're alive, live...
I love you guys (especially you Kukri, our little sheep herder) so be safe out there and love one another (except for Lemur, because he's a lower primate incapable of human emotions like love, so i nice tail rub will do).
Well Dave, at least I got to read this one before it gets bleeped out.~:wacko:
He wasn't recommended for counseling just because of his writing:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
The point isn't that not everyone like that becomes a mass murderer, but they should all be helped anyway.Quote:
According to a professor who taught Cho in a poetry class in 2005, Cho was "extraordinarily lonely—the loneliest person I have ever met in my life." She said that he whispered, took 20 seconds to answer questions, and took cell phone pictures of her in class.
VVPeople aren't born crazy. Not usually anyway.VV
I agree with Dave. I dont understand why yall are trying to understand why he did it. He was crazy and crazy people do crazy things. Some keep bottlecaps some join fourms and others massacre innocent people. It is horrible what this kid did and the commenwealths gun laws are retarded. A crazy man did a horrid thing and we need to move on. All this media BS about going inside the mans head is stupid A guy with a few nuts loose killed 32 people. Pay your respects and move on.
I think what people are trying to understand, Strike, is what made the kid go crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Some people are predisposed to violent behavior. Some people are born cazy. You dont jsut walk into a dadgum school kill two people come back and kill thirty more. The kid was insane and that is why he did this. Of course he had problems. News flash everyone has problems. Crazy people just dont react the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
K
I
S
S
Actually, this kid fits a lot of the known parameters for a gunman already. Top of the list is loner, followed by alienated, followed by singled out for therapy but refused or failed treatment. The only missing element is the classic "lives at home with his mother."
You always have to watch the quiet ones.
And DevDave, I may be incapable of love, but Crazed Rabbit and I are going to set up one heck of a petting zoo. Then you'll be jealous.
I agree with this. However, as DevDave said, it's random. He felt like killing, so he got some guns, learned to use them, and used them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Simply put, a loner with an violent imagination does not make a mass-murderer.
Oh, i forgot about the loners... better lock them up as well.:smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Why do you dress up everything you say like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Only for your enjoyment, Kanamori. Care to address what I said or shall I just wait for your usual response about my imbreeding ancestory?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
There isn't anything to address besides that you think it's a ridiculous point, it's just sarcasm. People could actually learn something rather than just being laughed at. And, I already apologized for the inbreeding comment and was sorry. You can do better than pointing to that.
EDIT: Just a teensy bit choleric. BG
I don't have any personal issues right now... You really think I'm a deep thinker?
:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
No, the guy wasn't insane or "crazy", or "wacko". As already said he was very efficient and methodical in his shooting act. There must be a motive (or motives), logical reasons behind this. We still don't know all the hard facts (assuming that what we get to hear / read is true).
To call the poor bastard crazy is merely simple quick labelling. Very easy, palatable to do, and the claim doesn't necessarily have to be true.
:|
So will Virginia Tech still have a competitive shooting team after this?
I do wonder sometimes how many more times things like this must happen before the wisdom of 'the right to bare arms' gets some serious reconsideration...
Nevertheless- a sad day for Virginia.
The problem aren't always the loners who choose to be alone, but those who are "forced" to be alone because they don't get a long with other people for various reasons.
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
If these people are somehow forced to be lonely due to these various reasons, it's definitely a social issue. And from that could come mental issues, and from there it's possibly a long way -- or a short one -- into whatever it'll all result.
I think this is the right track we're on here speculating, though we still need those hard complete facts, background, etc.
For example I've heard on the Dutch news -- though very briefly explained -- that the poor bastard was avoided by classmates and such and exact reasons weren't given... but they said he didn't really like the Western student-like kind of "lawlessness" (for lack of a better translation).
But I also heard here about a possible background regarding a story he wrote (which is difficult to precisely, accurately, and logically analyze to this case).
Then I heard on CNN or maybe it was BBC World that his classmates tried to talk to him because he was always lonely. He just came to school and delivered his work, does his studying, and that's it.
And some of those interviewed students seemed too calm and some of them even smiled occasionally I noticed, even though it's not the time and situation to smile.
What can one make up out of that? Only speculative conclusions, but perhaps plausible ones? I suspect this guy was indeed a loner, was suffering badly, was perhaps somewhat of an ideologist, was alienated / attacked by his peers, and IF his written play actually shows any kind of "truth" to his background (which is still unclear, at least to me)... you got yourself a desperate person capable of committing a killing. But if these speculations are true, then what caused him to kill was society, therefore society would be the real "silent" killer.
He walked around shooting people in the head point-blank. REAL effiecient and methodical--especially when your targets are helpless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
Firearms were illegal on the campus.Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
I'd be willing to surrender my 2nd ammendment rights if I thought it would do anything to end such events. However....
-There's plenty of instances of mass murder in countries where personal firearm ownership is already banned (Scotland anyone?)
-Of all sources, as Michael Moore pointed out, Canada has very similar gun ownership laws and even performing a per capita normalization, the numbers for violent incidents just don't line up.
I'd be curious in following up on why Canadians don't shoot each other with the same frequency that Americans do. I think that maybe here, in this murky realm of limited understanding is where the true answer lies.
Banning guns won't do anything to solve this particular problem. I guarantee our man Cho wasn't worried about ATF violations when he planned all this out. I haven't been around illegal drugs since I graduated from college 15 years ago (sheesh), and yet I'm sure I could score some cocaine (something that has been outlawed for over 50 years) within the next 1/2 hour.
even if you take the road that guns aren´t the problem (as exemplified by the canadian example) and that the problem lies in some aspect of american society....wouldn´t reducing the number of guns at the very least reduce the damage an individual person can produce when such incidents occur?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I suspect that if this kid had gone into his school armed with knives and a sword we wouldn´t be talking about a 30+ bodycount here......guns may not be the source of the problem...but their presence sure amplifies it´s effects.
Aaah, but who said that outlawing guns would do anything to make them less available? You must have missed my other anedcote, but we have word from the front on that other great war, the War on Drugs. At last tally, we're losing miserably. Yet, most narcotics have been illegal in the USA since the 1930s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Tell me again how does outlawing guns do anything but leave law-abiding citizens defenseless in a nation where the police freely admit they have no hope of actually protecting you? (The average policeman, if they're honest will tell you there's nothing they can do to protect a person from a criminal, only investegate and arrest the criminal after they're done).
According to "Remembering A Roommate" on CNN I just saw, these two guys found him to be a strange fellar. He took pictures of girls in awkward situations, and even had an imaginary girlfriend. I hear she called him Spanky or something. It also appeared he was stalking a girl and those guys told her to stay away from him, to ignore him.
As these two guys told this they seemed amused. The interviewer then asked if they were and they replied "No..." as it took a while 'fore they answered, as they appeared as if they were forcing their smiles away. Suspicious I tell you.
In any case, he was found a strange weird fellow, and probably was. Then again they might be lying. Whatever it is, I suspect they're hiding something due to their behaviour. All we got is stories and stories and stuff... but no hard proof, facts, and ice-cold confirmations. Arrrgh, we need information.
Regarding the gun thing:
Whether guns are banned, there will still be knives, baseball bats, headbutts, fists, chokeholds, etc., and... illegal guns. I agree with those who say banning guns won't or hardly help. To change society, address the root cause, and the root cause is....*drum roll* "nature". Have a look at my Bad Peace / Good War thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83479) and you'll know what I mean.
In this case address society, address behaviour, social conduct, social responsibility, etc., and decrease individualism and create more collectivity.
Sorting out America's gun problem is a multifactoral and nigh on impossible.
Until all guns are handed in, illegal gun ownership has massive penalties and the "frontier" mentality goes you're stuck with them.
Yes there are other ways of killing people. So why worry if N. Korea has nukes. It's just another weapon.
Yes, the UK has a problem with knives and a growing one with guns. So to reduce crime we could just legalise both of them and call the "cultural items" :dizzy2:
~:smoking:
Well, Rory, I don't understand. The penalties for smuggling cocaine and heroin are pretty massive. You can theoretically wind up serving more time for trafficing in illegal narcotics then you could for murder (even multiple victims). Yet we've never been able to put a dent in the nation's drug problem. Are you advocating capital punishment for weapons trafficing?
As to your examples, just because we're worried about North Korea becoming nuclear armed doesn't mean we willingly disarm ourselves and abandon the Korean peninsula to them. As for the UK knife issue, are you suggesting that knives be banned and everyone in UK move to chopsticks? Do you really think that a determined criminal would avoid using knives?
Placing limitations on the law-abiding defender to make them defenseless seems to me to be a poor strategy for limiting the violence of somebody who shows a complete disregard for the law in other areas.
I think gun culture at large is part of the problem. I would maintain that America would have far fewer of these school shooting tragedies if guns were banned. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns in their mind as a solution to all problems.
Cho, the shooter, doesn't strike me as a hardened criminal. In a society less obsessed with guns, he might have taken his frustration out on these girls he was stalking. Maybe molest one, if he wouldn't have been such a coward. Or maybe just comitted suicide.
America's gun fetishism is why 90 Americans die in firearm related incidents...each day.
All the other deaths that don't make the news have faces, names, and shattered lives and dreams too. 32 monday morning, 200 more since then. The attention this school shooting received was because a third of the daily shootings across America occurred in the same place, within the span of two hours, by a single perpetrator.
by your logic in any country were private gun ownership is illegal there should be a vast amount of guns illegally in the hands of the public....in order to mirror the drug situationQuote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
well...this is not true....I live in a country were gun ownership is restricted but guns are not easily accessible....they do pop up ocasionally in crime situations in some particular instances (in the last bank robbery I can think of over here a gun was used) but for the ordinary citizen it is extremely unlikely for a gun to be used if they are a victim of your garden variety crime (purse snatch, home invasion..etc) why? simply because the number of guns in circulation is low considering the size of the population
what you are failing to consider when you use you drug analogy is that is not just the fact that something is ilegal that makes the underground market for that item.....it is also the desirability of that item....if a lot of people want something and are willing to pay for it they will get it no matter what regulations there are in place (drugs, alcoohol during proibition in the US) that´s when the black market flourishes.........the demand of the general population for illegal drugs vastly dwarfs the demands for guns in most countries.
as for your second point....if the police can´t protect you then it is the duty of the citizens to demand from the government that the police be given adequate tools in order to protect then.....I understand the need for private gun ownership in remote places like the countryside and such were proper police cover is almost impossible to ensure.....but in the city centers there is no excuse why this can´t be achieved.
Saying "let´s just arm everyone them" only escalates the situation....more guns in the hands of the general population mean more guns in the hands of the criminals too.....for example imagine if a good number or the students at Virginia Tech had been armed? a gun goes of somewhere in the building...then what?
Now you have a building full of people, most of them armed, naturally scared and nervous and afraid of someone that is not identified.....if 2 armed people stumble across eachother in the hallways while trying to get away the **** is bound to hit the fan....after all it´s not like the real bad guy had "killer" written across his forehead.....multiply this a few times and the situation gets worse not better in my opinion.
That's the root of the problem. Americans don't seem to have a lot of faith in the Police to protect them. Much better everyone has a pistol they rarely use - and certainly don't practice with under stress - to ensure that if something happens on the street everyone will be able to draw a weapon, instinctively know who was the one that shot and hasn't just drawn their own handgun to protect themselves, accurately shot a moving target at a distance and not hurt anyone else.
Concerning N Korea, where did I say abandon the peninsular? Easier to argue against what isn't said, eh?
And yes, drugs. I'm in favour of legalising most if not all of them. People on alcohol are far worse than those on most (I'd draw the line at ones such as PCP), and if morphine addicts want to OD at home I'd OK with that.
~:smoking:
What exactly do you europeans think "American gun culture" is?
Guys, we have had more than one school shooting here in Germany and guns are outlawed since 1871 or something like that. If you're planning to kill yourself anyway, you won't care about the consequences of illegal gun ownership, even if it's a death sentence...
The problem is that if you feel/are isolated and don't even know why people avoid/harass you, and if they are evil enough, even if you know why they do it, it will drive you crazy after a while. You will feel worse and worse, your self-esteem sinks lower and lower and once you're far down it takes just a bit of a fighter to think "I'm gonna show them I'm not that Untermensch they want me to be!" Followed by the next logical step of getting something that will help you achieve just that - weapons. And then once you are full of hate, you make a plan etc and execute it. I've kind of been through that myself, up to the point of thinking "I gotta show them", but I'm not the kind of guy who easily does such a thing, I'd consider it a phase and am still a bit scared I ever thought about such a thing at all, but other persons obviously do go a step or two further and those shootings are the result.:shame:
Now whenever I hear about that I try to remember what I thought at times and one of the worst things was that people hated me or ignored me and I had no idea why, that really drove me crazy and sometimes when all the world seemed to hate me, well those thoughts came up. Since I'm a guy who often thinks about all sorts of things, I'm not really dangerous, but like I said, others execute such thoughts. I also always had my parents who I could talk to and some friends I couldn't see often, but I do think I have kind of an idea what it's like to be an outsider, and to underline that 'im not exaggerating, one of my teachers noticed that as well. Was a certain phase of highschool(plus a lot of people in the village we moved to, who were a lot more cruel) and got a lot better when people got older.
Just trying to share some thoughts, because I always feel a bit for the killers as well as the victims. People who go and say he was just retarded or crazy are usually the kind of people who evoke that hatred in the first place...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
well let me try and take a crack at it...
The first thing that strikes me as strange is how you americans seem to view gun ownership as an extension of you national character...like if you had no guns that would somehow make you "less" american.
Add to this the abnormal attachment there is to the constitution, I am in no way saying that this was not an extremely
important document, but in most countries, mine included we came to the conclusion that pieces of legislature that are 200 plus years old belong in a museum, to serve as inspiration of the ideals you should follow when you write modern, up to date and non-anacronistic legislation, not running the day to day life in your country.......come on people...say it along with me "the british aren´t gonna try to invade us"...got it? let it sink in...good.. after you realize that tell me..... doesn´t the 2nd amendment look silly now?
the third factor I don´t understand is the (in some cases extreme) distrust and aversion to their own government that I see in some americans....I mean....even countries that lived under dictatorships don´t display this kind of atitude towards their governments......I mean...33 years ago my country was a dictatorship....that does not mean I feel I need a gun do defend myself from the current one.....I really don´t see where this comes from in americans.....this extends to the police and other oficial government duties....people and believe in them and feel they must fend for themselfs (therefore feeling they need to be armed).....I understand why this mindset might have been necessary during the setlement fase of American...but now?...I don´t see a reason...:book:
I think these are the main things.....of course there is a certain glorification of guns in american entertainment...specially in the movies...if you look at the arquetipes of american heroes....John Wayne....Dirty Harry....it´s always a man and his gun that get´s the job done.....but I think this is more a reflex and result of the things I cited above than the oposite.
Handguns were still legal at the time of Dunblane. That incident was why that particular ban came in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
In Britain, hardened criminals have fairly ready access to illegally acquired guns, but crimes where guns are involved also carry heavy penalties. So they restrict their contact with everyday folk to drug-dealing, smuggling, fraud, forgery, etc. Stuff that doesn't involve violence, yet has potential for profit. Stuff that, even if they were caught and sentenced for, would still be profitable compared to armed robbery. Most crimes involving these gun toting gangsters are committed on each other in patch wars, and the general public doesn't care too much about those unless innocents are caught in the crossfire.
So you think only hardened criminals will think of guns, that somehow banning them will remove them from the minds of petty criminals? Even if that happens, all the criminals would have guns - you wouldn't stop crime, you'd increase it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Maybe it's the Supreme Court case that ruled police have no duty to protect the individual citizen. Or maybe it's the fact that even if you call police the second someone breaks in, you'd be dead by the time they got to your house.Quote:
Americans don't seem to have a lot of faith in the Police to protect them.
Maybe that's how gun owners act in Britain, but here people practice.Quote:
Much better everyone has a pistol they rarely use - and certainly don't practice with under stress
Yeah, we just need to throw our rights out the window and welcome a police state!Quote:
but in the city centers there is no excuse why this can´t be achieved.
Or they might spend a fraction of what this guy spent on one gun for a great deal of gasoline.Quote:
wouldn´t reducing the number of guns at the very least reduce the damage an individual person can produce when such incidents occur?
America isn't 'obsessed' with guns - we have a practical view towards them that is lost on people raised in fear of them all their lives.
This seems to be a facet of the false assumption that banning guns will actually prevent criminals from acquiring them.
That's wrong. Less than 42 people per day are killed by someone using a firearm, as compared with 118 who die each day from automobile accidents.Quote:
America's gun fetishism is why 90 Americans die in firearm related incidents...each day.
I'm sick of this bull. When a guy is wantonly killing students, there is no 'escalation' when you fire back. It seems to be from the philosophy that you should let the bad guy kill you, since fighting back is using 'violence' and 'escalating' the situation.Quote:
Saying "let´s just arm everyone them" only escalates the situation
Wow. Another absurd hypothesis used to justify a gun control position.Quote:
Now you have a building full of people, blah blah blah
All those who think that banning guns would do anything to decrease violence should read the following article. And then reread it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml
More importantly, giving up firearms means the populace throws itself at the mercy of its government. Considering that governments killed tens of millions of people last century, that's probably not a wise thing to do if you value your freedom.
Crazed Rabbit
The same as 'drug culture', or' book culture', or gangsta culture'. Cultural norms, fixations, expectations on something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
But let me try to explain it in a more original way. Through my eyes, America's gun culture is as bizarre as gun culture in Pakistan is to American eyes:
Quote:
Gun culture in Pakistan refers to the long-standing tradition of owning and carrying guns among Pathan men in the Northwest Frontier Province.[1] The gun culture is linked to the "twin pillars of Pathan tribal society,"[1] melmastia—hospitality and badal—revenge.
The North West Frontier Province (NWFP) is the smallest province of Pakistan with rugged and hilly terrain. Pashtun tribal feuds are common and guns are used both for protection and self-defense. In the rural society Swat, the gun culture arose in part out of the traditional antagonism between a man and his tarbur (father's brother's son).
Old customs and cultural norms also promote the gun culture. In NWFP, where the strong and tough Pashtuns reside, carrying a gun or a Klashinkov is a sign of honour and respect. A gun is also considered to be the jewel of a man in N.W.F.P., thus the social necessity emerging as an intimidating component of provincial culture.
Yes, Huff, not Cho. The previous was written after the Seattle massacre, seven deaths, two weeks ago. And there will be a new massacre in America before we've even done with this thread. And another one, and yet another one...Quote:
Blame the guns -- and a culture that celebrates firepower.
Blame the murdering madness on a country that has seen Columbine, Kip Kinkel and bullets at the Tacoma Mall, but lacks the common sense to clamp down on weapons of mass carnage.
Blame the gun lobby on the other Capitol Hill. Gun advocates like to say guns don't literally kill, and they're right.
People do.
Problem is, people keep killing people with guns. The National Rifle Association wraps itself in the Second Amendment and bullies anyone who disagrees.
The uncomfortable truth is, the right to bear arms has become a right for lunatics to get tools of lethal efficiency and shoot up people.
Huff is the latest example of what happens when high-powered weapons end up in the wrong gun user's hands.
Meanwhile, the rest of the industrialised world continues to look at America in bewilderment, decrying the grim inevitability of these massacres.
Australia, by many standards greatly comparible to America, finally took the step towards gun restriction after a massacre similar to VT claimed 35 lives eleven years ago:
Quote:
SYDNEY, Australia - Australia's prime minister on Tuesday said the Virginia Tech shootings showed that America's "gun culture" was a negative force in society, praising his country's efforts to enact tough gun laws after a similar massacre 11 years ago.
John Howard staked his political leadership on pushing through the strict gun ownership laws after Martin John Bryant, armed with a bagful of automatic weapons, went on a killing spree in the tourist resort of Port Arthur in southern Tasmania state on April 28, 1996. Thirty-five people died.
The conservative Howard, a strong ally of President Bush, said the Virginia Tech shootings were the kind of tragedy he hoped would never be seen again in Australia.
"You can never guarantee these things won't happen again in our country," Howard told reporters. We had a terrible incident at Port Arthur, but it is the case that 11 years ago we took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country," he said.
I was attempting to connect an example you cited to the logical stance from which you are arguing. Your answer to dealing with gun violence is that rather than focusing on the criminal element, we should focus on the law abiding element and remove everyone's access to firearms: punish those that are obeying the law by slapping more laws on them and rewarding those who ignore laws by making their job easier. I was trying to extrapolate that philosophy to the Korean situation, which you did raise an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Ronin, as for demand, firearms are legal in most states in the United States. Yet, even with a legally allowed product, there is a flourishing black market for it. Yet you seem to think that outlawing firearms will mean a rapid decline in demand? There's only one other product that I'm aware of that has a flourishing white and black market: tobacco. Thus far, attempts to legally restrict access to this product don't offer me much hope for us being successful with ending firearms usage by simply outlawing it.
Like I said, if I thought for one moment outlawing personal firearm ownership could even hope to reduce the severity or frequency of occassions of gun violence, I would tear up my NRA membership card and start working with the rest of the Brady crowd. But all studies performed within the United States point the other way, that gun ownership and violent crime, even those violent crimes committed with a firearm, tend to track in opposite ways. Boise, Idaho is a much, much safer city than Boston, Massacushetts, and it's not by accident.
Again, I think the answer lies to the North. I think we need to take a good, long hard and most imporantly HONEST look at ourselves in the mirror. What is so different about Americans and Canadians that even with a higher gun ownership rate, Canadians don't suffer anything near the same issues with violence that we do. I dont' know if it's something in the water, our summers get too hot, or we honestly, genuinely don't care enough about each other to not shoot each other. But I'm a big believer in hard data. The hard data says we're a bunch of killers and the Canadians aren't, and that means it has nothing to do with the guns themselves.
Indeed. I'm so tired of the "can't use a gun under stress" argument that's been used several times in this thread alone. Most permit holders who regularly carry spend more time at the range than many armed police officers. I remember an online survey at a prominent CC website where thousands of respondents, almost 90%, said they practice shooting at least once every 3 months- 70+% said at least once a month.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
And under stress? I don't know what magic training people think the police get, but it's largely the same- they go down to the range and shoot at targets. Personally, I'd trust the marksmanship of your average concealed carrier over that of the average police officer. Certainly, there are plenty of instances of police using "pray and spray" shooting to bring down a suspect where dozens of shots are fired- many missing.
Great article... Seems to assume that everyone in the world has an innate desire to have a firearm. The thirst for guns is so great that people will steal from anywhere, and failing that create them... The article again shows that Americans have no faith in the law enforcement agencies to do their jobs.
So why does even America have any laws at all if this is really the case? Everyone can have automatic weaponry. Home made explosives are easy enough, so just legalise Claymores in case someone steps on your lawn.
And America has made drugs illegal. Again talk about double standards. To make guns illegal is patently stupid as of course everyone needs them - and would make them even if they didn't exist. Yet Drugs Are Evil And Have To Be Banned.
It's a pathology that your country has, and apparently the problem and cure is both linked with firearms.
More people get killed in driving accidents... so any activity with a lower yearly death rate is OK then :dizzy2:
I guess it's all down to the price your prepared to pay. Apparently the occasional slaughter of the odd schoolroom is relatively OK - and definitely happens less frequently than kids are run over so that's all right then.
~:smoking:
You don't seem to get that the constitution is the legal basis for our country, and still is. Try reading it sometime.Quote:
Add to this the abnormal attachment there is to the constitution, I am in no way saying that this was not an extremely
blah blah
ith me "the british aren´t gonna try to invade us"...got it? let it sink in...good.. after you realize that tell me..... doesn´t the 2nd amendment look silly now?
And guess what - the 2nd wasn't just to prevent another British invasion. Try reading some of the history behind it. Look at how many people were killed by their own governments last century. Don't you look kind of silly now? :yes:
Maybe because we are a tougher people who pride ourselves on surviving without being nannied. Maybe because we do not cower in fear from the necessary fight, nor do we look to others to defend our families.Quote:
the third factor I don´t understand is the (in some cases extreme) distrust and aversion to their own government that I see in some americans....
blah blah
.....I understand why this mindset might have been necessary during the setlement fase of American...but now?...I don´t see a reason...
Not seeing the forest for the trees? Despite these few high profile incidents, the crime rate is dropping in America.Quote:
Yes, Huff, not Cho. The previous was written after the Seattle massacre, seven deaths, two weeks ago. And there will be a new massacre in America before we've even done with this thread. And another one, and yet another one...
Now, repeat after me - banning guns will not stop crime. Read the article I linked above.
Oh, you mean like Britain and France, where the crime rate rises and cars are burned all the time?Quote:
Meanwhile, the rest of the industrialised world continues to look at America in bewilderment, decrying the grim inevitability of these massacres.
And the homicide rate rose by 300% in one province. Oops!Quote:
Australia, by many standards greatly comparible to America, finally took the step towards gun restriction after a massacre similar to VT claimed 35 lives eleven years ago:
EDIT: Rory, why don't you try using less strawman arguments and other logical fallacies, hmm?
CR
Okay, Rory. I've clearly got you upset. As for railing against arguments the other side didn't make, hello pot, this is kettle. You're black.
I never said
1) That US drug policy made any sort of sense. I used it as an example of how effective banning a desired product can be.
2) I never said that massacres at schools were a price I'm willing to pay for my 2nd ammendment rights. Quite the contrary, I said I'd surrender them tomorrow if I had any inkling that such a ban would be even remotely effective.
Rather than work to convince me that a ban would indeed be effective, you start frothing at the mouth and make claims about things I never said. Perhaps I should cease my side of this discussion, as any disagreement appears to work you into an irrational state.
I apologize for having upset you so. :bow:
Really ? Americans look pretty scared over here. Carrying your guns out of fear that maybe you'll get attacked, here we accept that that's a possiblity and move on. Who's tough and who's scared ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
EDIT: this isn't meant quite as offensive as it might seem, but i've heard a lot of people who think about the same, also relating to other aspects of life. I guess it's a difference of perspective.
Ah come on, don't get this thread closed too.
Ah come on, don't get this thread closed too.
Giving up rights that you then proceed to say can't be given up isn't really much of a sacrifice. You really think that there is no chance that giving up guns wouldn't remotely reduce the odds of school massacres? I pity your country. :no:
Americans killing each other doesn't upset me in the slightest. I'm not a fan of the accent and there's nothing Americans do that others can't. Kill yourselves however you want :thumbsup:
In America I doubt a ban would be affective. I'm sure I said somewhere about guns being an American solution as well as a problem, and about the "frontier spirit"... Oh, it was this thread...
Some people treat recurrent alcoholics thinking that somehow they'll change them eventually. Others realise that they are so addicted to it they'll never give up their own brand of death. Most doctors eventually reach the second camp.
~:smoking:
OH NO THEY'RE CORRUPTING THE KING'S ENGLISH THEY ARE SUBHUMAN.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Queen's English...
~:smoking:
No guns were used on September 11th, 2001 in any of the hijackings. None were used in 1995 at Oklahoma City. Heck, Charles Manson and his gang didn't use guns. I guess the answer is in addition to guns, we need to ban boxcutters, lawn fertilizer and kitchen knives?
So, having an airbag in your car is because you're 'scared' and not because you simply want to prepare for what might happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
You know, it seems to me that all these anti-gunners have to acknowledge, deep in their minds, that a good person with training could have stopped this. But they don't want to have to deal with that truth, so they pour out all sorts of accusations and innuendos against people who might carry guns for protection. These usually make no sense and our based off ignorant assumptions by people who don't use or carry firearms.
CR
Can you use a gun to open boxes, fertilize your lawn, or chop celery?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Just a question, without expressing any ordeal whatsoever, it's merely out of curiosity:
How to buy a gun in the USA? Do you need to have a certain age? Do you have to show any ID? Do you have to take tests (psychological tests, physical tests)? Is there a waiting period, I mean, you go in, express your intention to buy a gun, choose the gun and then you have to wait for a certain period, so that the shopkeeper can get you checked (does the guy has a "violent past", criminal record, is he under some kind of treatment etc etc...) or do you go in, show the ID, buy the gun and go out within 15 minutes?
So basically, my question is: how easy is it to get a gun in the USA, legally? Are there procedures and if so, are they complicated and what do they involve? Is there a big difference between the several states? Please, enlighten this ignorant European.
No, but you don't really NEED to open boxes, fertilize your lawn or chop celery, you just want to. Why should your selfish desires mean that I have to life in an unsafe world? Just get the government to do those things for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
I don't know anyone who'll list 'has an airbag' as a criterium for picking a car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I'll acknowledge it if it makes you happy :2thumbsup:Quote:
You know, it seems to me that all these anti-gunners have to acknowledge, deep in their minds, that a good person with training could have stopped this.
Now, will you acknowledge that if the shooter didn't have a gun (legal or illegal) he would have probably killed a lot less people ?
Having just bought a gun myself, I think I can help.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning
There are basically two classes of firearms : machine guns (those that can shoot full auto, along with some shotguns that cause certain legislators to wet their panties) and others. Others are broken up into long guns (rifles and shotguns) and pistols. Rifles may be similar to their full-auto counterparts, but they can only fire semi-automatic.
In most states to buy a long gun you must be 18+ and need only go to a store that sells them (this store is licensed by the Feds and can get closed down for sloppy business practices). You can look and feel various guns. After choosing one, you inform the owner, and they bring out paperwork for you to sign. You fill out various boxes with your names, age, driver's license, physical characteristics, and state that you have not broken any law that would prevent you from owning a gun, that you live in the US legally, that you aren't a fugitive from justice, haven't been committed to a mental institution, etc.
The owner takes this info and does a quick background check with the FBI (takes less than five minutes). If you pass, you can buy the gun and carry it out with you. If not, the owner might delay you until the cops arrive.
For pistols, you have to be 21 to buy one from a store, and some states have waiting periods (usually less than a week).
If I wanted to spend the money, I could go and buy a semi auto AR-15 and have it today.
This holds true for most states.
In some, however, you are restricted from many guns, or you have to have a 'Firearms Owner ID card' or you have to get a temporary permit from the state to buy certain guns. These states (New Jersey, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, etc.) are in the minority. Some have really stupid laws - New Jersey bans tube fed .22 rifles (which the state court said are 'dangerous offensive weapons' because they hold 15 .22 bullets and not 9).
Buying machine guns requires a whole lot of money (thousands per gun) and time (half a year plus to get licensed) and paperwork.
EDIT:
If he had no other weapon, yes. But he could have gotten several containers of gasoline and possibly killed even more. Given his mental state, I don't think not being able to get a gun would have stopped him from trying to hurt people.Quote:
Now, will you acknowledge that if the shooter didn't have a gun (legal or illegal) he would have probably killed a lot less people ?
Also, here's a link to a story about the 1966 Austin massacre - were people were saved by citizens shooting back at the attacker:
http://www.memoryarchive.org/en/Univ...6,_Buck_Wroten
Crazed Rabbit
Timothy McVeigh killed more people, a lot more, with no gun. Nothing but lawn fertilizer and a rented truck. Should we ban those as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Thank you CR :bow:
Hi doc, of course you're correct, he would have had to resort to bombs or low-tech weapons. Whether he would have killed more or fewer people is unknowable.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
It's not a realistic question in the U.S.A., though. We've had the right to bear arms for hundreds of years, and taking them out of circulation would not be practical. Whether you like it or not, we have to go forward accepting that guns are a part of our culture. Even if some politician wanted to commit political suicide by ramming through a total ban on firearms, there are so many extant that such a ban would be meaningless. All you would do is make a lot of hunters very, very grumpy.
For what it's worth, the shooter had already been put into psychiatric care, and was known to be a danger. Hindsight is lovely, isn't it?
Poor argument, Don.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
My point was that there are many things in life that offer danger as well as utility.
My view is that handguns (I'm pretty much okay with long guns, as long as they don't fire 600 rounds per minute) do not offer sufficient utility to offset the danger they present by simply being available to the average joe. In essence, I don't believe there is a net benefit to society for handguns to be owned privately. Whereas with lawn fertilizer, boxcutters, and kitchen knives (to use your examples), I believe there is a net benefit.
I understand that you and CR disagree with me on that. Your opinion is that there is a net benefit to society in private handgun ownership. And that's what the whole gun control argument really comes down to. Unfortunately for both sides, there really is no way to accurately quantify that net benefit or deficit to prove either point of view.
Exactly. That guy at the olympics wounded 100+ people with a pipe bomb. If Cho didn't have a gun and wanted to kill people he could have made 4 or 5 and chucked them into the cafeteria.
Most of the gun deaths in the US are suicides and a lot of the others and from gang wars as a result of the war on drugs.
To be honest, the difference is probably linked to the gun culture. You live in a society were guns are (percived?) to be needed, while we are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
This tragedy would probably been stopped earlier, at the cost of generally more gun incidents on campuses around the US, with guns being legal on campus.
But possibly with the percivence of the guns. I'm not sure how common it is, but guns seems to be much, much more commonly seen as the last defence between me and the evils in the world in the US, than in the rest of the western world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Granted it's not a causation, but a side-effect of the causation.
I'm more interested in why the "lone and depressed student revenging on the world by going down in guns and blazing glory on campus"-syndrome is much more common in the US compared to the rest of the world. While easy access to guns makes it easier and bloodier, it's not the cause of it.
I know a German case outside the US, but that's it.
I was just trying to make the point that guns make killing easy, sure you do a lot of damage otherwise, but guns are convient for killing. Would he have bothered making a bomb ? There's a reason less people are killed by bombs than by guns (outside the middle east at least)Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
EDIT: I'd like to add that I'm radically anti-gun, but I think the pro-gun side is tends to be a little too extreme and sometimes seems to defy simply logic. I also don't think gun culture is necessarily related to the availability of guns, others have mentioned Canada, but in Europe too it is/used to be pretty easy to get a gun, much easier than most people realize at least. Maybe not automatics (seriously, for hunting ? for self defense ? who needs those ?) but at least hunting rifles.
Rory, Americans killing each other does upset me and quite a bit too. Don't let your frustration about gun toting maniacs unaccustomed to the loftiness of received pronunciation get the better of you.
Besides, Americans don't need your cynicism, they need your love. ~;p
Thanks for that link. And yes, I do believe that if more guns would've been carried by students on monday there would've been less deaths at VT. I'm fairly sure of it indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
But. One in 10000 americans gets killed by firearms each year. At Virginia Tech, 'population' 30000, this would mean 3 deaths per year. So the benefits of there having been guns on monday would've been offset already within a decade. And that is where this 'self-defense' pro-gun argument goes wrong. All things considered, guns cost innocent lives, even if they save some at some instances. It's the net benefit to society debate again, but we won't agree on the numbers.
Eh, not really as convenient as a container of gasoline you chuck into a crowded room.
CR
Well, close, but CR and I would argue that there is a benefit to the individual to have the right to bear arms. In so far as said individual has done nothing to forfeit that right, the society has no right to strip them of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
It all stems from the "Does society answer to the individual" or "vice-versa" view of society. As somebody who holds the former to be valid, I frequently get told "well, you don't 'need' to protect yourself". Well, sure. I don't need my own house, but I'm not ready to turn that over to society yet either. Society doesn't gain any value from my right to ownership of personal property. But that doesn't automatically grant society the authority to strip individuals the right to own private property.
My point wasn't as poor as you seem to think. If our rights are based on our ability to either 1) prove an irreplacable need for said item or act or 2) our ability to argue the positive benefit for society that our 'right' holds, a lot of 'rights' you hold dear are going to go right out the window.
And again, I'm actually not trying to make 2nd Ammendment arguments today. This isn't about my right to own a gun today. I'm taking a pragmatist view and saying prove to me that taking them away will make me any safer? It's my belief that given the way America currently is, it will make me much less safer, overall.
Can you conceal a container of gasoline large enough to immolate 30 people in your underwear?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
This is rather interesting. I never looked at it this way. Are you arguing that there is a net benefit to society in banning guns, yet there is a personal benefit to allowing them? And that your individual rights should not be infringed upon in this respect, regardless of any net benefit to society?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
And even if you're not, let's for the sake of argument assume that there is a net benefit to society in banning guns, yet there is a personal benefit to allowing them. Would yours, or anybody else's position change?
There's some interesting Game Theory in this.
Just to support your point. The 2nd amendment is unnecessary and even undesirable in Britain, we prefer the state to organise things so we don't have to worry about everyday safety. However, America is not Britain. Even if the 2nd amendment is ditched altogether, the social conditions may not translate into the general security which our gun laws allow us. The "gun nuts" may actually be right in American conditions, just as the "wimps" may be right in our conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Well, by that reasoning everyone has the right to bear nuclear arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
The rest of your argument was pretty sound.
Well, not to play too clever by half, it all depends on what defintion of society you use. If we mean us, the collective population, then no. Society actually has an interest in favoring it's law abiding citizens, and allowing them to protect themselves from it's deviants. But if you define society as the government or other ruling party, then yes, absolutely. In order to rule it's people more effectively, the government derives two benefits from a disarmed populus: 1) the people are totally dependent on the government for their very lives 2) there is no hope of rebellion, as the government is armed while the larger body politic is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
The Tutsis had a very vested interest in seeing the Hutuus disarmed. Does that mean the individual Hutuu was selfish for not complying with the rules the Tutsis enacted?
But yes, to answer your basic question, in so far as my individual rights do not impede the rights of any other individual, unless society can prove categorically that they need to restrict my rights, they have no authority to do so. It is this school of legal thought that my nation's laws were supposedly founded on, but we're really only paid lip service to it, and not even very well recently.
it has precedent, lone and depressed student see's this on tv and thinks, look at all the news coverage and attention that kid gets, i want it too... it gets more coverage in the US than anywhere else, because it happened in the USQuote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
America has got a more pro-gun culture than elsewhere, and that means that they are more liely to know how to shoot a gun, and feel less "uncomfortable" using them.
American society perhaps contributes to this by alienating individuals, but that is'nt unique to the US...
--> i dont think the legalisation of guns is really relevant to this anyway, if someone really wants to do such a thing, then they would have little trouble getting the guns illegally...
:2thumbsup:
I think that it is better to have a record of gun purchases, then ban guns and then have one pop up, and you didn't know it was there.
You could carry alot of things in your pockets (or jeans).
The man could have locked the dorm doors with chains, tossed in some gasoline in the bottom floor, then flicked in a match. That would immolate at least a hundred+ if it was early morning (1-4)
What do you guys think about stricter requirements for owning a gun, say psychological testing that would have disqualified Cho?