Your Privacy Settings
Our website uses cookies to personalise content, keep contents in your shopping cart and as part of the checkout experience.- Your personal information you provide will be transfered and stored as encrypted data.
- You have the ability to update and remove your personal information.
Allow cookies for
- New! We now accept ACH Payments, View Payment Options
Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"
Login/Join to ParticipatePosted:
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them stand your ground laws.
Opponents call them shoot first laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side, Mr. LaPierre said. Good people make good decisions. Thats why theyre good people. If youre going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. He had a radio, Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.
Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to retreat to the wall before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force, Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder, Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
I was in T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allens door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
I was no threat, Mr. Rosenbloom said. I had no weapon.
The men exchanged heated words. He closed the door and then opened the door, Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didnt even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
I have a right, Mr. Allen said, to keep my house safe.
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorados Make My Day Law. Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving, the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hills home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller. She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jurys decision. She also said, At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.
Trust me, wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them stand your ground laws.
Opponents call them shoot first laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side, Mr. LaPierre said. Good people make good decisions. Thats why theyre good people. If youre going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. He had a radio, Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.
Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to retreat to the wall before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force, Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder, Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
I was in T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allens door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
I was no threat, Mr. Rosenbloom said. I had no weapon.
The men exchanged heated words. He closed the door and then opened the door, Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didnt even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
I have a right, Mr. Allen said, to keep my house safe.
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorados Make My Day Law. Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving, the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hills home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller. She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jurys decision. She also said, At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.
Trust me, wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Ok let me look at my notes.
Purse situation: Restraining orders are rather ridiculous. It works because when, not if, it is violated, the offender goes to jail or pays a fine. Sometimes, they are used as leverage in custody cases. Yes, the conflict was about a purse, but it did not stop anyone from beating the sleeping man with brass knuckles. It did not stop weapons from being brought in to the conflict.
Carrying guns with responsible people is about being prepared. You acknowledge a dangerous situation and decide to protect yourself. It isn't really a fear of the criminal but a fear of losing one's life.
The world isn't all fluffy. Yes some people have goodwill but others don't
http://www.channel3000.com/news/13457536/detail.html
I don't know if the link still works but it's 8-12 years olds who beat a cabby with a baseball bat. You never know who is going to threaten your life.
For the record, my opinion is based on personal experience and local news. I think people base their opinions similarily. You could question it's validity, or acknowledge it's validity because it has already had real world application.
Pics, the court would say are prejudicial which is legalese for inflammatory. IMO. Can we get a source on them or not?
It seems we cannot make the world happy not matter what we do. We were being yelled at to pull out of Iraq, but told at the same time to go into Sudan. Why is one genocide worthier than another?
We don't retaliate the same way we are attacked. We didn't attack unannounced. We don't suicide bomb places to cause terror. From ROTC, there is a lot of planning that is involved in attacks. They look at how to minimize all casualties. We also do good in the country by rebuilding what has been destroyed. Give them clean water and school supplies. Help with irrigation. Don't put us on the same level as the people who attacked us.
Purse situation: Restraining orders are rather ridiculous. It works because when, not if, it is violated, the offender goes to jail or pays a fine. Sometimes, they are used as leverage in custody cases. Yes, the conflict was about a purse, but it did not stop anyone from beating the sleeping man with brass knuckles. It did not stop weapons from being brought in to the conflict.
Carrying guns with responsible people is about being prepared. You acknowledge a dangerous situation and decide to protect yourself. It isn't really a fear of the criminal but a fear of losing one's life.
The world isn't all fluffy. Yes some people have goodwill but others don't
http://www.channel3000.com/news/13457536/detail.html
I don't know if the link still works but it's 8-12 years olds who beat a cabby with a baseball bat. You never know who is going to threaten your life.
For the record, my opinion is based on personal experience and local news. I think people base their opinions similarily. You could question it's validity, or acknowledge it's validity because it has already had real world application.
Pics, the court would say are prejudicial which is legalese for inflammatory. IMO. Can we get a source on them or not?
It seems we cannot make the world happy not matter what we do. We were being yelled at to pull out of Iraq, but told at the same time to go into Sudan. Why is one genocide worthier than another?
We don't retaliate the same way we are attacked. We didn't attack unannounced. We don't suicide bomb places to cause terror. From ROTC, there is a lot of planning that is involved in attacks. They look at how to minimize all casualties. We also do good in the country by rebuilding what has been destroyed. Give them clean water and school supplies. Help with irrigation. Don't put us on the same level as the people who attacked us.
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:Faith, excuse but you're retarding into trolling again. Apart from your rather strange approach to "apology" I HAVE quoted my sources for the pictures and HAVE proved a connection between the US and children soldiers (in Sudan). Please may you be so kind to check the second post on this page and the seventeenth post on the previous page?
Please do note that the ppl have already left Hill's home after they attacked him and it was then that Hill armed and shot at them. There was no immediate threat to his life anymore. It was no self defence. He killed a man without immediate threat to his life, which at least should be charged as manslaughter, if not murder. Which - if followed through - is exactly supporting our argument: guns in civilian hands are (generally) making matters worse.
Thanks for your apology, Lurch - but Einstein didn't write that letter, but Dr. Leo Szilard is charged with it. He might have urged Einstein for his signature. Nevertheless, Einstein took full responsibility for its consequences, calling it "the greatest mistake" of his life.
Even if that was not so: Are we not entitled to selective quoting, as you are on Macchiavelli and Ghandi?
[edit: OMG please stop it Lurch... don't bring domestic violence in here, it'll backfire]
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1182204488)
Please do note that the ppl have already left Hill's home after they attacked him and it was then that Hill armed and shot at them. There was no immediate threat to his life anymore. It was no self defence. He killed a man without immediate threat to his life, which at least should be charged as manslaughter, if not murder. Which - if followed through - is exactly supporting our argument: guns in civilian hands are (generally) making matters worse.
Thanks for your apology, Lurch - but Einstein didn't write that letter, but Dr. Leo Szilard is charged with it. He might have urged Einstein for his signature. Nevertheless, Einstein took full responsibility for its consequences, calling it "the greatest mistake" of his life.
Even if that was not so: Are we not entitled to selective quoting, as you are on Macchiavelli and Ghandi?
[edit: OMG please stop it Lurch... don't bring domestic violence in here, it'll backfire]
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1182204488)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:Tom, I never said that you said that America was responsible for every conflict on the planet. I said that America was a player in what amounts to a global issue and questioned the role that America's domestic gun sales and domestic policies had on these conflicts.
Yes, we do all have that side, that's what I was on about when I mentioned the id, it's just that I'm not on with the assessment that all people who own guns for self defense are motivated by that dark, violent aspect of their character.
When I hear martial arts guys discussing their arts, quite often the topic shifts to just which art, or technique is better "on the street". It's a conversation we've all overheard or participated in several times over the course of our lives, and if martial arts guys are being given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their violent mindsets, why is there so much resistance to cutting the same slack to legal gun owners ?
Pyrolific...I tried that "be the change that you want to see" tack over on the flying and hippies thread and didn't get much mileage out of it. Thing is, here, we're discussing whether any change needs to be made at all.
Yes, we do all have that side, that's what I was on about when I mentioned the id, it's just that I'm not on with the assessment that all people who own guns for self defense are motivated by that dark, violent aspect of their character.
When I hear martial arts guys discussing their arts, quite often the topic shifts to just which art, or technique is better "on the street". It's a conversation we've all overheard or participated in several times over the course of our lives, and if martial arts guys are being given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their violent mindsets, why is there so much resistance to cutting the same slack to legal gun owners ?
Pyrolific...I tried that "be the change that you want to see" tack over on the flying and hippies thread and didn't get much mileage out of it. Thing is, here, we're discussing whether any change needs to be made at all.
Delete
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Sorry, I didn't see the links. cool thanks
I agreed that it should be manslaughter, but I will not agree that restraining orders and harrassment injunctions would have protected him. They help convict a person after they have broken the order, that's it. And as the forman said, we and the media do not have all the evidence. Maybe the yelling involved them saying they were going to come back and kill him. It is still feasible that he was afraid for his life, that he feared that they would come back with more than brass knuckles. Personally, I think he should have fired into the air as a warning, not at the people.
I still don't see the connection between the US and the militias in Sudan enlisting and recruiting children. They did that before our NGOs got there. The article also claimed that our government started the genocide claim? Did I read that right? Here's the thing, the NGOs there have seen it's a genocide. As part of my mediation classes we got to talk to UN and NGO mediators, we heard them and saw pictures. It's a genocide.
Is the author seriously regressing to "Blood for Oil"?
Change is needed. But I am of the camp that believes we need to enforce laws on the book and see then what gaps there are. Cho should never have had a gun. The failing was not the gun laws necessarily, but the fact that the mental health people never followed up with him. They did not make sure he got the treatment he was ordered to. What is the problem: the fact that they do not have the budget to keep up with the demand of services. This shows that we need to address the problem, not the result.
Tom, stop name calling. It's ridiculous
I agreed that it should be manslaughter, but I will not agree that restraining orders and harrassment injunctions would have protected him. They help convict a person after they have broken the order, that's it. And as the forman said, we and the media do not have all the evidence. Maybe the yelling involved them saying they were going to come back and kill him. It is still feasible that he was afraid for his life, that he feared that they would come back with more than brass knuckles. Personally, I think he should have fired into the air as a warning, not at the people.
I still don't see the connection between the US and the militias in Sudan enlisting and recruiting children. They did that before our NGOs got there. The article also claimed that our government started the genocide claim? Did I read that right? Here's the thing, the NGOs there have seen it's a genocide. As part of my mediation classes we got to talk to UN and NGO mediators, we heard them and saw pictures. It's a genocide.
Is the author seriously regressing to "Blood for Oil"?
Change is needed. But I am of the camp that believes we need to enforce laws on the book and see then what gaps there are. Cho should never have had a gun. The failing was not the gun laws necessarily, but the fact that the mental health people never followed up with him. They did not make sure he got the treatment he was ordered to. What is the problem: the fact that they do not have the budget to keep up with the demand of services. This shows that we need to address the problem, not the result.
Tom, stop name calling. It's ridiculous
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:
however...
Do we now agree that (according to the informations accessible to the public) Hill actions have been at least manslaughter? No matter what the people yelled at him, he - at the time he shot - was not attacked and the people were not in his home (anymore).
I need to ask this because of the same reasons that OWD asked. I can't take anyone serious in this dispute, if fundamental ethics are not met.
How do domestic/ national issues play a role internationally and vice versa?
If the US is found responsible for putting guns into the hands of ppl who recruit children soldiers, their international credibility diminishes.
If US soldiers go into a conflict and behave the way some of them have, commit atrocities in a "we are above the law" attitude (which apparently they are in regards of the international court of Den Haag) their credibility diminishes even further.
The US' approach to bring democracy to other countries of the world is honourable, but many ppl think: wtf! Look at their own country, death penalty and reckless shootings of innocent children and students, forged elections or at least a faulty electoral system, no dignity but hypocrisy. What are they trying to teach us?
Like some scumbag breaking into your house, raping your children, forcing your wife to strip naked and then beating you up to clean the house basement to roof, including the closet, whilst eating all in your fridge, singing offensive songs and proclaiming this to be the one and only "true" way.
You say that there are not enough funds to enforce the national gun laws, at the same time you have enough funds to support militias overseas (like the one in Sudan).
Yes, I side the approach that existing laws need to be enforced, but this can only be the first step of that long road.
Excuse me, but the way it is now IMHO the US is not Y2K compatible. I think it's a great country, I travelled and lived there. I even wanted to migrate with my ex wife (she was born in the US)... I am just deeply disappointed by what is coming out of there and what "values" the US stands for at this time.
Please forgive me.
however...Do we now agree that (according to the informations accessible to the public) Hill actions have been at least manslaughter? No matter what the people yelled at him, he - at the time he shot - was not attacked and the people were not in his home (anymore).
I need to ask this because of the same reasons that OWD asked. I can't take anyone serious in this dispute, if fundamental ethics are not met.
How do domestic/ national issues play a role internationally and vice versa?
If the US is found responsible for putting guns into the hands of ppl who recruit children soldiers, their international credibility diminishes.
If US soldiers go into a conflict and behave the way some of them have, commit atrocities in a "we are above the law" attitude (which apparently they are in regards of the international court of Den Haag) their credibility diminishes even further.
The US' approach to bring democracy to other countries of the world is honourable, but many ppl think: wtf! Look at their own country, death penalty and reckless shootings of innocent children and students, forged elections or at least a faulty electoral system, no dignity but hypocrisy. What are they trying to teach us?
Like some scumbag breaking into your house, raping your children, forcing your wife to strip naked and then beating you up to clean the house basement to roof, including the closet, whilst eating all in your fridge, singing offensive songs and proclaiming this to be the one and only "true" way.
You say that there are not enough funds to enforce the national gun laws, at the same time you have enough funds to support militias overseas (like the one in Sudan).
Yes, I side the approach that existing laws need to be enforced, but this can only be the first step of that long road.
Excuse me, but the way it is now IMHO the US is not Y2K compatible. I think it's a great country, I travelled and lived there. I even wanted to migrate with my ex wife (she was born in the US)... I am just deeply disappointed by what is coming out of there and what "values" the US stands for at this time.
Please forgive me.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:With the information we have, yes. But we do not have all the evidence, so that makes a difference.
Considering how large our military is, what small part are you judging the whole on?
What are you refering to when you say some scumbag breaking into your house...I'm confused. I don't get the simile.
Where are you getting your standard of US values? Is it the media? Is it the news stories? I'm trying to understand. Do you think that the discussion here has been evidence of some deficiency.
(Did anyone else read the article? What did they think? What were the author's qualifications? I felt a huge bias in the writing, but I am a USer. So maybe if someone else read it)
edit: looking over the US and child soldier links
I had a chance to go over some of the articles. Thanks
U.S. Campaign to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers
The campaign encompasses more that 60 national and local organization, including human rights, humanitarian, peace and security, religious, veterans, student, youth, labor, professional and children's groups. The U.S. Campaign is affiliated with the international Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, which encompasses national campaigns or networks in over 40 countries around the world.
The title of the link is sort of misleading. It makes it sound as if we are arming six year olds. But why do the bother with the link?
It says: Keep our children from fighting in war. This site is dedicated to soldiers in the war. We need to keep the soldiers from being killed in an awefull war. War is not a place to put our kids. Next time you come to the place where war is happening, you will realize that all the wars in the world should not be fought by soldiers who are just kids.
Where is the campaign? all the wars in the world should not be fought by soldiers who are just kids. There are plenty of soldiers who are not kids. It simply sounds inflammatory and rhetoric. Also is it about stopping their adult children from fighting or little kids?
If you poke around the website, you can find something that talks about how the US provides military assistance. What it doesnt talk about it what that entails. It could mean money, or it could be convoy protection for the aid coming through.
While I found the articles tragic, I found them not really convincing of our domestic problems tying into foreign. I also found them full of rhetoric. While some had sources, I would have like to have seen more facts, graphs. Information of what sort of assistance is involved. What percentage is arms? What percentage is aid related?
In Sudan, according to an NGO from the UN, when aid supplies arrived, the warlord militias would take it all. The military support was there to make sure it ended up with the people who needed it.
If this is the information people are basing their opinions on, no wonder people think the US if full of bloodthirsty, thoughtless people who simply want to kill.
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1182280575)
Considering how large our military is, what small part are you judging the whole on?
What are you refering to when you say some scumbag breaking into your house...I'm confused. I don't get the simile.
Where are you getting your standard of US values? Is it the media? Is it the news stories? I'm trying to understand. Do you think that the discussion here has been evidence of some deficiency.
(Did anyone else read the article? What did they think? What were the author's qualifications? I felt a huge bias in the writing, but I am a USer. So maybe if someone else read it)
edit: looking over the US and child soldier links
I had a chance to go over some of the articles. Thanks
U.S. Campaign to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers
The campaign encompasses more that 60 national and local organization, including human rights, humanitarian, peace and security, religious, veterans, student, youth, labor, professional and children's groups. The U.S. Campaign is affiliated with the international Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, which encompasses national campaigns or networks in over 40 countries around the world.
The title of the link is sort of misleading. It makes it sound as if we are arming six year olds. But why do the bother with the link?
It says: Keep our children from fighting in war. This site is dedicated to soldiers in the war. We need to keep the soldiers from being killed in an awefull war. War is not a place to put our kids. Next time you come to the place where war is happening, you will realize that all the wars in the world should not be fought by soldiers who are just kids.
Where is the campaign? all the wars in the world should not be fought by soldiers who are just kids. There are plenty of soldiers who are not kids. It simply sounds inflammatory and rhetoric. Also is it about stopping their adult children from fighting or little kids?
If you poke around the website, you can find something that talks about how the US provides military assistance. What it doesnt talk about it what that entails. It could mean money, or it could be convoy protection for the aid coming through.
While I found the articles tragic, I found them not really convincing of our domestic problems tying into foreign. I also found them full of rhetoric. While some had sources, I would have like to have seen more facts, graphs. Information of what sort of assistance is involved. What percentage is arms? What percentage is aid related?
In Sudan, according to an NGO from the UN, when aid supplies arrived, the warlord militias would take it all. The military support was there to make sure it ended up with the people who needed it.
If this is the information people are basing their opinions on, no wonder people think the US if full of bloodthirsty, thoughtless people who simply want to kill.
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1182280575)
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:Yes Fire Tom, its difficult to convince anyone that guns in civilian hands only make matters worse. You only have to read the mouse gun stories to see the problems they cause. Or look at the anarchy that followed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Americas major threat is not from the outside, but from the armed populace within.
Stout, I wouldnt call the id the dark force here. Its not that people who own guns for self defense are motivated by that dark, violent aspect of their character. No, its just that they dont have any control over their primitive responses. Most cant even see what is driving them to own guns. Ditto for the martial artists. Einstein put is well They have been given a large brain by mistake, since for them the spinal cord would surely suffice. Hence, the connection to mindfulness meditation and Buddhism.
Fire Tom, great link to Mahayana Buddhism.
pounce, hope you are feeling better.
Written by:
Every time America has tried to "higher road," our enemies have exploited that and moved in for the kill.
Perhaps you mean, every time America has tried the high handed approach they have got their fingers burnt. America stayed out of WWII for a long time due to economic reasons, the major one being the cost of WWI. Roosevelt supported Churchill. Im not sure what happened leading up to Pearl Harbour, but for sure you saved Australia in the end. Thats why we support America in places like Vietnam and Iraq.
As far as your external enemies go, they are often not your enemies. Ho Chi Minh, was pro American, until he (like other leaders) got fed up with what he termed American arrogance. I agree with Pyro on the cause of the Twin Towers and Pentagon bombings.
Stout, Im not sure of anything in VT scenario, because its a hypothetical. But yes, after reading where people suggested the incident wouldnt have happened if everyone had a gun. Then, I did envision a scenario where everyone with a gun, draws their gun, and shoots everyone else with a gun, until no one was standing. Probably got the idea from a movie.
Lurch, seat belts save peoples lives, guns take peoples lives.
Lurch, your scenario of being willing to lay down your life for a child is noble, but take out the guns and the fantasy. You could just as easily go down to the Childrens Hospital and donate your kidneys if you wanted too. Not that Im suggesting you do that. No, I'm suggesting you see your highly emotive scenarios for what they are, fantasy.
Sure Lurch shout WHAT? Stop blaming the criminals? Its not someone else's fault. Guns wont make it go away. Im sure you are a respectable person, Ive never thought different. I pay my taxes, too. But thats different than taking responsibility.
Like in the link faith posted about the taxi driver mugging.
Written by:
Police said that the incident is a perfect example of children in crisis, and said they hope the children get the help from the community that they so desperately need.
faith, good point:
Written by:
Carrying guns with responsible people is about being prepared. You acknowledge a dangerous situation and decide to protect yourself. It isn't really a fear of the criminal but a fear of losing one's life.
As far as the difference between involvement in Iraq compared to the Sudan. The UN never sanctioned the US led invasion of Iraq. Many people thought it was a bad idea at the time. Thats where the criticism is coming from.
Yes we get a lot of taxi driver beatings too. Im not saying its a perfect world. Im saying a non violent attitude will lead to a non violent world. Unfortunately, we always keep choosing the path of violence.
I like that one Stout "be the change that you want to see."
To that end:
Written by:
Hatred does not cease by hatred; by love alone does it cease.
Tolerance must be practised if peace is to come to this earth. Force and compulsion will only create intolerance. To establish peace and harmony among mankind, each and everyone must first learn to practise the ways leading to the extinction of hatred, greed and delusion, the roots of all evil forces. If mankind can eradicate these evil forces, tolerance and peace will come to this restless world (Buddha).
Stout, I wouldnt call the id the dark force here. Its not that people who own guns for self defense are motivated by that dark, violent aspect of their character. No, its just that they dont have any control over their primitive responses. Most cant even see what is driving them to own guns. Ditto for the martial artists. Einstein put is well They have been given a large brain by mistake, since for them the spinal cord would surely suffice. Hence, the connection to mindfulness meditation and Buddhism.
Fire Tom, great link to Mahayana Buddhism.
pounce, hope you are feeling better.
Written by:
Every time America has tried to "higher road," our enemies have exploited that and moved in for the kill.
Perhaps you mean, every time America has tried the high handed approach they have got their fingers burnt. America stayed out of WWII for a long time due to economic reasons, the major one being the cost of WWI. Roosevelt supported Churchill. Im not sure what happened leading up to Pearl Harbour, but for sure you saved Australia in the end. Thats why we support America in places like Vietnam and Iraq.
As far as your external enemies go, they are often not your enemies. Ho Chi Minh, was pro American, until he (like other leaders) got fed up with what he termed American arrogance. I agree with Pyro on the cause of the Twin Towers and Pentagon bombings.
Stout, Im not sure of anything in VT scenario, because its a hypothetical. But yes, after reading where people suggested the incident wouldnt have happened if everyone had a gun. Then, I did envision a scenario where everyone with a gun, draws their gun, and shoots everyone else with a gun, until no one was standing. Probably got the idea from a movie.
Lurch, seat belts save peoples lives, guns take peoples lives.
Lurch, your scenario of being willing to lay down your life for a child is noble, but take out the guns and the fantasy. You could just as easily go down to the Childrens Hospital and donate your kidneys if you wanted too. Not that Im suggesting you do that. No, I'm suggesting you see your highly emotive scenarios for what they are, fantasy.
Sure Lurch shout WHAT? Stop blaming the criminals? Its not someone else's fault. Guns wont make it go away. Im sure you are a respectable person, Ive never thought different. I pay my taxes, too. But thats different than taking responsibility.
Like in the link faith posted about the taxi driver mugging.
Written by:
Police said that the incident is a perfect example of children in crisis, and said they hope the children get the help from the community that they so desperately need.
faith, good point:
Written by:
Carrying guns with responsible people is about being prepared. You acknowledge a dangerous situation and decide to protect yourself. It isn't really a fear of the criminal but a fear of losing one's life.
As far as the difference between involvement in Iraq compared to the Sudan. The UN never sanctioned the US led invasion of Iraq. Many people thought it was a bad idea at the time. Thats where the criticism is coming from.
Yes we get a lot of taxi driver beatings too. Im not saying its a perfect world. Im saying a non violent attitude will lead to a non violent world. Unfortunately, we always keep choosing the path of violence.
I like that one Stout "be the change that you want to see."
To that end:
Written by:
Hatred does not cease by hatred; by love alone does it cease.
Tolerance must be practised if peace is to come to this earth. Force and compulsion will only create intolerance. To establish peace and harmony among mankind, each and everyone must first learn to practise the ways leading to the extinction of hatred, greed and delusion, the roots of all evil forces. If mankind can eradicate these evil forces, tolerance and peace will come to this restless world (Buddha).
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
Posted:Tom, we've tried to tell you this before, in some places what Hill did would have been manslaughter. In his state it was perfectly legal. It is up to the individual state to establish and define their self defense laws, it's not a federal issue. Every state is a little bit different, some have a duty to retreat, the duty to retreat in some ends at your front door, etc etc. This isn't a question or case over federal gun policies, you're making an argument about a local law that doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on this thread.
Written by:
If the US is found responsible for putting guns into the hands of ppl who recruit children soldiers, their international credibility diminishes.
Than shouldn't you be fighting against the taxes we pay that fund these activities, not the domestic guns that will never find their way into these child soldiers hands? You're making a very strange connection here..
Written by:
The US' approach to bring democracy to other countries of the world is honourable, but many ppl think: wtf! Look at their own country, death penalty and reckless shootings of innocent children and students, forged elections or at least a faulty electoral system, no dignity but hypocrisy. What are they trying to teach us?
You forgot to mention our gun policies apparently.. Or like we all have been saying, they're not really that big of a deal. We never said you have to like everything about us. Hell you don't even have to like us. But we are a superpower in this world, so pick your battles, are domestic guns really that big of a deal to you personally?
Written by:
You say that there are not enough funds to enforce the national gun laws, at the same time you have enough funds to support militias overseas (like the one in Sudan).
We have a military presence all over the world Tom, yes. Have you honestly sat down and thought what the consequences would be if America cut all foreign aid and pulled all its troops back stateside? We could easily save billions of dollars if we cut off foreign aid. I'm sure the side effects would be worse for the rest of the world than for us. If we cut aid to countries that were opposed to us in the Iraq war we'd have it paid off in 2 years. We don't need to help fight famine, epidemics, or genocide, guns are much more important right?? We could cut our taxes because we don't have to pay for those stupid things. Hell we could even put all our returning troops on the border and fix that pesky illegal immigration issue.
Written by:
Yes Fire Tom, its difficult to convince anyone that guns in civilian hands only make matters worse. You only have to read the mouse gun stories to see the problems they cause. Or look at the anarchy that followed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Americas major threat is not from the outside, but from the armed populace within.
Stone: Each of those mouse gun stories saved an innocent persons life, how is that a problem? Are you honestly that opposed to taking a life that you would rather see an innocent person killed than have them kill in self defense? I've told you over and over that the 'chaos' during Katrina was blown out of proportion and never really happened, you seem hellbent to assume it did, despite the articles i've posted to the contrary. Do you have any sort of evidence against it? There were probably far less shootings in New Orleans during Katrina than on average.
Written by:
America stayed out of WWII for a long time due to economic reasons, the major one being the cost of WWI. Roosevelt supported Churchill. Im not sure what happened leading up to Pearl Harbour, but for sure you saved Australia in the end. Thats why we support America in places like Vietnam and Iraq.
True, we did stay out for mainly economical reasons, and because the people didn't want another war, they already practically lost an entire generation of males, they didn't want to lose another.
Pearl Harbor happened because Japan knew we were their biggest threat in the Pacific, they saw the majority of our fleet in one spot and saw an amazing opportunity to take it all out at once. Hoping to deliver a knockout blow and put us out of the war all in one move. They didn't get it all though, specifically a carrier or two (the most valuable ships we had) and it pissed us off.. It didn't end well for them.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
-- Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1941
Written by:
Lurch, seat belts save peoples lives, guns take peoples lives.
See, there you go again only seeing the negative. Guns stop violent crime, sometimes by causing death, but still prevent the innocent from being killed.
You've gotten after me before for saying one life is more important than another, but I still say it is. If I had to choose between the life of a violent criminal and the life of an innocent bystander (or myself), you'd better bet the criminal is going to die.
Written by:
Lurch, your scenario of being willing to lay down your life for a child is noble, but take out the guns and the fantasy. You could just as easily go down to the Childrens Hospital and donate your kidneys if you wanted too. Not that Im suggesting you do that. No, I'm suggesting you see your highly emotive scenarios for what they are, fantasy.
I'd do the same if there wasn't a gun involved Stone. A child dieing in need of a kidney is not a result of a failure of society. It's not because the average person is a sheep and lacks the conviction to intervene in violent situations, they simply run the other way. They are highly emotive scenarios, but they are hardly fantasy.
Written by:
The UN never sanctioned the US led invasion of Iraq. Many people thought it was a bad idea at the time. Thats where the criticism is coming from.
Funny that the people who criticized the most (France Germany and Russia) had the most to lose, and were likely opposed to the war not by some higher philosophical reasoning, but purely economic. The French for example had a $100 Billion oil agreement with Saddam that they would lose if Saddam left power. (FireTom: it's in The French Betrayal of America by Kenneth Timmerman if you want to go to a library and look it up)
Written by:
If the US is found responsible for putting guns into the hands of ppl who recruit children soldiers, their international credibility diminishes.
Than shouldn't you be fighting against the taxes we pay that fund these activities, not the domestic guns that will never find their way into these child soldiers hands? You're making a very strange connection here..
Written by:
The US' approach to bring democracy to other countries of the world is honourable, but many ppl think: wtf! Look at their own country, death penalty and reckless shootings of innocent children and students, forged elections or at least a faulty electoral system, no dignity but hypocrisy. What are they trying to teach us?
You forgot to mention our gun policies apparently.. Or like we all have been saying, they're not really that big of a deal. We never said you have to like everything about us. Hell you don't even have to like us. But we are a superpower in this world, so pick your battles, are domestic guns really that big of a deal to you personally?
Written by:
You say that there are not enough funds to enforce the national gun laws, at the same time you have enough funds to support militias overseas (like the one in Sudan).
We have a military presence all over the world Tom, yes. Have you honestly sat down and thought what the consequences would be if America cut all foreign aid and pulled all its troops back stateside? We could easily save billions of dollars if we cut off foreign aid. I'm sure the side effects would be worse for the rest of the world than for us. If we cut aid to countries that were opposed to us in the Iraq war we'd have it paid off in 2 years. We don't need to help fight famine, epidemics, or genocide, guns are much more important right?? We could cut our taxes because we don't have to pay for those stupid things. Hell we could even put all our returning troops on the border and fix that pesky illegal immigration issue.
Written by:
Yes Fire Tom, its difficult to convince anyone that guns in civilian hands only make matters worse. You only have to read the mouse gun stories to see the problems they cause. Or look at the anarchy that followed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Americas major threat is not from the outside, but from the armed populace within.
Stone: Each of those mouse gun stories saved an innocent persons life, how is that a problem? Are you honestly that opposed to taking a life that you would rather see an innocent person killed than have them kill in self defense? I've told you over and over that the 'chaos' during Katrina was blown out of proportion and never really happened, you seem hellbent to assume it did, despite the articles i've posted to the contrary. Do you have any sort of evidence against it? There were probably far less shootings in New Orleans during Katrina than on average.
Written by:
America stayed out of WWII for a long time due to economic reasons, the major one being the cost of WWI. Roosevelt supported Churchill. Im not sure what happened leading up to Pearl Harbour, but for sure you saved Australia in the end. Thats why we support America in places like Vietnam and Iraq.
True, we did stay out for mainly economical reasons, and because the people didn't want another war, they already practically lost an entire generation of males, they didn't want to lose another.
Pearl Harbor happened because Japan knew we were their biggest threat in the Pacific, they saw the majority of our fleet in one spot and saw an amazing opportunity to take it all out at once. Hoping to deliver a knockout blow and put us out of the war all in one move. They didn't get it all though, specifically a carrier or two (the most valuable ships we had) and it pissed us off.. It didn't end well for them.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
-- Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1941
Written by:
Lurch, seat belts save peoples lives, guns take peoples lives.
See, there you go again only seeing the negative. Guns stop violent crime, sometimes by causing death, but still prevent the innocent from being killed.
You've gotten after me before for saying one life is more important than another, but I still say it is. If I had to choose between the life of a violent criminal and the life of an innocent bystander (or myself), you'd better bet the criminal is going to die.
Written by:
Lurch, your scenario of being willing to lay down your life for a child is noble, but take out the guns and the fantasy. You could just as easily go down to the Childrens Hospital and donate your kidneys if you wanted too. Not that Im suggesting you do that. No, I'm suggesting you see your highly emotive scenarios for what they are, fantasy.
I'd do the same if there wasn't a gun involved Stone. A child dieing in need of a kidney is not a result of a failure of society. It's not because the average person is a sheep and lacks the conviction to intervene in violent situations, they simply run the other way. They are highly emotive scenarios, but they are hardly fantasy.
Written by:
The UN never sanctioned the US led invasion of Iraq. Many people thought it was a bad idea at the time. Thats where the criticism is coming from.
Funny that the people who criticized the most (France Germany and Russia) had the most to lose, and were likely opposed to the war not by some higher philosophical reasoning, but purely economic. The French for example had a $100 Billion oil agreement with Saddam that they would lose if Saddam left power. (FireTom: it's in The French Betrayal of America by Kenneth Timmerman if you want to go to a library and look it up)
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored 
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Posted:Yes, I agree, Hill's actions might be considered manslaughter, but I'm guessing there was an unreported component to this story that showed that, had Hill not acted as he did, we'd be reading a story about how this guy was killed in his house over a purse theft.
Hill could have left, but I bet after the brass knuckle beating he was so freaked out and fearful for his life and at the time, shooting seemed like the only way to ensure his survival. Had the assailants just called him up and told him that they were coming over to see him about the purse, and he shot, that would be murder.
It's a fluid, situation specific type of ethics I suppose.
Hill could have left, but I bet after the brass knuckle beating he was so freaked out and fearful for his life and at the time, shooting seemed like the only way to ensure his survival. Had the assailants just called him up and told him that they were coming over to see him about the purse, and he shot, that would be murder.
It's a fluid, situation specific type of ethics I suppose.
Delete
Posted:Lurch, Im not sure about the sheep bit in the following statement. Though, in these situations there are only two responses, they are fight or flight. So, in reality we are all just a sheep. Staying to fight doesnt make you any more or less a sheep than someone running away. However, as alluded to earlier, people with discipline and training can master their brain stem.
Written by:
I'd do the same if there wasn't a gun involved Stone. A child dieing in need of a kidney is not a result of a failure of society. It's not because the average person is a sheep and lacks the conviction to intervene in violent situations, they simply run the other way. They are highly emotive scenarios, but they are hardly fantasy.
Lurch, there is nothing positive about guns. I think that is apparent from reading the mouse gun verse man stopper stories. They are mostly domestic disputes, and no one would have been killed if it was not for the guns. Makes sense.
As far as failure of society goes. Americas major threat is from the armed populace within running around with man stoppers. The writing is on the wall. Katrina happened, and it was a major disaster any way you look at it. From the inability to mount a proper rescue efforts to the riots. Yet, you ignore the implications and tell me it did not happen. You even said There were probably far less shootings in New Orleans during Katrina than on average.
Written by:
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, looting, violence, and other criminal activity became serious problems. With most of the attention of the authorities focused on rescue efforts, the security in New Orleans degraded quickly. By August 30, looting had spread throughout the city, often in broad daylight and in the presence of police officers. "The looting is out of control. The French Quarter has been attacked", City Councilwoman Jackie Clarkson said. "We're using exhausted, scarce police to control looting when they should be used for search and rescue while we still have people on rooftops."
Written by:
On August 31, New Orleans's 1,500-member police force was ordered to abandon search and rescue missions and turn their attention toward controlling the widespread looting. The city also ordered a mandatory curfew. Mayor Nagin called for increased federal assistance in a, "desperate S.O.S.", following the city's inability to control looting and was often misquoted as declaring martial law in the city, despite there being no such term in Louisiana state law (a declaration of a state of emergency was instead made).
Written by:
On the same day, Governor Kathleen Blanco announced the arrival of a military presence, stating that they, "[knew] how to shoot and kill and [expected that] they [would]." Despite the increased law enforcement presence, crime continued to be problematic. Several armed attacks on relief helicopters, bus convoys, and police officers were reported[citation needed], and fires erupted around the city at stores and a chemical storage facility. By September 1, 6,500 National Guard troops had arrived in New Orleans, and on September 2, Blanco requested a total of 40,000 for assistance in evacuation and security efforts in Louisiana. Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans
Written by:
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, multiple reports of confiscations of civilian weapons by law enforcement began coming out of New Orleans. Warrantless weapon searches of evacuees were carried out prior to allowing them into evacuation centers, unconstitutional house-to-house weapon confiscations were reported, and the superintendent of police was quoted as saying "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons" and "We are going to take all of the weapons". Gun Confiscations in New Orleans
Written by:
Compass, the police superintendent, said that after a week of near-anarchy in the city, no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms of any kind.
"Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.
But that order apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their property. The guards, who are civilians working for private security firms like Blackwater, are openly carrying M-16s and other assault rifles.
Compass said that he is aware of the private guards but that the police have no plans to make them give up their weapons.
Nearly two weeks after the floods began, New Orleans has turned into an armed camp, patrolled by thousands of local, state, and federal law enforcement officers, as well as National Guard troops and active-duty soldiers. Although armed looters roamed unchecked last week, the city is now calm. The city's slow recovery is continuing on other fronts as well, local officials said at a late-morning news conference. Police prepare to use force
So what was the NRA response? Predictably:
Written by:
On September 12, 2005 National Rifle Association executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre spoke out against these confiscations. "What weve seen in Louisiana the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves," LaPierre said. The NRA filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana.
Written by:
I'd do the same if there wasn't a gun involved Stone. A child dieing in need of a kidney is not a result of a failure of society. It's not because the average person is a sheep and lacks the conviction to intervene in violent situations, they simply run the other way. They are highly emotive scenarios, but they are hardly fantasy.
Lurch, there is nothing positive about guns. I think that is apparent from reading the mouse gun verse man stopper stories. They are mostly domestic disputes, and no one would have been killed if it was not for the guns. Makes sense.
As far as failure of society goes. Americas major threat is from the armed populace within running around with man stoppers. The writing is on the wall. Katrina happened, and it was a major disaster any way you look at it. From the inability to mount a proper rescue efforts to the riots. Yet, you ignore the implications and tell me it did not happen. You even said There were probably far less shootings in New Orleans during Katrina than on average.
Written by:
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, looting, violence, and other criminal activity became serious problems. With most of the attention of the authorities focused on rescue efforts, the security in New Orleans degraded quickly. By August 30, looting had spread throughout the city, often in broad daylight and in the presence of police officers. "The looting is out of control. The French Quarter has been attacked", City Councilwoman Jackie Clarkson said. "We're using exhausted, scarce police to control looting when they should be used for search and rescue while we still have people on rooftops."
Written by:
On August 31, New Orleans's 1,500-member police force was ordered to abandon search and rescue missions and turn their attention toward controlling the widespread looting. The city also ordered a mandatory curfew. Mayor Nagin called for increased federal assistance in a, "desperate S.O.S.", following the city's inability to control looting and was often misquoted as declaring martial law in the city, despite there being no such term in Louisiana state law (a declaration of a state of emergency was instead made).
Written by:
On the same day, Governor Kathleen Blanco announced the arrival of a military presence, stating that they, "[knew] how to shoot and kill and [expected that] they [would]." Despite the increased law enforcement presence, crime continued to be problematic. Several armed attacks on relief helicopters, bus convoys, and police officers were reported[citation needed], and fires erupted around the city at stores and a chemical storage facility. By September 1, 6,500 National Guard troops had arrived in New Orleans, and on September 2, Blanco requested a total of 40,000 for assistance in evacuation and security efforts in Louisiana. Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans
Written by:
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, multiple reports of confiscations of civilian weapons by law enforcement began coming out of New Orleans. Warrantless weapon searches of evacuees were carried out prior to allowing them into evacuation centers, unconstitutional house-to-house weapon confiscations were reported, and the superintendent of police was quoted as saying "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons" and "We are going to take all of the weapons". Gun Confiscations in New Orleans
Written by:
Compass, the police superintendent, said that after a week of near-anarchy in the city, no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms of any kind.
"Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.
But that order apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their property. The guards, who are civilians working for private security firms like Blackwater, are openly carrying M-16s and other assault rifles.
Compass said that he is aware of the private guards but that the police have no plans to make them give up their weapons.
Nearly two weeks after the floods began, New Orleans has turned into an armed camp, patrolled by thousands of local, state, and federal law enforcement officers, as well as National Guard troops and active-duty soldiers. Although armed looters roamed unchecked last week, the city is now calm. The city's slow recovery is continuing on other fronts as well, local officials said at a late-morning news conference. Police prepare to use force
So what was the NRA response? Predictably:
Written by:
On September 12, 2005 National Rifle Association executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre spoke out against these confiscations. "What weve seen in Louisiana the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves," LaPierre said. The NRA filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana.
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
DeletePosted:Good Gun Quotes... 
But thanks all of you - it seems as if we get some more mutual respect into this discussion
That's more the way I guess. 
I claim that there still is a misunderstanding of "international aid", which I criticise the German government for abusing just as well. They give "aid" on paper, but make the respective government buy (arms) for all that money. This "aid" - funded by governments - in reality very often is subsidiaries for local industries and - more than that - those governments have to spend $ 2,50 in order to get $ 2...
However: Pearl Harbour - as 9/11 - was often criticised to have been a legitimizing reason for the US to go to war with an otherwise pacifist population. As 9/11 there is a debate going on, how much US intelligence knew about the rise of said incidences and did nothing in order to prevent it. This - as the JFK assassination - are some points where I can't get into the US citizens heads.
I truly have the feeling that some aspects of politics are simply beyond knowledge or understanding, especially in the US - no offence.
Possible that France, UK and Germany had the most to loose in Iraq (wherever you again take this information from), but certainly the US was the one who gained the most in influence and opportunity. However that - IMO - doesn't justify a thing and doesn't make the invasion "right".
Iraq is now a better place: Human Rights News on Iraq 2006 UN Report 2006 2007
But it carries too far away from the topic.
Let's focus on the behaviour of some US personnel and let me just throw in random terms: Abu Ghraib, Mahmoudiya and Haditha, along with countless other situations in POW- and detention camps. And these are the cases we know of.... I'm pointing at a certain behaviourism here, which was prevalent with the USArmy.
I'm not saying that the US - along with the military presence of the EU - should withdraw from every conflict. But maybe they review their reasons to be there in the first place? Nothing's for free is it? And that especially is a US approach, based upon the countries history.
I am making the connection between arms in (international) children hands, the behaviour of US military and domestic laws, because customs and practice are learnt at home. This attitude is fuelled by the government.
This is not so much about irrational fear of guns - at least not with me (against common belief) - it is about respect and common sense.
IMHO the US (as the West's youngest nation and superpower) is still adolescent and needs to evolve. The earlier it gets aware of it's own, internal problems and stops to simply circumnavigate around them, the sooner there is a chance to mature into what could be "real leadership".
I'm afraid that - due to media brainwashing and propaganda - this won't be happening anytime soon.
(PS: the "scumbag breaking into the house" is the way the US currently is seen by Arabian Muslims and the gun laws are reflected by the (VT/ Columbine) shootings of innocent students/ children)
But thanks all of you - it seems as if we get some more mutual respect into this discussion
That's more the way I guess. I claim that there still is a misunderstanding of "international aid", which I criticise the German government for abusing just as well. They give "aid" on paper, but make the respective government buy (arms) for all that money. This "aid" - funded by governments - in reality very often is subsidiaries for local industries and - more than that - those governments have to spend $ 2,50 in order to get $ 2...
However: Pearl Harbour - as 9/11 - was often criticised to have been a legitimizing reason for the US to go to war with an otherwise pacifist population. As 9/11 there is a debate going on, how much US intelligence knew about the rise of said incidences and did nothing in order to prevent it. This - as the JFK assassination - are some points where I can't get into the US citizens heads.
I truly have the feeling that some aspects of politics are simply beyond knowledge or understanding, especially in the US - no offence.
Possible that France, UK and Germany had the most to loose in Iraq (wherever you again take this information from), but certainly the US was the one who gained the most in influence and opportunity. However that - IMO - doesn't justify a thing and doesn't make the invasion "right".
Iraq is now a better place: Human Rights News on Iraq 2006 UN Report 2006 2007
But it carries too far away from the topic.
Let's focus on the behaviour of some US personnel and let me just throw in random terms: Abu Ghraib, Mahmoudiya and Haditha, along with countless other situations in POW- and detention camps. And these are the cases we know of.... I'm pointing at a certain behaviourism here, which was prevalent with the USArmy.
I'm not saying that the US - along with the military presence of the EU - should withdraw from every conflict. But maybe they review their reasons to be there in the first place? Nothing's for free is it? And that especially is a US approach, based upon the countries history.
I am making the connection between arms in (international) children hands, the behaviour of US military and domestic laws, because customs and practice are learnt at home. This attitude is fuelled by the government.
This is not so much about irrational fear of guns - at least not with me (against common belief) - it is about respect and common sense.
IMHO the US (as the West's youngest nation and superpower) is still adolescent and needs to evolve. The earlier it gets aware of it's own, internal problems and stops to simply circumnavigate around them, the sooner there is a chance to mature into what could be "real leadership".
I'm afraid that - due to media brainwashing and propaganda - this won't be happening anytime soon.
(PS: the "scumbag breaking into the house" is the way the US currently is seen by Arabian Muslims and the gun laws are reflected by the (VT/ Columbine) shootings of innocent students/ children)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:I've got to disagree there Stone, Katrina is a very weird case probably won't be fully understood for a long time to come. New Orleans is (was) rampant with corruption and was the epitome of a "welfare state." If you'd notice, pretty much all of your publications were written in September, none are very long after the fact.
There was looting, there was violence, there were many problems with the rescue efforts all up and down the chain of command. However the vast majority of media reports were unfounded, and extremely exaggerated. Or as you would like to say, 'fantasy'. I would challenge you to come up with one verifiable example of an attack on a rescue helicopter. Looting was mainly limited to food and necessary items.
Would you be upset if the someone broke into your house and stole something? Would you be more upset if it was the GOVERNMENT breaking into your house and stealing something that was perfectly legal for you to have? You better be, gross breaches of trust and authority like that should NOT be tolerated. They had no right, and no authority to take those actions, yet they did anyways. Do you not see a problem with that? I'm guessing you would think differently if it was anything besides guns. So far you haven't shown me chaos, you've shown me government misconduct and mismanagement.
Written by:
Lurch, there is nothing positive about guns. I think that is apparent from reading the mouse gun verse man stopper stories. They are mostly domestic disputes, and no one would have been killed if it was not for the guns. Makes sense.
Are you just sliding over the fact that everyone in those stories would have most likely been dead or critically injured if they didn't defend themselves (with a gun)? You automatically conclude that any story ending with a human death is bad, but that's not always the case. Can you honestly not see that? If one of the two is going to die, who would you prefer? Neither is not always an option.
There was looting, there was violence, there were many problems with the rescue efforts all up and down the chain of command. However the vast majority of media reports were unfounded, and extremely exaggerated. Or as you would like to say, 'fantasy'. I would challenge you to come up with one verifiable example of an attack on a rescue helicopter. Looting was mainly limited to food and necessary items.
Would you be upset if the someone broke into your house and stole something? Would you be more upset if it was the GOVERNMENT breaking into your house and stealing something that was perfectly legal for you to have? You better be, gross breaches of trust and authority like that should NOT be tolerated. They had no right, and no authority to take those actions, yet they did anyways. Do you not see a problem with that? I'm guessing you would think differently if it was anything besides guns. So far you haven't shown me chaos, you've shown me government misconduct and mismanagement.
Written by:
Lurch, there is nothing positive about guns. I think that is apparent from reading the mouse gun verse man stopper stories. They are mostly domestic disputes, and no one would have been killed if it was not for the guns. Makes sense.
Are you just sliding over the fact that everyone in those stories would have most likely been dead or critically injured if they didn't defend themselves (with a gun)? You automatically conclude that any story ending with a human death is bad, but that's not always the case. Can you honestly not see that? If one of the two is going to die, who would you prefer? Neither is not always an option.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:We don't control our primitive responses as pro-gun people. I don't own a gun. But I'll protect people's right to do so. Really, isn't it the other way. They are dangerous. Shouldn't we run from danger, like animals away from fire? Instead, we learn and overcome. We don't want ever to use it on a human being. How it was put was sort of insulting. We are very aware why we have guns and have nicely spelled it out in different ways multiple times.
9/11, I know it your opinion and others as well, but it still really is painful to hear people be so...I don't know what the right word is. It just sounds like all the innocent people were complicit and deserved their death. But that is just from a person who had to wait a day to make sure her uncle wasn't in the building. It's sort of personal, so I probably shouldn't talk about it here. I could get irrational.
VTech: The point is not everyone would have a gun on them. He shouldn't have had a gun. It was a gun free zone. Only people who jumped through all the hoops and proved themselves as an extra responsible owner would have a CCW.
Guns do save lives. Fight fire with fire is a saying for a reason.
Stout: I agree. I think that is why the foreman expressly said that we did not have all the evidence.
Is the government putting guns in kids hands? Or US soldiers? Before aid is said to be one way or the other I would like to see stats on it for whatever conflict we are talking about. Also soldiers do not act the same way at home as they do in conflict. I think I may have not understood what was being said there, Tom. What attitude is being fueled by the government?
While our media does contain propaganda, it is openly against the war, against our president, against guns, for liberal ideals, for gay marriage, for everyone just doing whatever makes them happy so long as it doesn't hurt someone else. Trust me they aren't brainwashing us to follow our pres or the war.
The gun laws did not fail. The health care system did. It should have followed up on a mandatory sentence but it didn't because there is too big of a backlog. Still they are changing laws and making new ones to stop this for happening again
9/11, I know it your opinion and others as well, but it still really is painful to hear people be so...I don't know what the right word is. It just sounds like all the innocent people were complicit and deserved their death. But that is just from a person who had to wait a day to make sure her uncle wasn't in the building. It's sort of personal, so I probably shouldn't talk about it here. I could get irrational.
VTech: The point is not everyone would have a gun on them. He shouldn't have had a gun. It was a gun free zone. Only people who jumped through all the hoops and proved themselves as an extra responsible owner would have a CCW.
Guns do save lives. Fight fire with fire is a saying for a reason.
Stout: I agree. I think that is why the foreman expressly said that we did not have all the evidence.
Is the government putting guns in kids hands? Or US soldiers? Before aid is said to be one way or the other I would like to see stats on it for whatever conflict we are talking about. Also soldiers do not act the same way at home as they do in conflict. I think I may have not understood what was being said there, Tom. What attitude is being fueled by the government?
While our media does contain propaganda, it is openly against the war, against our president, against guns, for liberal ideals, for gay marriage, for everyone just doing whatever makes them happy so long as it doesn't hurt someone else. Trust me they aren't brainwashing us to follow our pres or the war.
The gun laws did not fail. The health care system did. It should have followed up on a mandatory sentence but it didn't because there is too big of a backlog. Still they are changing laws and making new ones to stop this for happening again
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:Well if the ppl in the US have so much of a reasonable approach to guns in general, how could Cho kill so many people?
All it takes is a few dedicated, who wait behind the door before he enters the classroom in order to overthrow him. What could he do? Maybe shoot at one or two, but then he gets it with the chair over his head from the other side. Instead students were in panic, hiding under their desks, waiting to get shot...
This is not what I would call "overcome the fear of guns"... "Together we stand"... no?
All it takes is a few dedicated, who wait behind the door before he enters the classroom in order to overthrow him. What could he do? Maybe shoot at one or two, but then he gets it with the chair over his head from the other side. Instead students were in panic, hiding under their desks, waiting to get shot...
This is not what I would call "overcome the fear of guns"... "Together we stand"... no?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Why do you always seem to take things out of context?
And actually a few people did in fact try to stop him. A teacher held the door so his students could get out. In another room students blockaded the door so classmates could escape. The RA was killed trying to stop him in the dorms.You must not have read all the coverage.
If they are so dangerous, and we only listened to our primitive instincts, shouldn't no one want to own a gun or be around it.
Do you make posts like this to piss off people on purpose? How insulting is it to the people who lost family members? How dare you say that no one tried to stop him when there is publicated evidence to contradict? There was coverage about the heroes. People were not hiding under their desks. They were going out the window, helping each other land safely.
Not everyone is a hero
And actually a few people did in fact try to stop him. A teacher held the door so his students could get out. In another room students blockaded the door so classmates could escape. The RA was killed trying to stop him in the dorms.You must not have read all the coverage.
If they are so dangerous, and we only listened to our primitive instincts, shouldn't no one want to own a gun or be around it.
Do you make posts like this to piss off people on purpose? How insulting is it to the people who lost family members? How dare you say that no one tried to stop him when there is publicated evidence to contradict? There was coverage about the heroes. People were not hiding under their desks. They were going out the window, helping each other land safely.
Not everyone is a hero
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:Tom, for once I actually partially agree with you, the kids at VT *should* have done more. They could have taken Cho out long before the death count got that high, some tried, just not enough.
Like Faith said though, it's not about everyone being armed, it's about the few people who go through the training, and jump through the circus hoops being denied a tool that *could* have stopped the situation at it's beginning.
Cho killed so many people at least partially because no one else was armed. He didn't follow the laws about killing, nor about the 'gun free zone' so I'm really confused as to how making more would have changed anything.
So I ask you, what is the best way to take out an armed and dangerous person intent on killing as many people as he can?
Like Faith said though, it's not about everyone being armed, it's about the few people who go through the training, and jump through the circus hoops being denied a tool that *could* have stopped the situation at it's beginning.
Cho killed so many people at least partially because no one else was armed. He didn't follow the laws about killing, nor about the 'gun free zone' so I'm really confused as to how making more would have changed anything.
So I ask you, what is the best way to take out an armed and dangerous person intent on killing as many people as he can?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Posted:Lurch there was nothing weird about Katrina. It was a disaster, and its glimpse of Americas future if you do nothing about your gun problem. It was a window into what will happen when America is put under a pressure, like when oil runs low, and people get out their guns and start shooting each other over gas for their SUVs.
You cant sweep it under the carpet with excuses like New Orleans is (was) rampant with corruption and was the epitome of a "welfare state." Or keep blaming the media all the time. As you say, there were problems up and down the chain of command, when that chain was eventually established. Rescue efforts were hampered by the people with guns. I dont think it takes much imagination to see someone shooting at a helicopter.
I think it speaks volumes that Thailand, a much poorer country than America, could handle the clean up following the Tsunami in a more cilivised and professional manner. Without the rioting and the shooting.
Written by:
Would you be upset if the someone broke into your house and stole something? Would you be more upset if it was the GOVERNMENT breaking into your house and stealing something that was perfectly legal for you to have? You better be, gross breaches of trust and authority like that should NOT be tolerated.
They had no right, and no authority to take those actions, yet they did anyways. Do you not see a problem with that? I'm guessing you would think differently if it was anything besides guns. So far you haven't shown me chaos, you've shown me government misconduct and mismanagement.
Do you mean would I get upset if my Government asked me to surrender my gun in a crisis situation? No, I respect my Government, and I have a sense of community. Its a pity you dont respect your Government and are not prepared to overcome your selfish desires to keep you gun and do something for the good of the whole community.
Anyhow the best way to avoid that situation would be remove all the guns from the community. You dont need them, and you see what damage they do to. We handed in all the surplus guns, and Im recommending you follow Australias example. With a Big buy back scheme and standardise all the State self defense laws.
Yes, Lurch I automatically conclude that any story ending with a human death is bad. Its called killing, and goes against Gods commandment thou shall not kill.
Written by:
Tom, for once I actually partially agree with you, the kids at VT *should* have done more They could have taken Cho out long before the death count got that high, some tried, just not enough.
I see we are back to fantasy again.
Written by:
So I ask you, what is the best way to take out an armed and dangerous person intent on killing as many people as he can?
Dont give them a gun in the first place.
Simple
You cant sweep it under the carpet with excuses like New Orleans is (was) rampant with corruption and was the epitome of a "welfare state." Or keep blaming the media all the time. As you say, there were problems up and down the chain of command, when that chain was eventually established. Rescue efforts were hampered by the people with guns. I dont think it takes much imagination to see someone shooting at a helicopter.
I think it speaks volumes that Thailand, a much poorer country than America, could handle the clean up following the Tsunami in a more cilivised and professional manner. Without the rioting and the shooting.
Written by:
Would you be upset if the someone broke into your house and stole something? Would you be more upset if it was the GOVERNMENT breaking into your house and stealing something that was perfectly legal for you to have? You better be, gross breaches of trust and authority like that should NOT be tolerated.
They had no right, and no authority to take those actions, yet they did anyways. Do you not see a problem with that? I'm guessing you would think differently if it was anything besides guns. So far you haven't shown me chaos, you've shown me government misconduct and mismanagement.
Do you mean would I get upset if my Government asked me to surrender my gun in a crisis situation? No, I respect my Government, and I have a sense of community. Its a pity you dont respect your Government and are not prepared to overcome your selfish desires to keep you gun and do something for the good of the whole community.
Anyhow the best way to avoid that situation would be remove all the guns from the community. You dont need them, and you see what damage they do to. We handed in all the surplus guns, and Im recommending you follow Australias example. With a Big buy back scheme and standardise all the State self defense laws.
Yes, Lurch I automatically conclude that any story ending with a human death is bad. Its called killing, and goes against Gods commandment thou shall not kill.
Written by:
Tom, for once I actually partially agree with you, the kids at VT *should* have done more They could have taken Cho out long before the death count got that high, some tried, just not enough.
I see we are back to fantasy again.
Written by:
So I ask you, what is the best way to take out an armed and dangerous person intent on killing as many people as he can?
Dont give them a gun in the first place.
Simple
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
DeletePosted:There was no 'asking' involved Stone they were forced, not only that, but the actions they took were highly ILLEGAL. They citizens had their property stolen, not confiscated, STOLEN. There is a difference. It shouldn't matter what the property is, the fact that you don't see any sort of a problem with that speaks wonders.
Can you give me any specific examples where rescue efforts were hampered by people with guns? So far I haven't seen any, your wikipedia article just said [citation needed].
There are some problems with our system (we've already discussed that), but it's generally due to a lack of enforcement of current laws, which is how Cho got his guns. This was obviously planned out, do you think he couldn't have found another way to get a gun, or make a bomb, or do countless other things to achieve a high death toll?
'Don't give them a gun in the first place' is a poor answer, guns will always be available to criminals, just as they still are in Australia and the UK.
Can you give me any specific examples where rescue efforts were hampered by people with guns? So far I haven't seen any, your wikipedia article just said [citation needed].
There are some problems with our system (we've already discussed that), but it's generally due to a lack of enforcement of current laws, which is how Cho got his guns. This was obviously planned out, do you think he couldn't have found another way to get a gun, or make a bomb, or do countless other things to achieve a high death toll?
'Don't give them a gun in the first place' is a poor answer, guns will always be available to criminals, just as they still are in Australia and the UK.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Posted:Lurch, Im assuming the property you refer to is guns. If the police force wanted guns out of the community than they must have had a very good reason. Im sorry have so little respect for law enforcement, especially in a crisis situation. When you Country needs you!
Ive suggested that the problem is with the guns themselves, they cause more harm than good, and its time to hang-em-up and move on.
Don't give them a gun in the first place is a good answer.
wot?
Ive suggested that the problem is with the guns themselves, they cause more harm than good, and its time to hang-em-up and move on.
Don't give them a gun in the first place is a good answer.
wot?
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
DeletePosted:That's a circle, huh?
Dunno why you take so much offence in what I am saying, Faith. Are you trying to dominate me? In general I stand to what I said. I haven't read all of the coverage, but know of heroic acts. *add in some tribute*
Usually, if someone fires a gun (pretty much in any place on the planet), people do react with fear and even panic. I guess it's the same - if not more - in the US (as guns are more prevalent). IMO it's a constant underlying fear of some whacko or criminal to go on a spree - which is the reason for the rest, wanting to have one just alike.
One needs to be very cold blooded in order to keep a cool tempered head. I'm not blaming anyone for not "standing their grounds" or conspiring against an armed killer. Hence I don't think that another student with a gun would have made that much of a difference, it's all so nice in theory.
Maybe every university and school in the US should consider to get a guard? Not so much for being able to shoot an intruder, but to call the cops immediately...
Because at some point some students might even get the idea to carry an illegal gun - just for their protection. This is not good at all. It just makes matters worse.
In my country I eventually could get an illegal gun - but hey... the circumstances and ppl that would needed to get involved, I really wouldn't want in my life. The effort is significantly higher. Not saying that guns get traded on every backalley in the US, but it seem to be far too easy. Alternatively if I was to break into someones home, best I would get hold on is a maybe a rifle...
Consider that some of the illegal guns on the street derive from break in and entry...
I don't want any guns, most ppl in my surrounding don't want guns. Armed crime in my country is pretty low... We do have gun shops. You really should come to pay us a visit. Not even in the south you will find (m)any bulletholes in roadsigns. We're pretty chilled and so is our law enforcement (because they don't suspect a gun behind every Bush)... I dunno how much time you have spent outside your country, but trust me I can walk into almost any building without passing a metal detector. It's pretty much okay - at least I like it. If someone freaks on the street/ in the park, I really do not have to suspect that he carries a gun. We can even honk our horns without fear getting shot over it - which can be annoying, I admit.
Yeah true, let's get a gun into cars... random shooting for stupidity on the road...
PS: Gun Town celebrates 25 years of mandatory ownership - not so fast, Lurch. I still think that this is only possible in a country packed with arms... We have places without (gun) murders, too.
Mothers protest against Virginia gun laws
Written by: Washingtonpost.com
32 women dressed in black gathered on a busy street corner in Bethesda yesterday. Orange and maroon ribbons hung around their necks.
At noon, they began lying down one by one on the sidewalk. Supporters handed out fliers explaining their message: a protest against the U.S. gun laws that allowed Virginia Tech student Seung Hui Cho to obtain the weapons he used in the fatal shooting rampage on campus last month. Each of the protesters represented one of his victims. (...)
The idea came from Abigail Spangler, 42, a mother of two and a cellist with the Washington Metropolitan Philharmonic. Two days after the April 16 shootings, Spangler decided to organize a women's "lie-in/die-in" that would last only a few minutes, "representing the amount of time it took for the shooter to buy his gun in the United States." That protest was held April 22 in front of Alexandria City Hall. (...)
Tina Gehring and her daughter Geneva, a rising senior at Virginia Tech, participated together. "We'd like it to be as difficult to get a gun as to get a driver's license," Tina Gehring said. "I had no idea that you could walk into any private Virginia gun show and buy a gun" without a background check. (...)
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1182403945)
Dunno why you take so much offence in what I am saying, Faith. Are you trying to dominate me? In general I stand to what I said. I haven't read all of the coverage, but know of heroic acts. *add in some tribute*
Usually, if someone fires a gun (pretty much in any place on the planet), people do react with fear and even panic. I guess it's the same - if not more - in the US (as guns are more prevalent). IMO it's a constant underlying fear of some whacko or criminal to go on a spree - which is the reason for the rest, wanting to have one just alike.
One needs to be very cold blooded in order to keep a cool tempered head. I'm not blaming anyone for not "standing their grounds" or conspiring against an armed killer. Hence I don't think that another student with a gun would have made that much of a difference, it's all so nice in theory.
Maybe every university and school in the US should consider to get a guard? Not so much for being able to shoot an intruder, but to call the cops immediately...
Because at some point some students might even get the idea to carry an illegal gun - just for their protection. This is not good at all. It just makes matters worse.
In my country I eventually could get an illegal gun - but hey... the circumstances and ppl that would needed to get involved, I really wouldn't want in my life. The effort is significantly higher. Not saying that guns get traded on every backalley in the US, but it seem to be far too easy. Alternatively if I was to break into someones home, best I would get hold on is a maybe a rifle...
Consider that some of the illegal guns on the street derive from break in and entry...
I don't want any guns, most ppl in my surrounding don't want guns. Armed crime in my country is pretty low... We do have gun shops. You really should come to pay us a visit. Not even in the south you will find (m)any bulletholes in roadsigns. We're pretty chilled and so is our law enforcement (because they don't suspect a gun behind every Bush)...
I dunno how much time you have spent outside your country, but trust me I can walk into almost any building without passing a metal detector. It's pretty much okay - at least I like it. If someone freaks on the street/ in the park, I really do not have to suspect that he carries a gun. We can even honk our horns without fear getting shot over it - which can be annoying, I admit. Yeah true, let's get a gun into cars... random shooting for stupidity on the road...PS: Gun Town celebrates 25 years of mandatory ownership - not so fast, Lurch. I still think that this is only possible in a country packed with arms... We have places without (gun) murders, too.
Mothers protest against Virginia gun laws
Written by: Washingtonpost.com
32 women dressed in black gathered on a busy street corner in Bethesda yesterday. Orange and maroon ribbons hung around their necks.
At noon, they began lying down one by one on the sidewalk. Supporters handed out fliers explaining their message: a protest against the U.S. gun laws that allowed Virginia Tech student Seung Hui Cho to obtain the weapons he used in the fatal shooting rampage on campus last month. Each of the protesters represented one of his victims. (...)
The idea came from Abigail Spangler, 42, a mother of two and a cellist with the Washington Metropolitan Philharmonic. Two days after the April 16 shootings, Spangler decided to organize a women's "lie-in/die-in" that would last only a few minutes, "representing the amount of time it took for the shooter to buy his gun in the United States." That protest was held April 22 in front of Alexandria City Hall. (...)
Tina Gehring and her daughter Geneva, a rising senior at Virginia Tech, participated together. "We'd like it to be as difficult to get a gun as to get a driver's license," Tina Gehring said. "I had no idea that you could walk into any private Virginia gun show and buy a gun" without a background check. (...)
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1182403945)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:It doesn't matter if they had a "very good reason" or not Stone. You misunderstand, I have the utmost respect for law enforcement, but every officer in the country swears an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States, and the individual State's constitution. Those officers violated both, and I have a significant problem with that. Crisis or not the rules still need to be followed do they not?
Written by:
One needs to be very cold blooded in order to keep a cool tempered head. I'm not blaming anyone for not "standing their grounds" or conspiring against an armed killer. Hence I don't think that another student with a gun would have made that much of a difference, it's all so nice in theory.
You're missing the point FireTom, it's true an armed student may not have been able to do anything to change the outcome of the VT shooting. But you must admit that there is a possibility, no matter how small, that an armed student could have stopped the shooting before it went as far as it did, it's happened before, sadly that possibility was denied to the Virginia Tech students. I will even admit to a (very) small possibility that an armed student could have hit an innocent bystander and made the situation worse.
Written by:
One needs to be very cold blooded in order to keep a cool tempered head. I'm not blaming anyone for not "standing their grounds" or conspiring against an armed killer. Hence I don't think that another student with a gun would have made that much of a difference, it's all so nice in theory.
You're missing the point FireTom, it's true an armed student may not have been able to do anything to change the outcome of the VT shooting. But you must admit that there is a possibility, no matter how small, that an armed student could have stopped the shooting before it went as far as it did, it's happened before, sadly that possibility was denied to the Virginia Tech students. I will even admit to a (very) small possibility that an armed student could have hit an innocent bystander and made the situation worse.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Posted:Yes, there is a possibility. Maybe I am missing your point, given that.
But I reckon that the directors of VT had a reason to declare VT a "gun free zone".
Taken from Wikipedia "school shootings"
Written by: Wikipedia
* University of Texas at Austin massacre - Austin, Texas, United States; August 1, 1966
* Orangeburg Massacre - Orangeburg, South Carolina, United States; February 8, 1968
* Kent State shootings - Kent, Ohio, United States; May 4, 1970
* Avivim school bus massacre - Avivim, Israel; May 8, 1970
* Jackson State killings - Jackson, Mississippi, United States; May 14-15, 1970
* Ma'alot massacre - Ma'alot, Israel; May 15, 1974
* California State University, Fullerton Library Massacre - Fullerton, California, United States; July 12, 1976
* Brenda Ann Spencer, Cleveland Elementary School - [I'd GUESS...] United StatesJanuary 29, 1979
* Parkway South Junior High School shooting - Saint Louis, Missouri, United States; January 20, 1983
* Stockton massacre - Stockton, California, United States; January 17, 1989
* cole Polytechnique Massacre - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; December 6, 1989
* University of Iowa shooting - Iowa City, Iowa, United States; November 1, 1991
* Concordia University massacre - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; August 24, 1992
* Simon's Rock College of Bard shooting - Great Barrington, Massachusetts, United States; December 14, 1992
* Richland High School shooting - Lynnville, Tennessee, United States; November 15, 1995.
* Frontier Junior High shooting - Moses Lake, Washington, United States; February 2, 1996
* Dunblane massacre - Dunblane, Scotland, United Kingdom; March 13, 1996
* Sanaa massacre - Sanaa, Yemen; March 30, 1997
* Pearl High School shooting, Pearl, Mississippi, United States; October 1, 1997
* Heath High School shooting, West Paducah, Kentucky, United States; December 1, 1997
* Jonesboro massacre - Jonesboro, Arkansas, United States; March 24, 1998
* Thurston High School shooting - Springfield, Oregon, United States; May 21, 1998
* Columbine High School massacre - Littleton, Colorado, United States; April 20, 1999
* W. R. Myers High School shooting - Taber, Alberta, Canada; April 28, 1999
* Heritage High School shooting - Conyers, Georgia, United States; May 20, 1999
* Santana High School - Santee, California, United States; March 5, 2001
* Appalachian School of Law shooting - Grundy, Virginia, United States; January 16, 2002
* Erfurt massacre - Erfurt, Germany; April 26, 2002
* Monash University shooting - Melbourne, Australia; October 21, 2002
* Rocori High School shootings - Cold Spring, Minnesota, United States; September 24, 2003
* Southwood Middle School tragedy, Miami, Florida; [I GUESS]United States; February 3, 2004
* Red Lake High School massacre - Red Lake, Minnesota, United States; March 21, 2005
* Campbell County High School - Jacksboro, Tennessee; [I GUESS] United States; November 8, 2005
* Dawson College shooting - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; September 13, 2006
* Platte Canyon High School shooting - Bailey, Colorado, United States; September 27, 2006
* Amish school shooting - Nickel Mines, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, United States; October 2, 2006
* Weston High School shooting, Cazenovia, Wisconsin; [I GUESS] United States;September 29, 2006
* Springfield Township High School Shooting-Springfield, Pennsylvania; [I GUESS] United States;Dec. 12, 2006
* Henry Foss High School - Tacoma, Washington, United States January 3, 2007
* Beirut Arab University shooting - Beirut, Lebanon; January 25, 2007
* Virginia Tech massacre - Blacksburg, Virginia, United States; April 16, 2007
* C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting - Toronto, Ontario, Canada; May 23, 2007
This does not include ALL shootings, I do know of a few more in Germany
Written by: BBC
Germany, November 1999: A 15-year-old student in Meissen, eastern Germany, stabbed his teacher to death after taking bets from classmates he would dare commit the crime.
He was later jailed for seven years.
Germany, March 2000: A 16-year-old pupil at a private boarding school in the Bavarian town of Branneburg, shot a 57-year-old teacher, who later died from injuries.
The teenager - who also shot himself - was facing expulsion from school after failing a cannabis test.
Germany, February 2002: A former pupil killed his headmaster and set off pipe bombs in the technical school he had recently been expelled from in Freising near Munich.
The man also shot dead his boss and a foreman at the company he worked for before turning the gun on himself. Another teacher was shot in the face, but survived.
It's really up to you, Lurch - 30 school shootings in 40 years.... this is one every two years... to me personally these numbers do hold a message... but none of "responsible gun ownership".
Now what do we want? Every speaker of a class has got a gun in her/ his pocket????? I certainly don't...
But I reckon that the directors of VT had a reason to declare VT a "gun free zone".
Taken from Wikipedia "school shootings"
Written by: Wikipedia
* University of Texas at Austin massacre - Austin, Texas, United States; August 1, 1966
* Orangeburg Massacre - Orangeburg, South Carolina, United States; February 8, 1968
* Kent State shootings - Kent, Ohio, United States; May 4, 1970
* Avivim school bus massacre - Avivim, Israel; May 8, 1970
* Jackson State killings - Jackson, Mississippi, United States; May 14-15, 1970
* Ma'alot massacre - Ma'alot, Israel; May 15, 1974
* California State University, Fullerton Library Massacre - Fullerton, California, United States; July 12, 1976
* Brenda Ann Spencer, Cleveland Elementary School - [I'd GUESS...] United StatesJanuary 29, 1979
* Parkway South Junior High School shooting - Saint Louis, Missouri, United States; January 20, 1983
* Stockton massacre - Stockton, California, United States; January 17, 1989
* cole Polytechnique Massacre - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; December 6, 1989
* University of Iowa shooting - Iowa City, Iowa, United States; November 1, 1991
* Concordia University massacre - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; August 24, 1992
* Simon's Rock College of Bard shooting - Great Barrington, Massachusetts, United States; December 14, 1992
* Richland High School shooting - Lynnville, Tennessee, United States; November 15, 1995.
* Frontier Junior High shooting - Moses Lake, Washington, United States; February 2, 1996
* Dunblane massacre - Dunblane, Scotland, United Kingdom; March 13, 1996
* Sanaa massacre - Sanaa, Yemen; March 30, 1997
* Pearl High School shooting, Pearl, Mississippi, United States; October 1, 1997
* Heath High School shooting, West Paducah, Kentucky, United States; December 1, 1997
* Jonesboro massacre - Jonesboro, Arkansas, United States; March 24, 1998
* Thurston High School shooting - Springfield, Oregon, United States; May 21, 1998
* Columbine High School massacre - Littleton, Colorado, United States; April 20, 1999
* W. R. Myers High School shooting - Taber, Alberta, Canada; April 28, 1999
* Heritage High School shooting - Conyers, Georgia, United States; May 20, 1999
* Santana High School - Santee, California, United States; March 5, 2001
* Appalachian School of Law shooting - Grundy, Virginia, United States; January 16, 2002
* Erfurt massacre - Erfurt, Germany; April 26, 2002
* Monash University shooting - Melbourne, Australia; October 21, 2002
* Rocori High School shootings - Cold Spring, Minnesota, United States; September 24, 2003
* Southwood Middle School tragedy, Miami, Florida; [I GUESS]United States; February 3, 2004
* Red Lake High School massacre - Red Lake, Minnesota, United States; March 21, 2005
* Campbell County High School - Jacksboro, Tennessee; [I GUESS] United States; November 8, 2005
* Dawson College shooting - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; September 13, 2006
* Platte Canyon High School shooting - Bailey, Colorado, United States; September 27, 2006
* Amish school shooting - Nickel Mines, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, United States; October 2, 2006
* Weston High School shooting, Cazenovia, Wisconsin; [I GUESS] United States;September 29, 2006
* Springfield Township High School Shooting-Springfield, Pennsylvania; [I GUESS] United States;Dec. 12, 2006
* Henry Foss High School - Tacoma, Washington, United States January 3, 2007
* Beirut Arab University shooting - Beirut, Lebanon; January 25, 2007
* Virginia Tech massacre - Blacksburg, Virginia, United States; April 16, 2007
* C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting - Toronto, Ontario, Canada; May 23, 2007
This does not include ALL shootings, I do know of a few more in Germany
Written by: BBC
Germany, November 1999: A 15-year-old student in Meissen, eastern Germany, stabbed his teacher to death after taking bets from classmates he would dare commit the crime.
He was later jailed for seven years.
Germany, March 2000: A 16-year-old pupil at a private boarding school in the Bavarian town of Branneburg, shot a 57-year-old teacher, who later died from injuries.
The teenager - who also shot himself - was facing expulsion from school after failing a cannabis test.
Germany, February 2002: A former pupil killed his headmaster and set off pipe bombs in the technical school he had recently been expelled from in Freising near Munich.
The man also shot dead his boss and a foreman at the company he worked for before turning the gun on himself. Another teacher was shot in the face, but survived.
It's really up to you, Lurch - 30 school shootings in 40 years.... this is one every two years... to me personally these numbers do hold a message... but none of "responsible gun ownership".
Now what do we want? Every speaker of a class has got a gun in her/ his pocket????? I certainly don't...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:Yes, I agree that there is a problem here, but I still say that the you need to tackle the root cause of these violent acts, not the tools that they use to achieve their goal. That doesn't do a whole lot to help the people. They are still violent, they are still depressed, mentally disturbed, sociopaths. Education is more important than legislation.
That is quite a list, I haven't had a chance to go through all of them, but lets examine a few, it should be worth noting that most were stopped because of an armed resistance, and in many cases *civilians* provided some, if not all of that resistance
Starting with the University of Texas, the sniper tower shootings..
Written by: Wiki
Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as turrets, which allowed him to continue shooting while largely protected from the gunfire below, which had grown to include civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police. Martinez, an officer credited with neutralizing Whitman's threat, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit.
Orangeburg, Kent State, and Jackson State shootings were all done by Police or National Guardsmen, I'm not saying they were legitimate shootings or not but they were by authority figures so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with those..
Fullerton was committed by a member of the custodial staff shooting fellow employee's, not students.
The Pearl High School shooting
Written by: Wiki
Myrick, the assistant principal, was a former Army Officer and had a valid Concealed Pistol License, authorizing him to carry a handgun; however, due to the law, Myrick was not allowed to carry his pistol while on school property. When Woodham began shooting in the school, Myrick ran over 1/4 mile to his truck to retrieve his weapon. He then sprinted back to the school, where he confronted Woodham...Woodham had been planning to drive to the Pearl Middle School to continue his murderous rampage, only Myrick's intervention prevented this from happening.
Appalachian School of Law
Written by: Wiki
When Odighizuwa exited the building where the shooting took place, he was approached by two students with personal firearms[5] and one unarmed student.
What's worse is that that fact was not presented at all in the majority of media reports.
Southwood is a knife attack, not a shooting.
Red Lake High:
Written by: Wiki
President Bush praised security guard Derrick Brun on March 26, 2006. He said "Derrick's bravery cost him his life, and all Americans honor him... ...Although he was unarmed, Derrick ignored the pleas of a colleague to run for his life... ...by engaging the assailant; he bought vital time for a fellow security guard to rush a group of students to safety."
Hmmm, things might have been a little different if the guard had been armed?
Written by:
* Sophomore Jeff May rushed the gunman armed only with a pencil. He stabbed the shooter in the side with the pencil. As he wrestled with the shooter he was shot in the face. Jeff's May's teacher, Missy Dodds says that Jeff's actions saved many of his classmates lives and hers.
I'm not suggesting that highschool students should be armed with guns, but *this* is the type of action we need to encourage and honor
Dawson College:
Written by: Wiki
The gunman later committed suicide by shooting himself in the head, after being shot in the arm by police.
Strange how the gunman ended the fight after he was shot back... Seems to be a theme with these things..
Morrison also shot himself in the Platte Canyon shooting after the SWAT team stormed the room he was in. It's also worth noting that he was 53 years old, hardly a 'traditional' school shooter
The reaction of the Amish community in the Amish shooting is quite noble as well, and oddly enough they are not blaming the guns, nor calling the man evil, they offer forgiveness.
Weston High:
Written by: Wiki
# Eric Hainstock, a freshman, entered the school with a handgun and a shotgun, both owned by his parents. After arriving at school at approximately 8:00 a.m., he aimed the shotgun at a teacher, but it was wrestled from him by the custodian. A struggle ensued, and the shotgun was taken away.
# Still armed with the handgun, Hainstock sought out and confronted the school's principal, John Klang. Klang attempted to subdue Hainstock; in response, Hainstock shot Klang several times. Klang then managed to sweep away the gun and wrestle Hainstock to the ground, where others helped to hold him down.
You don't think that would have been different if one of the adults had been armed?
The Tacoma shooting barely belongs on that list, one person sought out specifically for reasons completely unrelated to the school.
That is quite a list, I haven't had a chance to go through all of them, but lets examine a few, it should be worth noting that most were stopped because of an armed resistance, and in many cases *civilians* provided some, if not all of that resistance
Starting with the University of Texas, the sniper tower shootings..
Written by: Wiki
Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as turrets, which allowed him to continue shooting while largely protected from the gunfire below, which had grown to include civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police. Martinez, an officer credited with neutralizing Whitman's threat, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit.
Orangeburg, Kent State, and Jackson State shootings were all done by Police or National Guardsmen, I'm not saying they were legitimate shootings or not but they were by authority figures so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with those..
Fullerton was committed by a member of the custodial staff shooting fellow employee's, not students.
The Pearl High School shooting
Written by: Wiki
Myrick, the assistant principal, was a former Army Officer and had a valid Concealed Pistol License, authorizing him to carry a handgun; however, due to the law, Myrick was not allowed to carry his pistol while on school property. When Woodham began shooting in the school, Myrick ran over 1/4 mile to his truck to retrieve his weapon. He then sprinted back to the school, where he confronted Woodham...Woodham had been planning to drive to the Pearl Middle School to continue his murderous rampage, only Myrick's intervention prevented this from happening.
Appalachian School of Law
Written by: Wiki
When Odighizuwa exited the building where the shooting took place, he was approached by two students with personal firearms[5] and one unarmed student.
What's worse is that that fact was not presented at all in the majority of media reports.
Southwood is a knife attack, not a shooting.
Red Lake High:
Written by: Wiki
President Bush praised security guard Derrick Brun on March 26, 2006. He said "Derrick's bravery cost him his life, and all Americans honor him... ...Although he was unarmed, Derrick ignored the pleas of a colleague to run for his life... ...by engaging the assailant; he bought vital time for a fellow security guard to rush a group of students to safety."
Hmmm, things might have been a little different if the guard had been armed?
Written by:
* Sophomore Jeff May rushed the gunman armed only with a pencil. He stabbed the shooter in the side with the pencil. As he wrestled with the shooter he was shot in the face. Jeff's May's teacher, Missy Dodds says that Jeff's actions saved many of his classmates lives and hers.
I'm not suggesting that highschool students should be armed with guns, but *this* is the type of action we need to encourage and honor
Dawson College:
Written by: Wiki
The gunman later committed suicide by shooting himself in the head, after being shot in the arm by police.
Strange how the gunman ended the fight after he was shot back... Seems to be a theme with these things..
Morrison also shot himself in the Platte Canyon shooting after the SWAT team stormed the room he was in. It's also worth noting that he was 53 years old, hardly a 'traditional' school shooter
The reaction of the Amish community in the Amish shooting is quite noble as well, and oddly enough they are not blaming the guns, nor calling the man evil, they offer forgiveness.
Weston High:
Written by: Wiki
# Eric Hainstock, a freshman, entered the school with a handgun and a shotgun, both owned by his parents. After arriving at school at approximately 8:00 a.m., he aimed the shotgun at a teacher, but it was wrestled from him by the custodian. A struggle ensued, and the shotgun was taken away.
# Still armed with the handgun, Hainstock sought out and confronted the school's principal, John Klang. Klang attempted to subdue Hainstock; in response, Hainstock shot Klang several times. Klang then managed to sweep away the gun and wrestle Hainstock to the ground, where others helped to hold him down.
You don't think that would have been different if one of the adults had been armed?
The Tacoma shooting barely belongs on that list, one person sought out specifically for reasons completely unrelated to the school.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Posted:Lurch, why do all your stories always relate to gun battles, where civilians provided resistance, and people end up getting killed?
Perhaps the thing you are missing about Hurricane Katrina was there was a State of Emergency situation at the time.
Written by: ]Contrary to many media reports at the time, martial law was not declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana state law. However, a State of Emergency was declared, which does give unique powers to the state government similar to those of martial law. On the evening of August 31, 2005, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin nominally declared "martial law" and said that officers don't have to worry about civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters. [4
Federal troops were a common sight in New Orleans after Katrina. At one point, as many as 15,000 federal troops and National Guardsmen patrolled the city to curb its descent into chaos and looting (wiki).
So, I suppose the question is where do you draw the line between anarchy and the right to bear arms?
As for Charles Whitman
He was sitting up there for more than an hour,
Way up there on the Texas Tower
Shooting from the twenty-seventh floor. Yahoo!
He didnt choke or slash or slit them,
Not our Charles Joseph Whitman,
He wont be an architect no more.
Got up that morning calm and cool,
He picked up his guns and walked to school.
All the while he smiled so sweetly
And it blew their minds completely,
Theyd never seen an Eagle Scout so cruel.
.
.
.
Some were dying, some were weeping,
Some were studying, some were sleeping,
Some were shouting Texas # 1!
Some were running, some were falling,
Some were screaming, some were bawling,
Some thought the revolution had begun.
The doctors tore his poor brain down,
But not a snitch of illness could be found.
Most folks couldnt figure just-a why he did it
And them that could would not admit it,
Theres still a lot of Eagle Scouts around.
There was a rumor about a tumor
Nestled at the base of his brain.
He was sitting up there with his .36 Magnum
Laughing wildly as he bagged em.
Who are we to say the boys in
Who are we to say the boys in
Who are we to say the boys insane ?
by Kinky Friedman
Nothings changed.
Perhaps the thing you are missing about Hurricane Katrina was there was a State of Emergency situation at the time.
Written by: ]Contrary to many media reports at the time, martial law was not declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana state law. However, a State of Emergency was declared, which does give unique powers to the state government similar to those of martial law. On the evening of August 31, 2005, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin nominally declared "martial law" and said that officers don't have to worry about civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters. [4
Federal troops were a common sight in New Orleans after Katrina. At one point, as many as 15,000 federal troops and National Guardsmen patrolled the city to curb its descent into chaos and looting (wiki).
So, I suppose the question is where do you draw the line between anarchy and the right to bear arms?
As for Charles Whitman
He was sitting up there for more than an hour,
Way up there on the Texas Tower
Shooting from the twenty-seventh floor. Yahoo!
He didnt choke or slash or slit them,
Not our Charles Joseph Whitman,
He wont be an architect no more.
Got up that morning calm and cool,
He picked up his guns and walked to school.
All the while he smiled so sweetly
And it blew their minds completely,
Theyd never seen an Eagle Scout so cruel.
.
.
.
Some were dying, some were weeping,
Some were studying, some were sleeping,
Some were shouting Texas # 1!
Some were running, some were falling,
Some were screaming, some were bawling,
Some thought the revolution had begun.
The doctors tore his poor brain down,
But not a snitch of illness could be found.
Most folks couldnt figure just-a why he did it
And them that could would not admit it,
Theres still a lot of Eagle Scouts around.
There was a rumor about a tumor
Nestled at the base of his brain.
He was sitting up there with his .36 Magnum
Laughing wildly as he bagged em.
Who are we to say the boys in
Who are we to say the boys in
Who are we to say the boys insane ?
by Kinky Friedman
Nothings changed.
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
DeletePosted:Nagin didn't have any legal authority to declare "martial law" nor give the "police" the authority to do what they did, in fact he denies ever doing that now. State of Emergency or not, they had no right to take anything from those people.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:When Katrina happened, I remember looting, and burglary, but I don't remember a lot of stories with guns. That's just me. I must have been brainwashed. I remember the people being displaced. I remember hearing about how others helped each other. I remember people walking out of stores with food, or water.
Lurch's stories end in someone getting killed because those are the stories that make national news.
I think the point of the current list was to discuss what Tom had said in the post before. People will commit heroic acts in the face of a barrel to save others. This part of the discussion started because someone said that guns appeal to our basest instinct. I said it didn't. Tom then said something about people running away from guns and I inferred that his mention of Vtech was calling them all cowards. Then, I mentioned the heroic acts. Tom posted the school listings and then Lurch brought up more heroic acts of civilians in the face of gun violence. That's a quick(probably biased) rundown of where we are now.
Please people we are not living in constant fear of gun violence. For some people, they know there is a potential and they protect themselves. Other people it's part of their daily lives. Others are blissfully ignorant of what is happening. Where I live, I don't worry about guns. I'm not worried about crazy folk.
The universities I attended all had police officers as guards. One even had a precinct on campus. You feel pretty safe on campus. We had people to escort you home. It was well-lit.
You really think we have metal detectors everywhere.
Now that just sort of shows what false impressions of us you live under. Most places do not have metal dectectors.
Yesterday, I honked at three idiots, without fear of being shot. It didn't even cross my mind. You said you've spent time here, but I can't imagine it. If you are worried about being shot over a honk. Does it happen on occassion? Yes, but it is not an everyday thing. Trust me we make ample use of our horns here. What a horrible thing to be so fearful.
Lurch's stories end in someone getting killed because those are the stories that make national news.
I think the point of the current list was to discuss what Tom had said in the post before. People will commit heroic acts in the face of a barrel to save others. This part of the discussion started because someone said that guns appeal to our basest instinct. I said it didn't. Tom then said something about people running away from guns and I inferred that his mention of Vtech was calling them all cowards. Then, I mentioned the heroic acts. Tom posted the school listings and then Lurch brought up more heroic acts of civilians in the face of gun violence. That's a quick(probably biased) rundown of where we are now.
Please people we are not living in constant fear of gun violence. For some people, they know there is a potential and they protect themselves. Other people it's part of their daily lives. Others are blissfully ignorant of what is happening. Where I live, I don't worry about guns. I'm not worried about crazy folk.
The universities I attended all had police officers as guards. One even had a precinct on campus. You feel pretty safe on campus. We had people to escort you home. It was well-lit.
You really think we have metal detectors everywhere.
Now that just sort of shows what false impressions of us you live under. Most places do not have metal dectectors.Yesterday, I honked at three idiots, without fear of being shot. It didn't even cross my mind. You said you've spent time here, but I can't imagine it. If you are worried about being shot over a honk. Does it happen on occassion? Yes, but it is not an everyday thing. Trust me we make ample use of our horns here. What a horrible thing to be so fearful.
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:Cheers Faith..Based partly on experience, and partly on conversations with other Canadians, I share your view on the general level of fear that your average American lives with on a daily basis.
As Canadians, we tend to discuss the more absurd aspect of Americans and guns. For instance,,,carrying a pistol on the golf course, or being able to purchase a gun in a video store. But not one Canadian I've ever talked to, nor have I, ever gone about their business in America under fear of getting shot.
No doubt it's the "part of their daily lives" aspect of gun ownership that has golfers packing guns, like when I golf, I carry my wallet, not because I'll need it but because I'm used to doing so.
I remember the helicopter getting shot at during the Katrina aftermath and I figure the reason there was no bullet holes found in any helicopter was because they missed.
What do you figure the chances that anyone shooting at a rescue helicopter was a legal gun owner ? That's gotta be a drug related thing.
As Canadians, we tend to discuss the more absurd aspect of Americans and guns. For instance,,,carrying a pistol on the golf course, or being able to purchase a gun in a video store. But not one Canadian I've ever talked to, nor have I, ever gone about their business in America under fear of getting shot.
No doubt it's the "part of their daily lives" aspect of gun ownership that has golfers packing guns, like when I golf, I carry my wallet, not because I'll need it but because I'm used to doing so.
I remember the helicopter getting shot at during the Katrina aftermath and I figure the reason there was no bullet holes found in any helicopter was because they missed.
What do you figure the chances that anyone shooting at a rescue helicopter was a legal gun owner ? That's gotta be a drug related thing.
Delete
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:maybe, or some people really didn't want to leave their homes. They wanted to stay with their stuff.
Also, when I say part of their lives, I'm talking people who live in areas where gun violence is a daily occurence. The last weekend a good aquaintence of our was shot and killed. Knowing him it was probably a deal gone wrong, but it is the same person who when he found out we're trying to be clean, congratulated us and wished us the best of luck.
Here, we hear about shootings at least once a day on the North side, generally. People not from the area are afraid of it, but so much of it is drugs and gangs. It's part of their daily life, whether they are actually involved or not. Knowing this, Milwaukee is really working on programs to catch them young.
If you want to know what a real Milwaukee person is like, check out the guy on "so you think you can dance." Cedric is sweet and respectful and most of us are more like him than the gang bangers you see in movies. If you act like you're from a movie, you aren't real and no one pays you mind. We are opinionated and things get heated, but we help each other out too (just don't tell anyone).
Also, when I say part of their lives, I'm talking people who live in areas where gun violence is a daily occurence. The last weekend a good aquaintence of our was shot and killed. Knowing him it was probably a deal gone wrong, but it is the same person who when he found out we're trying to be clean, congratulated us and wished us the best of luck.
Here, we hear about shootings at least once a day on the North side, generally. People not from the area are afraid of it, but so much of it is drugs and gangs. It's part of their daily life, whether they are actually involved or not. Knowing this, Milwaukee is really working on programs to catch them young.
If you want to know what a real Milwaukee person is like, check out the guy on "so you think you can dance." Cedric is sweet and respectful and most of us are more like him than the gang bangers you see in movies. If you act like you're from a movie, you aren't real and no one pays you mind. We are opinionated and things get heated, but we help each other out too (just don't tell anyone).
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:faith, thanks for the update, Im still catching up in some areas.
I agree with what you say here:
Written by:
We don't control our primitive responses as pro-gun people. I don't own a gun. But I'll protect people's right to do so. Really, isn't it the other way. They are dangerous. Shouldn't we run from danger, like animals away from fire? Instead, we learn and overcome. We don't want ever to use it on a human being. How it was put was sort of insulting. We are very aware why we have guns and have nicely spelled it out in different ways multiple times.
True, but in the learning to overcome the danger we create a new program based on overcoming that fear. So when we overcame the fear of guns we became dependent on them. Where the need to have a gun comes from?
The pioneers and early settlers has a real need for guns. There a lot of danger, and guns were important for survival, and still are in some situations. The tradition is evident in lintel guns today, so I read recently. Then, somehow guns became enshrined in culture through the right to bear arms.
I suppose what Im saying is that its time to overcome that program that says everyone needs to have a gun, just like we did with fire. We have been shooting and bombing each other for a longtime now. Somewhere along the line, we need to overcome the gun to move on. As we overcame the fear of fire.
Its like Stout said.
Written by:
No doubt it's the "part of their daily lives" aspect of gun ownership that has golfers packing guns, like when I golf, I carry my wallet, not because I'll need it but because I'm used to doing so.
Id suggest when packing a gun becomes part of their daily lives then there is some programming going on.
So Lurch, where you draw the line between anarchy and the right to bear arms?
You tell me,
Written by:
Nagin didn't have any legal authority to declare "martial law" nor give the "police" the authority to do what they did, in fact he denies ever doing that now. State of Emergency or not, they had no right to take anything from those people.
Thats true, Nagin didn't have any legal authority to declare "martial law", thats why a State of Emergency was called. Though from the rest of what you say it looks like you support anarchy, as the right to bear arms has precedent over all other laws, State of Emergency or not. As you say They (the police) had no right to take anything (guns) from those people.
I think it would be difficult to mount a relief effort if that was everyones attitude to authority.
I agree with what you say here:
Written by:
We don't control our primitive responses as pro-gun people. I don't own a gun. But I'll protect people's right to do so. Really, isn't it the other way. They are dangerous. Shouldn't we run from danger, like animals away from fire? Instead, we learn and overcome. We don't want ever to use it on a human being. How it was put was sort of insulting. We are very aware why we have guns and have nicely spelled it out in different ways multiple times.
True, but in the learning to overcome the danger we create a new program based on overcoming that fear. So when we overcame the fear of guns we became dependent on them. Where the need to have a gun comes from?
The pioneers and early settlers has a real need for guns. There a lot of danger, and guns were important for survival, and still are in some situations. The tradition is evident in lintel guns today, so I read recently. Then, somehow guns became enshrined in culture through the right to bear arms.
I suppose what Im saying is that its time to overcome that program that says everyone needs to have a gun, just like we did with fire. We have been shooting and bombing each other for a longtime now. Somewhere along the line, we need to overcome the gun to move on. As we overcame the fear of fire.
Its like Stout said.
Written by:
No doubt it's the "part of their daily lives" aspect of gun ownership that has golfers packing guns, like when I golf, I carry my wallet, not because I'll need it but because I'm used to doing so.
Id suggest when packing a gun becomes part of their daily lives then there is some programming going on.
So Lurch, where you draw the line between anarchy and the right to bear arms?
You tell me,
Written by:
Nagin didn't have any legal authority to declare "martial law" nor give the "police" the authority to do what they did, in fact he denies ever doing that now. State of Emergency or not, they had no right to take anything from those people.
Thats true, Nagin didn't have any legal authority to declare "martial law", thats why a State of Emergency was called. Though from the rest of what you say it looks like you support anarchy, as the right to bear arms has precedent over all other laws, State of Emergency or not. As you say They (the police) had no right to take anything (guns) from those people.
I think it would be difficult to mount a relief effort if that was everyones attitude to authority.
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
Deletefaith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Total posts: 3556
Posted:That's what I'm saying though. Most of us don't feel the need to own guns.
I can't imagine carrying a gun because I am used to it. Most people I know don't carry a gun. I do not depend ona gun at all. I rely on my awareness and my verbal skills. I can even fight a bit or pull the "oh my gosh really" and then confuse them trick.
Most people have them locked away in gun safes until they go hunting or to the shooting range. It is difficult to get a CCW. People who carry guns all the time often are doing so illegally, like the guy I knew who got shot. He was part of illegal activities and gang stuff. It's a life he chose and he knew he would probably at the least be injured. But for some people they think it is the only way to provide. They just did an article about the high turnover and the affect on those already in Milwaukee poverty.
I don't approve and they should get picked up and they should be charged because people get shot. Innocent people get shot. I would like to see the police take a more active role. When bf got pulled over, they took his stuff and sent him on his way. He had warrants and no license! I really don't think we need more laws. I do think we need to enforce the ones we have.
And no the government has no right to take a weapon without good reason, say if they shot at a helicopter.
edit:
Here is a couple of articles regarding crime and how the city sees fit to combat it. For the record homicides are up this year
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=623335
http://www.shepherd-express.com/1editori...p;-token.subpub
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1182523711)
I can't imagine carrying a gun because I am used to it. Most people I know don't carry a gun. I do not depend ona gun at all. I rely on my awareness and my verbal skills. I can even fight a bit or pull the "oh my gosh really" and then confuse them trick.
Most people have them locked away in gun safes until they go hunting or to the shooting range. It is difficult to get a CCW. People who carry guns all the time often are doing so illegally, like the guy I knew who got shot. He was part of illegal activities and gang stuff. It's a life he chose and he knew he would probably at the least be injured. But for some people they think it is the only way to provide. They just did an article about the high turnover and the affect on those already in Milwaukee poverty.
I don't approve and they should get picked up and they should be charged because people get shot. Innocent people get shot. I would like to see the police take a more active role. When bf got pulled over, they took his stuff and sent him on his way. He had warrants and no license! I really don't think we need more laws. I do think we need to enforce the ones we have.
And no the government has no right to take a weapon without good reason, say if they shot at a helicopter.
edit:
Here is a couple of articles regarding crime and how the city sees fit to combat it. For the record homicides are up this year
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=623335
http://www.shepherd-express.com/1editori...p;-token.subpub
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1182523711)
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [gun law* quot license murder quot] we found the following similar topics.1. Learn > POI > Partner Poi > Partner Poi Suicides (aka Murder Suicide) *help/resource
2. Forums > US Gun laws are "License to murder" [1 reply]
3. Forums > weird laws [8 replies]
4. Forums > the NEW smoking laws [103 replies]
5. Forums > Know the score as regards the law?? [10 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2018 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.