• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 
Page: 1...45678...11
Posted:eek eek eek eek eek eek

Tragic Loss of Life

This [censored] really saddens me. My thoughts go out to the victims, survivors and all their families.


Delete Topic

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: pounce


Nevertheless, if we implement something like that process, there's this little part of me that is fearful of that small population such as Cho that would only gain better experience on use and aim in shooting. However, if we implemented a psychological evaluation process, perhaps we could eliminate that issues.



If cho had wanted to practise shooting, he could, having legally obtained a firearm, have practised to his hearts content in one of the many US shooting ranges.

Additionally, for his intended purpose of killing children in a school, you don't really need any skills other than the ability to reload- that's the problem with guns, it's very easy to kill with them.

As for the proposed testing, yes, of course, the real intention of it is to establish that the would-be gun owner has full understanding of gun safety and is, as far as can be reasonably determined, both mentally and ethically sound.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Pele



confused No one ever said it was isolated and since I live here, I know the state of things here much better than you do actually. If you'd read any of my previous posts, then you'd know that. In fact, I just posted about a different shooting in my last post. Please, before you swallow your foot any further, read through all of my posts thoroughly.
Guns are not the problem. Their use is a symptom of a greater problem which is not being dealt with. Bigotry of many forms, segregation and economics are the problem. .............

Am I saying that these are US only problems? Nope. But I am saying that there is little to no progress in many places to even remotely addressing, let alone solving, these issues and in that the US fails.





However, just as many pro-gunners point out that (a few) other nations have easy access to guns, yet few of the problems evident in the US (concluding that guns are not the problem); I feel the need to point out that many other nations have the same level of bigotry, bullying and bad social conditions that the US does- yet school child culling does not happen there.

My opinion is that, yes, guns are not the problem, but neither are bullying, deprivation etc the problem- instead, both are aspects of it and, having read the whole of this thread, I still feel that the ease of legally obtaining a gun in the US, is a significant factor in these killings.


 Written by: Pele


Guns allow for the death of more people, absolutely but I whole heartedly believe that people who kill would do so with or without a gun.




To an extent, but what will they use?

Knives/machetes are out cos, at some point in the rampage, some one is going to be a hero and take them down.

Bombs are a possibility, but, in the US, guns are associated with heroism and bombs are associated with cowardice and terrorists.

In Chos twisted world, he was not out there killing vulnerable innocent children, he was a hero striking a blow for whatever agenda was in his confused mind.

His pre-shooting video was, in his eyes, much more powerful cos he was waving guns around and striking poses with them.

Bombs are for those with sheer practical intent to kill numbers for a twisted political cause- guns are for those who have some warped romantic vision of striding through the world in full view of the media, like a lone hero, killing at will and expressing to the world just how it has made them (cho) feel.

Much as he probably felt he despised US culture, the fact remains that Cho bought heavily into at least one aspect of it- the bizarre US association of firearms with coolness/heroism/empowerment.

IMO that is why these losers, in the vast majority of caese, choose guns- the fact that anyone (of legal age with no previous convictions) can walk into their local Walmart and come out with enough firepower to take out a school, IMO, really is making it pretty inevitable.

There's no immediate possibility of banning guns in the US- but they should defintly made it a lot more controlled- at least to the previously suggested extent that it should take as much effort and assessment as getting a driving license!

Can even the most hardcore US pro-gunner argue otherwise?




"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Extending that last point a little more- how has it come to be that, in the US, for most people, it's considerably easier to get a gun (legally) than it is to get a driving license?



I think that, to most of the civilised world, that's a bizarre state of affairs, yet, in the US gun debates, it doesn't seem to arise often.



Perhaps this is why the gun debate seems to go nowhere- the pro-gunners are intent on arguning why guns shouldn't be banned and the anti-gunners on why they should be (banned).



A cosy state of affairs almost guaranteed to result in no action- a deadlock due to the strengh of arguments, stats and feelings on both sides.



Acting as a convenient smokescreen distracting from taking a reasonable middle-ground that could address the fact that, currently, guns are easier to get than a driving license.



Guns should not be easier to get than a driving license, and Cho should not have been allowed to legally purchase a gun.



The US needs legislation to beef up gun control to a sane level- a level where the likes of Cho cannot wander into a store and get a gun, with no training and psych assessment and, where getting a gun requires (at leasst) the same level of responsible committment as getting a driving license.



That kind of aim seems to me to be something that could get the support of many pro-gunners and many anti-gunners and something that could realistically be put in place.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Pele
BRONZE Member since Dec 2000

Pele

the henna lady
Location: WNY, USA

Total posts: 6193
Posted:Okay, *breathes deep* OWD, you have a few erroneous statements here.

Not anyone can walk into a Wal-Mart and purchase a gun. Especially since in many states it's illegal for WM to sell guns and gun stores in those states are hard-core.
And, in most states it is *much* harder to get a gun than a drivers license.

See, what I am hearing from those that are not state side is that they are not listening to the US-ers at all when we say...

It is NOT Federal.

Federal being the government that creates and governs the laws over all 50 states and the commonwealths and districts.

Then there are State laws, determined at the discretion of each individual state, commonwealth and district.

Then there are county/parrish and local laws.

See how this goes?

Most gun laws are under state jurisdiction.

This means that in this case, yes it was easy for Cho to get a gun. Should it have been, no? In Texas, it is also easy.

However, in the vast majority of states it is really freakin' hard to get a gun. Much, much harder than getting a driver's license, or a dog permit or anything else you want to equate it too.

Both pounce and I have said this numerous times and it seems to be falling on deaf ears for blanket statements. What I am seeing are people with tunnel vision, not listening to those of us who live here day in and day out.
What I am reading is a moot arguement coming from people who are not listening.
We are saying, yes your ideas are wonderful and we are so very, very glad that they worked for your country but they will not work here. That several of these ideas have already been tried and failed. That legal guns are not the biggest issue and that we want to keep the right to bear arms because we like our constitution. That the problem is not the gun, it was the boy. That new laws won't save the people who are gone and they won't stop those who are determined...we have seen it, we actually *do* know. Gun laws only effect those who are law abiding and anyone who is planning to kill, well, they don't have that in their favor. Did the lack of stringent laws in Virginia make this easier for Cho? Yup. Would he have done it anyway? Absolutely.
And in this line, playing devils advocate, if he had been thwarted by legal means there is the very real possibility that he would have gotten a black market auto- or created a bomb. How do you know this way didn't save more lives? An auto or a bomb would've obviously done much more destruction.

We can speculate till the cows come home with blue faces but in the end, we don't know. We can only base our judgements on history and current facts, which those of us who live here are trying to tell you...it is not so black and white as slapping new laws down and the violent crimes will go down. Sure maybe gun ones will, so the wife who shot her hubby in the back will instead stab him while he sleeps 20 times. A mugger will slice your throat instead of shoot you. Great.

In Colorado, where Columbine happens, gun laws are extremely strict. It happened anyway.

Should federal government step in and strengthen the laws? Yes I believe that it should. Will it? shrug It will turn into a constitutional battle that they will grow tired of because States make mad, mad cash off of firearms permits and taxes.

However, blanket statements about how easy it is to get guns legally are blatant fallacies that those in favor of gun control are falling back on. It's like putting a smilie face band-aid on a slit artery. It is not that simple, to get them or to stop them.

astar2 also had a very good point in stating that if the gov't can't control drug trafficking and illegal weapons trade, how does anyone expect them to control guns?


Also OWD, I think you overlooked my point of stating that these people would kill anyway without guns. The entire point, people would still die. The number doesn't matter, which is why I didn't bring it up. No multi-# gun deaths? Then the media would have a field day and you would still outrage if someone walked into school with a sword and killed 3 people, or 1 with a swiss army knife. :rolleyes: Lower in numbers but then it would turn into "Slashings in the US: When will they stop?" when two people die and there will be a call for a ban on hunting and kitchen knives. :rolleyes:


Other countries just want more reasons on their tick list to add to the evil impression of the US. You can speculate on the state of things all you want but in the end, you don't live here.
When 35 people got shot in Tasmania it never once crossed my mind that the entire country had issues or needed huge reform, just that this one person did.
This whole school thing, not isolated to the US.
The whole gun crime thing, not isolated to the US.

Just like the causes all together are not isolated to the US. It only gets more media because we are the "big, bad, evil US" and *everyone* and their brother who has never actually lived here (vacations and exchange programs don't count because it's not really living here on your own) think they know all about it and can not only tell us what it's like but how it should be better.

In the end, do I want gun reform? Yup.
Is it going to happen? Maybe in Virginia but no time soon federally.

And this conversation, not really about the shooting anymore. It's about gun control and that is the saddest to me.
Someone said originally that this event would soon be forgotten and it would return to business as usual, and I see that in this thread. It is so absorbed in the gun control debate that it has lost sight of what sparked that debate and the gravity that such things have on other facets of life.

For example, did anyone stateside actually stop at noon to pause for the moment of national silence for the victims and their families (who I see as victims as well)?
Does anyone agree with it?
I didn't on the sheer basis of there are tonnes of people dying overseas (American and not) and I don't hear a weekly moment of silence for them.
I was at work and I didn't even notice noon come and go.


Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Good thread guys....

The only thing I can add is that as a Canadian I sure appreciate my gun controlled society where handguns are a rarity ( hint to Micheal Moore..yes we have guns,,lots of them,,but they're mostly long guns ) but if I were to relocate to the US and felt the need to arm myself ( because "everyone" else has guns ) I'd probably be in here alongside Pounce and Lurch arguing that I "need" one.

Really, I think there's as much chance of America collectively deciding that they no longer want to be an armed society as there is Jesus returning to earth, but if he does, eliminating guns ( or handguns at least ) would be enough of a miracle to convert me.


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Pele



Not anyone can walk into a Wal-Mart and purchase a gun. Especially since in many states it's illegal for WM to sell guns and gun stores in those states are hard-core.
And, in most states it is *much* harder to get a gun than a drivers license.

See, what I am hearing from those that are not state side is that they are not listening to the US-ers at all when we say...

It is NOT Federal.

Federal being the government that creates and governs the laws over all 50 states and the commonwealths and districts.

Then there are State laws, determined at the discretion of each individual state, commonwealth and district.

Then there are county/parrish and local laws.

See how this goes?

Most gun laws are under state jurisdiction.

This means that in this case, yes it was easy for Cho to get a gun. Should it have been, no? In Texas, it is also easy.

However, in the vast majority of states it is really freakin' hard to get a gun. Much, much harder than getting a driver's license, or a dog permit or anything else you want to equate it too.




Fair enough. For those states whose laws make getting a gun (legally) more difficult than getting a driving license- i think that's good.

Those states whose laws make guns easier to obtain than a driving license- I think that's wrong and that they should beef up their state legislation.

As you say, i don't live in the US and am unclear why the federal govt can't restrict state legislation concerning guns, whilst it can very much affect other issues- perhaps it's the constitution thing?

Having admitted that I'm unclear on that issue, let me venture forth the suggestion that the federal govt makes it the case that no state can have laws that result in it being easier to obtain a legal gun than it is to get a driving license.

Feel free to shoot me down and explain why that is impossible (seriously, cos I'm not really understanding what's being said here).

Ultimately, i'm having difficulties getting past there being states where getting a gun is easier than getting a driving license- it's simply not sane.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:I wouldn't really say that's fair though. If you want to compare a drivers license to a CCW that's one thing. Those equate, and 9/10 the CCW will me much harder to come by. Buying a gun vs having a drivers license is apples and oranges, is buying a gun harder than buying a car? hell yes it is.

Well said Pele. I agree a lot of what is going on in here seems like people just loving to pick on the US, and this is one more thing that they can point to and say 'look how ignorant you are' even when they don't know, or don't look at, all the facts.

There are a couple things that I would probably change. There are a number of basic federal laws about the purchase/possession of weapons. For example, the following things will exclude you (with a couple exceptions) from the right to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:

* Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
* Fugitives from justice.
* Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
* Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
* Illegal aliens.
* Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
* Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
* Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
* Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
* Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
* Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


For Virginia, here are some of the extra rules on top of those.

* Only one handgun per month. This is to help prevent bulk buying used in trafficking, or reselling to street criminals.

* State law requires gun buyers to go through a state-based criminal background check in addition to the federal NICS check. In 2000, 2,568 gun buyers failed the criminal background check and were stopped from buying guns.

* State law generally prohibits carrying concealed handguns into schools, even if the gun owner has a CCW permit....

^-- that one is the saddest, and probably most tragic thing IMHO


Cho did not have a criminal background. Other than his mental history and personal stories, statistically he was a perfectly normal law abiding citizen. What do you want them to do, go conduct interviews of random people in his life? If previous charges had not been dropped, everything could have changed. I *DO* think that there should be stricter rules/laws in regards to mental health. I do not however believe that I need to submit myself to monthly tests so some arbitrary person can decide if I'm too mean to own a gun. Psych evals should show up on background checks IMO. But they should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Otherwise there are too many possibilities to abuse the system, and ruin peoples lives with a simple phone call.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Mattimeo
PLATINUM Member since Aug 2006

Mattimeo

newbie
Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand

Total posts: 12
Posted:The second person he killed was his RA (residential advisor) in his his dorm.

Reading the report chilled me... I'm a RA (residential advisor) in NZ overseeing 600+ residents. How horrible frown


Studentcity Fire Spinner

Delete

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted: Written by: Pele



See, what I am hearing from those that are not state side is that they are not listening to the US-ers at all when we say...





ok - piece by piece, lets go through the pro-guns side of the argument. Please don't take this personally, I'm responding to your restatement and how you think no-one is reading your points.

 Written by: Pele


It is NOT Federal.

Most gun laws are under state jurisdiction.





all nation states being used as examples in this debate have governments that make money from gun registration - how exactly does it make a difference if your country uses state or federal laws to enforce? if its federal then its up to them to make a moral decision and keep people safe. if its up to the states then its up to the states to make a moral decision and keep people safe. Its up to the government to make decisions about the welfare of the community - I cant see how your point about state vs federal makes a valid contribution to this argument.

 Written by: Pele


the problem is not the gun, it was the boy.




will you at least admit that if the boy didn't have access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons he wouldnt have been able to kill nearly as many?

you must also admit that its far easier to control objects (the guns) than all the social ills of the world and genetics that contributed to chos state of mind.

Therefore the problem is the guns, and its an easier problem to solve than 'all the social problems of the world'.

 Written by: Pele



they won't stop those who are determined...we have seen it





thats obvious - suicide bombers blow themselves up all the time in Iraq - but strangely people in the US don't seem to. They seem to choose guns.

You are refusing to accept that since restrictive gun laws have been put in place in similar countries eg GB and Oz, that there has been a reduction in gun crime.

 Written by: Pele



Gun laws only effect those who are law abiding and anyone who is planning to kill, well, they don't have that in their favor. Did the lack of stringent laws in Virginia make this easier for Cho? Yup. Would he have done it anyway? Absolutely.





how? without automatic guns how would he have done it? You havent really got any applicable examples of how he might have done it - because in the US people use guns to kill each other in the vast majority (all?) of these cases. I think you cannot make such an assertion with such confidence. Historically you have no basis.

 Written by: Pele



And in this line, playing devils advocate, if he had been thwarted by legal means there is the very real possibility that he would have gotten a black market auto- or created a bomb. How do you know this way didn't save more lives? An auto or a bomb would've obviously done much more destruction.





aside from the fact that this point is based on what didnt happen lets talk about the black market weapons. Can you at least accept that with really stringent laws (ie no-one in the US can own a semi or automatic gun) that obtaining such a weapon would actually be extremely difficult for someone like Cho? Ok the Mafia might still have their uzis and M16s but over the years these would get harder and harder to get especially for people who aren't in the mob. Also the Ammo wouldn't be for sale anywhere - so he'd have to build all his own ammo...sounding more and more unlikely.

 Written by: Pele



We can speculate till the cows come home with blue faces but in the end, we don't know. We can only base our judgements on history and current facts, which those of us who live here are trying to tell you...it is not so black and white as slapping new laws down and the violent crimes will go down.





it has been that black and white everywhere else its been tried?

 Written by: Pele


Sure maybe gun ones will, so the wife who shot her hubby in the back will instead stab him while he sleeps 20 times.




yep - killing one or even 2 with a knife _might_ be possible - but not mass murder like we are discussing.

 Written by: Pele



In Colorado, where Columbine happens, gun laws are extremely strict. It happened anyway.





what do you mean by strict? ie its impossible to legally obtain a semi or automatic weapon? or do you mean that 'legal' citizens can buy them, but the kids that shot people werent the legal owners?

can I emphasize a point that US participants here seem to miss (consistently); when automatic gun ownership is limited to SWAT teams and the military - 16 old kids will find it prohibitively difficult to find and use such weapons. its quite simple logic. Less guns with tighter controls means less guns for illegal use as well.

 Written by: Pele



astar2 also had a very good point in stating that if the gov't can't control drug trafficking and illegal weapons trade, how does anyone expect them to control guns?





do you have any illegal weapons in the US? I mean Ive seen websites of people building guns for 'sport' that could bring down a large plane? you already have military weapons available in supermarkets (ok not in all states - but I have seen this - I have been to the US).

can people legally buy grenades? flamethrowers? rocket launchers? perhaps with a permit?

 Written by: Pele



Also OWD, I think you overlooked my point of stating that these people would kill anyway without guns. The entire point, people would still die. The number doesn't matter,





course it matters!!! the tragedy for the guy that gets shot with a bolt action 22 is still the same, but not for the 31 others that lived because the guy was tackled as he reloaded. 1500 deaths a year through accidental discharge! thats a tragedy. the US went to war with the wrong country over 1500 innocent deaths...careless gun laws / use kill that many every year!

 Written by: Pele



When 35 people got shot in Tasmania it never once crossed my mind that the entire country had issues or needed huge reform, just that this one person did.





Well fortunately we did reform. If Bryant wanted to do that today he'd have a much harder time. If he didnt have his own gun, he probly couldnt have done it. Loners tend to not have many friends that would supply them with illegal military firepower.

 Written by: Pele


This whole school thing, not isolated to the US.




I think it is mostly in the US however. If you want to convince me that comparable things happen with comparable frequency elsewhere you are going to have to use a few links. I think you wont be able to do this.

 Written by: Pele


The whole gun crime thing, not isolated to the US.




no - but again, for a western developed nation its disproportionate.

 Written by: Pele


Just like the causes all together are not isolated to the US.



I agree completely. The causes exist everywhere. The only main difference is the US has many more guns (and especially more dangerous ones) in citizens hands.

So we are left with just one point in the pro-gun argument as far as I can tell: the US is different to everywhere else in the world for undefined reasons that don't have to do with gun ownership.

Can you please tell me why the US is different in the context of this argument if its not disproportionate gun ownership, unnecessarily powerful weapon availability, and a culture of ambivalence to gun use / ownership?

If its not to do with the guns - why is it so unsafe in the US? I dont personally think US people are genetically more violent/psychotic, I personally think its the guns.


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

biggins
SILVER Member since Sep 2002

biggins

member
Location: In Bed

Total posts: 165
Posted: Written by: Lurch

Well said Pele. I agree a lot of what is going on in here seems like people just loving to pick on the US, and this is one more thing that they can point to and say 'look how ignorant you are' even when they don't know, or don't look at, all the facts.



i think its worth pointing out that from my point of view its not about picking on the US, its about trying to understand your points of views on gun ownership whilst trying to reconcile with my experiences and the societies i've been exposed to. in order for us to that we have to compare to what we have here and we have to ask questions that are like a small child going...."but why??!!.....but why??!!" cos thats how you learn. if you perceive that as "having a go" then thats a shame.

I, personally, genuinely cannot fathom aspects of the US (and increasingly the UK) psyche when it comes to guns. it makes no sense to me (well it does,kind of) and call me old fashioned but i feel that its a pretty sad state of affairs when ppl who work in a care profession feel they HAVE a to have a gun for protection. The REALLY REALLY sad thing is that as numerous ppl have pointed out this happens on a regular basis. it WILL happen again. THIS WILL CHANGE NOTHING! in this day and age life is getting increasingly cheaper and guns are a cop out, impersonal way of taking life. people will still be easily able to buy them. morons like charlton heston will stand up waves guns around (over my dead body etc etc).

(.....and governments will still use the aftermath to increasingly control their citizens (but thats another thread entirely....remember kiddies "war is peace" (orwell, 1949))



finally, i disagree with whoever said that its bad that we have gone onto gun control and other issues. There is onyl so much you can say about the killings themselves but these things HAVE to be used as a starting point to examine the surrounding issues. its good and healthy to examine the tangents such as gun control (in this case).


Wielding a Wooden Spoon

Delete

pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003

pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...

Total posts: 9831
Posted:Well I'm not Pele and can't speak for her, but I can comment on some of your points.

 Written by: Pyrolific


how exactly does it make a difference if your country uses state or federal laws to enforce?...I cant see how your point about state vs federal makes a valid contribution to this argument.



The distinction is an important one. Perhaps one state has very strict gun laws while it's neighboring state does not. There would be nothing to stop a citizen from driving to the next state over and purchasing a gun from it's neighboring state.

 Written by: Pyrolific


will you at least admit that if the boy didn't have access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons he wouldnt have been able to kill nearly as many?



I couldn't agree to that statement. He could have chosen to make a homemade bomb (just go on the internet and you find the directions *that* easy, it's rather sickening). And a bomb would have been largely successful at killing as many, if not more, people than by a firearm.

 Written by: Pyrolific


you must also admit that its far easier to control objects (the guns) than all the social ills of the world and genetics that contributed to chos state of mind.



Perhaps, but I believe guns are the symptom, not the underlying problem. And quite honestly, personally I think we have no chance in the world of controlling guns.


 Written by: Pyrolific


You are refusing to accept that since restrictive gun laws have been put in place in similar countries eg GB and Oz, that there has been a reduction in gun crime.




I don't think Pele is refusing that at all. In fact, I don't think anyone has disputed that, but in contrast, the belief is that violent crime increased following the ban on firearms. There is a distinction between the two types of crimes.



 Written by: Pyrolific


how? without automatic guns how would he have done it? You havent really got any applicable examples of how he might have done it - because in the US people use guns to kill each other in the vast majority (all?) of these cases. I think you cannot make such an assertion with such confidence. Historically you have no basis.




Are you serious? If we just wanted to leave it simple, read my statement above about bombs. But there is a long history of plenty of ways people strike out, including bombings (Ted Kaczynski--the Unabomber, Timothy McVay--Oklahoma City bomber) but also the Anthrax mail attacks in 2001. Oh, and have we forgotten the Twin Tower and Pentagon attacks that same year? Guns are not the only means.


 Written by: Pyrolific


you already have military weapons available in supermarkets (ok not in all states - but I have seen this - I have been to the US).




WHAT?!?!?!


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted: Written by: pounce


 Written by: Pyrolific


how exactly does it make a difference if your country uses state or federal laws to enforce?...I cant see how your point about state vs federal makes a valid contribution to this argument.



The distinction is an important one. Perhaps one state has very strict gun laws while it's neighboring state does not. There would be nothing to stop a citizen from driving to the next state over and purchasing a gun from it's neighboring state.





sure - but if all the states passed the same law, how would it be any different?

 Written by: pounce


 Written by: Pyrolific


will you at least admit that if the boy didn't have access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons he wouldnt have been able to kill nearly as many?



I couldn't agree to that statement. He could have chosen to make a homemade bomb (just go on the internet and you find the directions *that* easy, it's rather sickening). And a bomb would have been largely successful at killing as many, if not more, people than by a firearm.





nope - people in Iraq operating on their own in crowded markets carrying a LOT of explosives still dont seem to often be that effective. Also - you don't have historical precedent for this kind of behaviour.
 Written by: pounce


 Written by: Pyrolific


you must also admit that its far easier to control objects (the guns) than all the social ills of the world and genetics that contributed to chos state of mind.



Perhaps, but I believe guns are the symptom, not the underlying problem. And quite honestly, personally I think we have no chance in the world of controlling guns.




cant control objects? I'd say if you cant control guns when its so bleedingly obviously neccessary, then you havent got a hope of coping with massive social problems. but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as both are simply unbased opinions hey?
 Written by: pounce


 Written by: Pyrolific


You are refusing to accept that since restrictive gun laws have been put in place in similar countries eg GB and Oz, that there has been a reduction in gun crime.




I don't think Pele is refusing that at all. In fact, I don't think anyone has disputed that, but in contrast, the belief is that violent crime increased following the ban on firearms. There is a distinction between the two types of crimes.




which hasnt in any real sense been established.
 Written by: pounce


 Written by: Pyrolific


how? without automatic guns how would he have done it? You havent really got any applicable examples of how he might have done it - because in the US people use guns to kill each other in the vast majority (all?) of these cases. I think you cannot make such an assertion with such confidence. Historically you have no basis.




Are you serious? If we just wanted to leave it simple, read my statement above about bombs. But there is a long history of plenty of ways people strike out, including bombings (Ted Kaczynski--the Unabomber, Timothy McVay--Oklahoma City bomber) but also the Anthrax mail attacks in 2001. Oh, and have we forgotten the Twin Tower and Pentagon attacks that same year? Guns are not the only means.




yeah Cho could have got Anthrax spores, hijacked a plane, or filled a van with explosives and driven it into a dorm or a lecture theatre...unlikely. Bear in mind, this started as a Domestic dispute.


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: pounce




Are you serious? If we just wanted to leave it simple, read my statement above about bombs. But there is a long history of plenty of ways people strike out, including bombings (Ted Kaczynski--the Unabomber, Timothy McVay--Oklahoma City bomber) but also the Anthrax mail attacks in 2001. Oh, and have we forgotten the Twin Tower and Pentagon attacks that same year? Guns are not the only means.






The twin towers were a well-planned attack by a terrorist group with large resources- a sick loner could not have done anything like that.

 Written by: pounce




I couldn't agree to that statement. He could have chosen to make a homemade bomb (just go on the internet and you find the directions *that* easy, it's rather sickening). And a bomb would have been largely successful at killing as many, if not more, people than by a firearm.





As for bombs, see my previous post-

 Written by: onewheeldave




Bombs are a possibility, but, in the US, guns are associated with heroism and bombs are associated with cowardice and terrorists.

In Chos twisted world, he was not out there killing vulnerable innocent children, he was a hero striking a blow for whatever agenda was in his confused mind.

His pre-shooting video was, in his eyes, much more powerful cos he was waving guns around and striking poses with them.

Bombs are for those with sheer practical intent to kill numbers for a twisted political cause- guns are for those who have some warped romantic vision of striding through the world in full view of the media, like a lone hero, killing at will and expressing to the world just how it has made them (cho) feel.

Much as he probably felt he despised US culture, the fact remains that Cho bought heavily into at least one aspect of it- the bizarre US association of firearms with coolness/heroism/empowerment.

IMO that is why these losers, in the vast majority of caese, choose guns- the fact that anyone (of legal age with no previous convictions) can walk into their local gunshop and come out with enough firepower to take out a school, IMO, really is making it pretty inevitable.





more positive things about sickos going the bomb route, is that they sometimes manage to blow themselves up whilst making the things, or, if they do succeed in making one, it often fails to detonate.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:As for people being anti-US

1. many are (not IMO, in this thread), much of it totally understandable, given that the US govt has repeatedly inflicted it's armed forces onto nations in a bad situation and made that situation much worse by doing so.

Plus the US govts tendency to act as moral judge on other coultures whislt disfuntionality of epic levels runs, unnaddressed, through it's own.

Many US people are of course just as appalled by their own govt- I'm just pointing out that they shouldn't be surprised about anti-US sentiments from other parts of the world.

2. IMO, in this thread, there is no real anti-US prejudice- simply people with a different view on gun-control to yourselves.

Just as you can't understand their views, they can't understand yours and are debating- without insult or flaming, the issue.

They're opposing a US view on gun control- not putting down the US.

And yes, some of them are going to challenge your objectivity- you may live in gun-states and think you know better, but some will suggest that the very fact you do live in a gun-state can compromise your objectivity; that's a valid point.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

astar2


member


Total posts: 37
Posted:uh people are just plain creating 'facts' in this thread. For example pyrolifics posts full of silly crap that isn't true. Their isn't any military weapoons in any super markets in the states. Ive been to the states to. Are you sure you weren't on bad drugs when you were their?

Delete

Sealey


member


Total posts: 30
Posted:It annoys me that this story took precedence on te news over the death of nearly 200 people in iraq. Surely 32 Americans dying is less important than the death of 180-odd people. Oh, wait, I forgot, Iraqi lives don't matter because the're all heathen muslim terrorists, and America is the Greatest Nation In The World TM.

If America want's to police the world, surely they should sort out their own country first.

On a side note, Bush claims that the Iraqi government is "still in its infancy" This, coming from the president of a government that's only 300 years old. Man, America sucks.


Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:There's a simple explanation for why a story like this takes precedence over 200 people dead in Iraq, or the approx 17 000 Americans killed by drunk driving every year ( that's about 1 every half hour..or 46 people killed on the day of the Virginia Tech shootings) .....it's unusual........nothing more.

People are killed every day in Iraq and by drunk drivers but we've somehow come to accept these deaths as "normal" and if Virginia Tech type incidents happened on a daily basis, we'd simply adopt the same mentality towards those too.


Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted: Written by: pyrolific

will you at least admit that if the boy didn't have access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons he wouldnt have been able to kill nearly as many?



He most certainly did NOT have access to automatic weapons, learn your terminology please.

 Written by:

thats obvious - suicide bombers blow themselves up all the time in Iraq - but strangely people in the US don't seem to. They seem to choose guns.



Are you saying suicide bombers are blowing themselves up in Iraq because they don't have access to guns? Because I'm pretty sure it's far far far FAR easier for someone to get a weapon over there than over here. They choose bombs because they can kill MORE people.

 Written by:

how? without automatic guns how would he have done it? You havent really got any applicable examples of how he might have done it - because in the US people use guns to kill each other in the vast majority (all?) of these cases. I think you cannot make such an assertion with such confidence. Historically you have no basis.



Again, NOT automatic weapons! Cho was not stupid, he was disturbed, and had many issues but he was not an idoit. It would not be very hard to come up with another scheme, do you really want us to try and plot that out for you or something?

 Written by:

Can you at least accept that with really stringent laws (ie no-one in the US can own a semi or automatic gun) that obtaining such a weapon would actually be extremely difficult for someone like Cho? ... Also the Ammo wouldn't be for sale anywhere - so he'd have to build all his own ammo...sounding more and more unlikely.



First off, making ammunition isn't all that difficult. and secondly making harsher gun laws is not going to qwell black market sales at all, if anything it would increase them. Look at booze, prohibition enacted, illegal alcohol sales skyrocket. Prohibition revoked, everything (for the most part) goes back to normal. Why do you seem to think that noone is responsible enough to legally own a weapon?

 Written by:

when automatic gun ownership is limited to SWAT teams and the military - 16 old kids will find it prohibitively difficult to find and use such weapons.



Um, thats pretty much as it is already, if you would have read the thread. Unless youre once again unclear on your terminology. Legally owned Class III weapons (automatic and a couple other things) have NEVER been used in a crime in the US. I'm sorry, but your drive against automatic weapons is pointless, they are not the problem by any means.

 Written by:


do you have any illegal weapons in the US? I mean Ive seen websites of people building guns for 'sport' that could bring down a large plane? you already have military weapons available in supermarkets



There are plenty of illegal weapons, and no I'm not going to list them for you. And yes, some people do build some very massive "weapons". There is a competition called Pumpkin Chunking for example when they shoot pumpkins for distance from home made cannons. Would you like to make that illegal? It could surely kill someone, and they're primarily based off military artillary.

Most of those "military" weapons you see in stores are hunting rifles and shotguns. The only difference in most cases is the stock. So if by some twisted logic you think a rifle suddenly becomse more deadly because it has a black plastic stock on it rather than a normal wooden one then yes, you can be scared of the guns in supermarkets.

 Written by:

1500 deaths a year through accidental discharge! thats a tragedy.




Indeed it is, usually I would combat these random statics being thrown out as 'tragedies' with something like 'Cars kill people too.' But people "need" cars you say, and you can't seem to comprehend that some of us might "need" a gun. So how about swimming pools? Surely there is no life requirement to own a swimming pool, but they're far more deadly than guns. Upwards of 5000 drown in swimming pools and hot tubs every year. Should we ban those too?

 Written by: biggins

i think its worth pointing out that from my point of view its not about picking on the US, its about trying to understand your points of views on gun ownership whilst trying to reconcile with my experiences and the societies i've been exposed to.



I agree, and I thank you, there are a number of you validly trying to understand and comprehend, and debating logically, there are also people who seem to just be hellbent on blaming the US though.

 Written by: Pyrolific

nope - people in Iraq operating on their own in crowded markets carrying a LOT of explosives still dont seem to often be that effective. Also - you don't have historical precedent for this kind of behaviour.



What?! We have bombings in our past, or do they not count because they weren't always specifically suicide bombings? Why do you think Iraqis use bombs when they want to kill people? I'm guessing it MAY have a small bit to do with the majority of people being armed over there, and if someone tried to use a gun to kill a number of people they wouldn't last very long.

 Written by: onewheeldave

The twin towers were a well-planned attack by a terrorist group with large resources- a sick loner could not have done anything like that.




Prior to 9/11 hijacking a plane would not be all that difficult. There were only a couple hijackers on the plane to begin with and probably could have been done with one, there was not need for a large terrorist group to back them. The only reason it was 'well planned' is because it called for multiple planes.


 Written by: biggins

I, personally, genuinely cannot fathom aspects of the US (and increasingly the UK) psyche when it comes to guns. it makes no sense to me (well it does,kind of) and call me old fashioned but i feel that its a pretty sad state of affairs when ppl who work in a care profession feel they HAVE a to have a gun for protection. The REALLY REALLY sad thing is that as numerous ppl have pointed out this happens on a regular basis. it WILL happen again. THIS WILL CHANGE NOTHING! in this day and age life is getting increasingly cheaper and guns are a cop out, impersonal way of taking life. people will still be easily able to buy them. morons like charlton heston will stand up waves guns around (over my dead body etc etc).



Why is Charlton Heston a moron again? Because he fights for what he believes in? You're right, it IS sad when someone needs or wants to carry a gun because of their career. That is because there are violent people around. If they want, or need, a gun for self defense, what possible right, or logic, do you have to tell them NO to that? THAT I genuinely cannot fathom. By 'this' did you mean using a weapon in self defense? or school killings?


Someone threw out an Orwell quotation, and while I don't usually post historical quotes I think it might be something that could be useful to both discuss, and help people understand.

 Written by:

"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense."

- Winston Spencer Churchill



So far, noone has given me a good reason why *I* should not be allowed to own a gun.

 Written by:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

- Mahatma Gandhi



 Written by:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

-Edmund Burke



 Written by:

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."

-Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878



 Written by:

"...to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..."

-George Mason



Hmm... interesting point that hasn't been discussed..

 Written by:

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state."

-Heinrich Himmler.



#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted:Astar I think you should address my points individually as I have had the respect to do in my responses if you want anyone to take anything you say seriously.

I went into a WalMart (or KMart?) and there was what looked like the guns SWAT teams use for sale. I think it was in Nevada. No I didnt take pictures to prove it. In the same state I saw a billboard saying something like 'Guns - keeping our community safe' or something similar. I could also mention the movie everyone loves to hate 'Bowling for Columbine' where MM interviews a guy who owns an m16 for 'home protection'.

please address the other points in my argument that you think I've fabricated?

seriously - if your'e going to go down that route of simply denying validity without addressing points...well youre arguing like a preschooler.

Sorry for slipping up about auto vs semi-auto. I thought it was mentioned earlier in this thread that one of the guns cho had was an automatic.

In Iraq the really devastating bombings have involved coordinated truck or car bombs...With loads of explosives.

Now for people who have been crying out about how no-one has been reading your arguments, you're doing a very good job of picking and choosing very small points to argue over. Its not massively convincing.


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Again I am looking forward to next years election in the U.S. and how m uch the gun laws will play a role in the process.

The US constitution is clearly out of date in terms of gun ownership and the electoral process, yet nobody within the US seems to dare to touch it.

Guns themselves are not the problem, but guns AND disturbed kids make a deadly mix. The bombings have been carefully planned. There is little comparison between the two. Furhter: How many ppl died by firearms and how many by bombings. Again there is little comparison.

Lurch, ever been to India? Tell you that much: It's peaceful. Dunno how much travelling outside the US you have done on your side, but as I said before: the world OUTSIDE the US is not halfway as violent and also not as Anti-American, as the US media is trying to put it.

This is not an anti-American rampage, but you seem not to be able to accept the same standards in which the US involves themselves into other nations affairs (and there are quite a few). The US is just constantly discrediting itself in the attempt to dominate the world with it's "culture" and "ideals". I do love the US (countryside) and many (individual) americans... I just recently have problems to cope with the general (political) attitude or the lack thereof.

Lurch, another Ghandi-quote: "We have to become the change we want to see in the world." And you can go ahead to focus on details like semi vs. automatic. You don't want to surrender your toys? shrug Keep them and be happy.

You guys think it's all perfect or at least impossible to change? Go on. You are free to ignore the rest of the world and their rational arguments.

The US - as one of the youngest nations on the planet - seems to be quite adolescent in a number of topics - IMO. Maybe this is because they have had no devastating war on their own soil for such a long time?

Guys, can't find "them" open for a constructive discussion, it's a waste of effort - IMHO.

But if there's anyone in here who wants to discuss the killings in Iraq (and the role the US plays in all this) - HEY make a thread about it. wink

shrug and hug to all involved


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Pele, by not an isolated incident I was referring to your statement that this is 100% him and no one/nothing else.

Well, I direct you to an earlier quote from Guns could have prevented massacre, says lobbyist. By Joseph Gasper. A professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University.

 Written by:

US media have been quick to frame Cho, a 23-year-old South Korean-born man, as a mentally disturbed 'loner' whose erratic shooting spree ended in suicide.

Sociologists say isolation from his peers, easy access to guns and Hollywood images of gun-toting machismo were all key factors in Cho's transformation into a gruesome killer.

He wrote twisted, morbid plays in English class, set fire to a dormitory room and stalked college women, according to cobbled together accounts of his life from the few people who interacted with him at Virginia Tech University.

But the real shaping factors in the crime require a broader perspective on US culture, according to Joseph Gasper, a professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University.

"I would urge people to avoid attributing the crime in Virginia to the mental illness of an individual and focus on the myriad of social factors that would play a role in this sort of violent crime," Mr Gasper said.

He pointed to factors such as social marginalisation, violence in the media, masculinity issues and easy access to guns as among the key factors that need to be examined.

"It's very clear that in a lot of American movies and TV there is a link between manhood and violence, telling young men who are having social problems that, 'Hey, take a gun and kill people,' (and they) can be very empowered," Mr Gasper said.

He said those messages take root in fragile minds but also find their way into culture and society.



Clearly, you choose to ignore the pattern. Every time there is a disaster like this there is also a chance for change. Yet, the problems associated with the American gun culture get swept under the carpet, until the next time.

I dont think anyone is American bashing for the sake of it. No, the question everyone is asking is when is America going to show some leadership, and do something to reduce gun violence, both at home and overseas? Other countries have, why not America?

While you might live in the USA, that doesnt necessarily mean you know the state of things here much better than (you) we do actually. Because its pretty obvious that America has a blind spot when it come to guns. I agree with Professor Joseph Gasper (professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University) and suggest that America has an unhealthy obsession with guns.

You suggest that people who kill would do so with or without a gun. Well the experience in other countries, suggests that conclusion is incorrect. Many countries have done something to reduce gun related crimes. Australians handed in their gun in hope of preventing another Port Arthur massacre. And, it should also be noted that gun laws in Australia are also under State control. But each State backed the Federal Gov initiative. There was cooperation because people wanted to change; they wanted to do something to reduce violence in the community.

Anyhow, Im not suggesting stricter gun laws. Im suggesting a change to this attitude that glorifies guns, and solving problems with violence. The right to bear arms might be protected by the Constitution of the U.S. But that doesnt mean everyone has to bear arms. Which is what you seem to be stating when you say That legal guns are not the biggest issue and that we want to keep the right to bear arms because we like our constitution.

As pounce said the key is better education on humanity. And, clearly that starts by de glorifying guns, in an effort to make the world a better place to live.

As far a not understanding American gun culture goes. I posted this link on A look inside America's gun culture, early in the piece.

So, the balls still in your court America.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted: Written by:

I went into a WalMart (or KMart?) and there was what looked like the guns SWAT teams use for sale. I think it was in Nevada.



Well, that is just quite amusing. You assume far too much over something you apparently know little about.

 Written by:

Lurch, ever been to India? Tell you that much: It's peaceful. Dunno how much travelling outside the US you have done on your side, but as I said before: the world OUTSIDE the US is not halfway as violent and also not as Anti-American, as the US media is trying to put it.



Nope, never been to India. The US isn't nearly as violent as the media puts it out to be either. You pick any country and I bet I can find quite a number of violent incidents there, probably far more violent than VT.

 Written by:

And you can go ahead to focus on details like semi vs. automatic.

Those "details" are important, using incorrect terminology on your (the collective you) part does nothing but show ignorance. You are using terms incorrectly pulled from movies and tv and have no specific knowledge of the topic other than seeing "SWAT team guns in wal-mart." By using the wrong terms many people have said things that are just plain factually wrong. While it may not degrade the concept very much, it certainly makes you look a fool.

 Written by:

Clearly, you choose to ignore the pattern. Every time there is a disaster like this there is also a chance for change. Yet, the problems associated with the American gun culture get swept under the carpet, until the next time.



Wait, are you saying that Hollywood and the media cause violence? Or that guns in general cause violence?

What attitude glorifies guns Stone? Please do tell because for the most part, you guys are the ones making the big deal over guns. We are saying there are other issues that cause it.

As for this being in the US. 17 killed in a German school in 2002, 8 shot by a psychiatric patient in France. 14 killed with a hand grenade and gun in Switzerland (I can't think of any killings involving a hand grenade in the states). 7 killed in a bank robbery in Hungary.

Europe puts out over $3 Billion in gun sales annually. If you want to cut down on the number of guns why not start there and leave our country alone?

NO ONE is yet to answer why I should not be allowed to own a gun. Do you even have an answer for that? What makes me so dangerous? Why do *you* want *me* to give up my gun? I've never hurt anyone with it, I've never threatened anyone with it, I don't perpetuate nor condone violence. Do my guns make me evil? Does my shotgun change from a hunting/sport gun to a murdering baby killing boom stick simply because it's got a black stock on it? How do legal guns, in the hands of good people, do anything to hurt anyone? I can give you plenty of examples of legally owned guns in the hands of good people helping/saving people.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

pineapple pete
SILVER Member since Sep 2004

pineapple pete

water based
Location: melbourne

Total posts: 5125
Posted: Written by: Lurch


 Written by: stone

Clearly, you choose to ignore the pattern. Every time there is a disaster like this there is also a chance for change. Yet, the problems associated with the American gun culture get swept under the carpet, until the next time.



Wait, are you saying that Hollywood and the media cause violence? Or that guns in general cause violence?



please, do tell me where stone mentiond "hollywood" or "the media" in the excerpt you quoted rolleyes



 Written by: Lurch


As for this being in the US. 17 killed in a German school in 2002, 8 shot by a psychiatric patient in France. 14 killed with a hand grenade and gun in Switzerland (I can't think of any killings involving a hand grenade in the states). 7 killed in a bank robbery in Hungary.



well, if we're going to bring statistics into it, school shooting or otherwise (judging by your examples) i may mention that the US ranks 8th highest in the world when it comes to murders with firearms per capita and only *one* european country manages to place higher... as you can see

hug


"you know there are no trophys for doing silly things in real life yeah pete?" said ant "you wont get a 'listened to ride of the valkyries all the way to vietnam' trophy"

*proud owner of the very cute fire_spinning_angel, birgit and neon shaolin*

Delete

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted:Lurch, you've overlooked many major points while focusing in on minor details and calling people fools for not being able to positively id a rifle from memory etc etc...shall I point out that no-one in this thread has labeled a pro-gunner an idiot or a fool, however it might be appropriate when people use 'evidence' based on fantasy (cho could have hijacked a plane or used Anthrax) and cant even seem to follow an argument based on logic and evidence or even a bit of historical support.



Pineapple Pete's table is telling - why is it that the US has approx 10 times the gun deaths of Oz (0.027 per 1000 vs 0.0029), and 30 times the gun deaths of UK per capita?



What is so different about the US that the evidence thats been presented over and over based on experiences in the rest of the world is invalid?



Guns and gun culture aren't the problem as you so emphatically state. But there is certainly a problem. What is it if it isn't the Guns? You have social problems sure - but so does everywhere else.



Lurch - I believe you shouldn't be able to keep your guns without massively stricter rules than exist anywhere in the states, its not because you personally might be safe with them, just that for a nation trying to keep people safe it might be very difficult to know if you are a psycho or not, and therefore it's better to take em away than to take the chance. Just by living in the US you are statistically more likely to kill someone with a gun.


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Woo stats that are seven years old, those are helpful. No one is saying that the US can't be violent. Just as any country is. But correlation does not imply causation. Just because guns were involved with the crime does not mean that they were needed, nor their presence caused the crime to happen. We've all endorsed better education. We all know crime is a problem, that is not the question being asked here. We have all agreed on the same things, unstable people should not have access to firearms, but yet again no one wants to answer the question as to why STABLE law abiding citizens should be prohibited from having them if they choose to?

#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3289
Posted:eh - I reckon no-one should have access to a Tek-9 (yeah I looked up Wikipedia on the columbine massacre) apart from perhaps SWAT or military - but I guess being able to get guns like that is what your forefathers were thinking of when they wrote that 'freedom' into the constitution?

What purpose do handguns have apart from killling or potentially killing people? sport? fine. leave em at the firing range then - thats what we do in Australia - its a hell of a lot more secure than people taking em home and leaving them in the car when they pick up the groceries...

as for hunting - if you cant hit your target with the first shot and need a semi-auto you better go practise some more target shooting. Its not like youre really gonna die of hunger if you miss that particular trophy?

Yes amazingly I'm not as ignorant to these things as you might think - I've grown up in a rural area with a legal bolt action .22 in the house.

Im not sure how you measure 'Stability' anyway - how about someone with diagnosed schizophrenia but a long history of effective medication? how about someone who had a violent background as a minor, but no convictions as an adult? how about people convicted of posession of drugs? are they dangerous - although you could regulate the crap outa the guns, make em hard to get, and most people probly wouldnt bother, thus reducing the number of guns being lost, stolen or used in the heat of the moment...


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

pineapple pete
SILVER Member since Sep 2004

pineapple pete

water based
Location: melbourne

Total posts: 5125
Posted:mmm, thankyou lurch, i highly appreciate your most mature sarcasm smile

despite my afforementioned facts being a few years old, here and here seems to suggest that 'handgun' and 'other gun' related homocides have remained quite steady since then. but, let me know if there has been a steep drop in the past 2 and a bit years smile

hug


"you know there are no trophys for doing silly things in real life yeah pete?" said ant "you wont get a 'listened to ride of the valkyries all the way to vietnam' trophy"

*proud owner of the very cute fire_spinning_angel, birgit and neon shaolin*

Delete

biggins
SILVER Member since Sep 2002

biggins

member
Location: In Bed

Total posts: 165
Posted: Written by: Lurch

Why is Charlton Heston a moron again? Because he fights for what he believes in?



Yep, you got me there. I have never met him therefore i cannot fairly judge whether he is a moron. If i am honest to a certain extent i admire some of the things he has done in his life, support for civil rights and standing against racial segregation are plus points on his part. He is obviously a man that is prepared to fight for his beliefs. This is a good thing.

However as a minus point to me is his involvement with the NRA. This is a big bitter pill to swallow. The NRA has meddled in the democratic process in the US (they obviously have a lot of money and a lot of sway over sections of society and NRA approval appreas to be a big thing in electionering over there). Furthermore, and this comes back to heston, whilst he was president of the NRA they scuppered a few bits of legislation aimed at the sales of assault weopons within the united states. Please can you explain why it is necessary for member of the populace to be able to buy assault rifles?

But no your right, Name calling on the internet is one of the first signs of a poor argument stance so i take back my comment and admit that i cannot say he is a moron BUT i can say that i strongly disagree with his beliefs, his goals and the organisations that he stands behind. Sometimes i get a bit giddy and carried away.

 Written by:

You're right, it IS sad when someone needs or wants to carry a gun because of their career.



yup it is.its a travesty and it makes me question and wonder about the values and beliefs of the society/circles that they move in. what happened there then?

(btw: That person gets my utmost respect for carrying on as it only people who believe that they can make a difference and change the world that will change the world *doffs cap*)

 Written by:

That is because there are violent people around. If they want, or need, a gun for self defense, what possible right, or logic, do you have to tell them NO to that?



Yes, to a degree, I agree, there are violent people around and i would not say to someone NO you cannot have a gun to defend youself. As a few people have said. If they were in the states they would want a gun for protection and self defence.thats fair enough. Myself, well i'm not sure i would want a gun in m world. BUT i dont live in the states and I havent lived in a society where i feel that threatened.Frankly, i wouldnt want to.

But now we are getting to it. The bit i've kind of been trying to work towards for a while. As someone said earlier (i think), guns are a symptom, so what is the illness? What are the root causes that drive these people to become armed and violent? What has driven them to be in this position and hence drive others to feel the need have guns in order to defend themselves. Is it films, music the media? Is it poverty, desperation what is it? Why? Please explain. And if things are so bad and people are so desperate that they need to have guns why is nothing being done about their situation.

In the meantime I can see why you feel that you need to have guns BUT like i said it makes me wonder at how its got that fuck3d up, why nothing is beng done about it and I wonder why is it necessary for some people (like blokey in the picture) to have 75 guns. That not self defence.

 Written by:

By 'this' did you mean using a weapon in self defense? or school killings?



hmm...by this i think i mean the killings in the school that just happened. The tragic deaths of 30+ people, who were failed by societies system, by someone who was obvioulsy ill and who was also failed by the system. And i truly believe that it will change nothing in the future. There will be enquiries, but in the end nothing will change and it will happen again. Sad innit. Violence breed violence. Catch 22 blahblahblah

 Written by:

Someone threw out an Orwell quotation, and while I don't usually post historical quotes I think it might be something that could be useful to both discuss, and help people understand.



yep that was me too. This was me going into tangent mode. I was just trying to say that the media serves the purpose of its backers and in times of trouble it often serves the purpse of the government. In this instance I stated that war is peace. It doesnt matter if its the war in the middle east of the (unspoken) war on society and freedom. I used the statement to try and refer to how the governement and the media and the powers that be using it to put the fearof god/death/murder [insert crime here] into the populace. Keep the populace at home and wher they can be programmed. Its dangerous outside, theres crazy people with guns that will shoot you dead for spilling their pint...danger danger etc etc.... In my opinion this further erodes the populaces perceievd freedoms. They see society (or sections of society) and look to the governement for support, cue legislation (read, erosion of civil liberties (haha this erosion of civil liberties will come back and bite me later in the thread.)) and people will also go out buy more guns. Your back to the catch22.

Oh and the shootings nicely diverted up the hundreds dead in Iraq the same day. Good for the governments of the UK and the US that people were looking elsewhere when those car bombs went up.

 Written by: Lurch

 Written by: ]"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense."

Winston Spencer Churchill[/quote



 Written by:

So far, noone has given me a good reason why *I* should not be allowed to own a gun.



 Written by: ]"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

- Mahatma Gandhi[/quote



 Written by: ]"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

-Edmund Burke [/quote



 Written by: ]"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."

-Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878 [/quote



 Written by: ]"...to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..."-George Mason[/quote




 Written by: ]"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state." -Heinrich Himmler. [/quote









maybe i'm reading these wrong but to me all these quotes seem to be saying that in order for a populace to be empowered they have to be armed. This i do not agree with. Empowerment of a peoples can come from many other places and historically great change has been brought about in many different countries through strong leadership and a willingness to change.




gaaahh.....i've been sucked in.....waaaa.......a whole hour writing this reply!!!! *shakes fist*


Wielding a Wooden Spoon

Delete

biggins
SILVER Member since Sep 2002

biggins

member
Location: In Bed

Total posts: 165
Posted:btw: good thread everyone. Good to see its not degenerating to much

best post recently goes to stone who put in to words what i have been thinking in a far better and more succinct way. good work!!!


Wielding a Wooden Spoon

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Cheers biggins. Im afraid the following degenerates a bit wink But yes, great comments everyone.



Lurch you said,  Written by:

Wait, are you saying that Hollywood and the media cause violence? Or that guns in general cause violence? What attitude glorifies guns Stone?





Im saying guns are a symptom of a larger problem. Try reading the above link to article called A look inside America's gun culture. Ive posted it twice. For sure, there is a bit of Rambo America behind all this violence. Have a read about the American Gun Culture, and you will see where Im coming from. Anyhow, the quotes are by Professor Gasper, an eminent professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University.



Lurch said,  Written by:

NO ONE is yet to answer why I should not be allowed to own a gun.





I never said you dont have the right to own a gun.



I said,  Written by:

Lurch, I agree there are plenty of people who live in places where having a gun is a necessity. Where its a part of their life, and livelihood. I grew up on a farm, and as a kid I went up the bush and hunted. I also kept a single barrel shot gun under my bed for many years before I gave it up.





The challenge and opportunity is to stop living in the past. Create a new future, a future without guns and associated violence. After all, its 2007 not Virginia 1607, and the role of guns in society has change. Do you really need a gun?



Lurch said,  Written by:

What makes me so dangerous?





What I say was,  Written by:

Lurch, why are Americans so paranoid? Paranoia being an excessive anxiety or fear concerning one's own well-being which is considered irrational and excessive, perhaps to the point of being a psychosis.





So to answer your question, guns and paranoia dont mix. As far as I can see this whole issue is about this American paranoia; where everyone thinks they have to have a gun to defend themselves, and so on.



Where this problem really gets out of hand is on the world stage. The most recent example of paranoia being the American led invasion of Iraq. Why? Because it was thought Iraq might have weapons of mass destruction. President Bush deceived the whole world on this by saying he had evidence of WMD.



As stated previously, the key is better education on humanity. Here is suggestion try learning how to communicate with each other, and the rest of the world, without having to have a gun to back you up. As said previously, From my perspective, I say a lesson many Americans would benefit from is learning why its time for them to hang up their guns.



However, to answer your question, you dont need a gun. Its a myth, this I need to gun to protect my family because the reality is that the guns for protection are frequently used against family members. Ask the cops.



Its not anyone is asking you to give up your manhood.



Real men dont need guns



Guns are for wimps





wink

EDITED_BY: Stone (1177323950)


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Page: 1...45678...11