Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: RedTop on March 21, 2005, 08:35:57 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151085,00.html
Sometimes I think the world is getting crazier and crazier.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151085,00.html
Sometimes I think the world is getting crazier and crazier.
yep...they actually foiled a plot to do similar in new brunswick recently...
-
Wow. I live like 30 miles from that place.
-
Sometimes I think the world is getting crazier and crazier.
====
I've been thinking the exact same thing for about 25 years now.
And I believe it's true!
-
It's to bad, I wonder what set the kid off...
-
Originally posted by Trell
It's to bad, I wonder what set the kid off...
Not sure...sad tho
-
Enter the pro-gun control people, followed by gun fanboys flaming the pro-gun control people. Seems to me 2 of these in 6 years indicates something of a problem. Glad I live in Canada.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
Enter the pro-gun control people, followed by gun fanboys flaming the pro-gun control people. Seems to me 2 of these in 6 years indicates something of a problem. Glad I live in Canada.
There has only been two but I think they have stopped somewhere around 10 of them.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
Glad I live in Canada.
You aren't the only one.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
Enter the pro-gun control people, followed by gun fanboys flaming the pro-gun control people. Seems to me 2 of these in 6 years indicates something of a problem. Glad I live in Canada.
Good for you, now stay there please.
Karaya
-
Ah yes. I thought someone would have beaten to me to it, so I won't start my own thread.
Condolences to the bereaved in Red Lake.
Redtop - it's not that the WORLD is getting crazier. America is getting crazier. Why do you want to drag the rest of the world into this? It's an American problem, and is the result of a cavalier attitude which prevails in your society with regard to the availability of firearms. I feel a whole gamut of emotions when I read these stories, but surprise is not one of them.
But what are you going to do when you live in a society in which folks openly proclaim that they don't mind if a few thousand people get shot and killed each year, as long as they themselves are allowed to keep and carry firearms. Indeed, some are more than happy with the status quo, and they know who they are.
We had a school shooting in Scotland in 1995. John Major's government introduced legislation in 1996, and Tony Blair's government finished the job in 1997. Not a perfect solution some might say, but much better than the ostrich method which prevails in your country.
Of course, like all types of legislation, gun control legislation can never be 100% effective, but I'll settle for 98%. Such events are mercifully rare in Britain, so I guess it's having an effect.
But... a couple of years ago, some "gangsters" in the West Midlands were involved in a clash with a rival gang. One gang member fired an automatic weapon, discharging 14 rounds in 4 seconds, and two innocent girls were killed. Within the past few days four of them received life sentences, with the judge's recommendation that they each serve a minimum of 35 years. Let's hope that message gets through.
-
So cue the NRA members gun lovers etc ............
(Beetle we agree on this. I live in Birmingham and work with young people not two miles from where this happened. i have a pretty good idea about the heartache and fear this incident generated)
-
There was a study done in NZ. We apparently have a relatively high teen suicide rate:
New Zealand has the highest male youth suicide rate (15–24 years), and the second highest female youth suicide rate compared to other OECD countries.
And a direct correlation in suicide method was noted to methods available, ie as firearms restrictions came in suicide methods switched to hanging or suffication by exhaust fumes.
I'm sure if NZ kids had access to firearms we'd see the same sort of thing. I'm not sure what you can do about it in the US though.
Sucks to be a kid today, the world is so much more complex.
-
I love these "guns bad" threads. When I was a kid guns and knives were much easier to get then today. Heck I cared a rather substantial pocket knife my whole childhood in school, and didn't give it a second thought. I went to high school where there were gun racks in trucks and they had guns in them. But oddly, this sort of thing never happened.To follow some of the arguements of members of this board, we should have had weekly killings.
I really don't think the HOW of this incident is really whats important. The WHY is what matters. What made this kid snap to this degree that he decided to pursue a bizaare MAD scenario.
-
Originally posted by Finrod
To follow some of the arguements of members of this board, we should have had weekly killings.
Well, this is the second such incident this month, so it's getting to be an almost weekly occurrence. What made this kid snap to this degree that he decided to pursue a bizaare MAD scenario.
OK you've dismissed the HOW, and you're concentrating on the WHY. When you've figured that out, let's move onto the WHAT.
What makes it possible for a kid to end nine innocent lives? I had plenty of bad days at school myself, days when I flipped. If I'd had access to a gun, who knows what might have happened! Fortunately, my worst action was to arm myself with a Tate & Lyle syrup tin on a length of string, and to whack my chief tormentor with it as he emerged from the boys' toilets. Didn't know my own strength, and he ended up in hospital. :lol
What happened next was that the headmistress made contact with my parents who had to go to the school. Owing to "previous" I was teetering on the brink of being removed from the school register. Luckily for me I grew up at a time when two-parent families were fashionable, so I had guidance and was made to understand the severity of my actions.
I became nice after that. :) Erm.., well, I did push a wooden stake into the same kid's face two years later, but that was an accident.
-
My point exactly. Why did this kid go ballistic. In my day we would gather our buddies around us and find a good time to get even. I don't think I've entirely dismissed the HOW, I just think the WHY is what we should first wonder about. Why are kids today doing this when they didn't committ such acts in the past?
-
blow it beetle
may the dead children and their families find peace
-
It seems to be some kind of a new trend for the suicidal youth nowadays.
Instead of them simply doing a suicide, they seem to decide to also put up a show the world will remember...
This could been also linked to the columbine shootings, as the guy had book(s) about it: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/02/13/mall.shooting/index.html
I wonder if they find columbine related material from the latest shooter.
btw. I was at the mall two days prior to the shooting, only over 7000km away from my home.
-
America is number thirty one on the hit parade for suicide behind a lot of UK countries and japan that has no guns at all.
beetle is suggesting that stronger gun control would save the odd 5 or six school shooting deaths every half a decade or so in a country of allmost 300 million people... great way to sensationalize eh?
now... where is there better gun control than at schools? What is it? like no guns at all within 500 yards of a school? schools have more draconian gun laws than england.
yet... there are shootings in schools.. There are plenty of gun ranges and cop shops and cop bars and places where guns are plentiful and everyone knows it tho in the U.S.
How many shootings happen there?
There would be no school shootings if concealed carry were allowed for teachers...
Beetle wants to sensationalize... I find it goulish to do so. I blame the do gooder gun control advocates.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
America is number thirty one on the hit parade for suicide behind a lot of UK countries and japan that has no guns at all.
Where does the US rank for suicides after rampages in which the person kills themselves after killing innocents? My guess is numero uno.
The suicides in the UK. Japan etc are mostly ones in which the only person who dies is just the person who doesn't want to live.
-
A valid point has been made about the difference between today's youth and those of the past.
The different generations are not at all the same.
I, too, grew up during a time and in a place where EVERY child had access to firearms. There wasn't a young male who didn't hunt and fish and carry shotguns to school in the trunk in order to be prepared for an afternoon afield.
During the first four decades of my life there was never an incident in the state of Arkansas where one student shot another.
The were any number of reasons why we didn't declare war on each other. First, our fathers took a personal interest in what we were doing. They spent time with us and taught us gun safety and personal responsibility. More importantly, we were taught respect for others.
Secondly, there was no gang culture in our schools. If two guys had a difference of opinion, they duked it out and then forgot about it. They did not get five more guys together and attempt to snuff the other guy's lights out.
Lastly, we were not as spoiled as the generation of our grandchildren. I can't emphasize this enough. Having observed the development of American society for at least half a century I have come to the conclusion that the level of violence amongst our youth and our society is in direct proportion to how egotistical, self-centered, and nihilistic a given generation is.
Many parents today do not deny their kids anything. Watch the new show The Nanny sometimes. The feather-headed notions about child-rearing exhibited by the parents is fairly typical of many American families.
Ya wanna let a three-year-old cross the street by himself, well, that's perfectly fine with ole dad!
Junior wants to punk his hair and get tattoos and watch hate-filled gangsta-rappa-all-my-buds-are-bad-ass-gun-totin-blount-smokin-ho-beatin-studs... then let him.
If 12 year old Susie wants to put on tons of makeup, bare her mid-riff and wear cut-off jeans with lots of derrier showing, well...mom is perfectly willing.
But...and most especially...when they get in trouble at school or on the streets or in someone else's home the parents teach them that they are neverevernever going to be held responsible for their actions.
Is it any wonder that a culture of youth-punk-gang-substance-abuse-is-cool-and-respectful-kids-should-be-picked-on mentality has spread across the country like a cancer?
Now some of you are obsessing over a symptom and ignoring the root causes of the problem.
If fathers were to become fathers and taught responsibility and respect and mothers became mothers and not advocates for their children then the cause of much of this violence would disappear.
-
Well said.
-
the kids don't commit suicide by going on a shooting rampage at the police station or at a shooting range.
Guns are a deterent to this type of egotistical crime. School shootings are allmost nonexistent since ARMED cops have been on campus in most schools... if even 10% of teachers were allowed to carry concealed there would probly never be anopther school shooting.
my point remains.. school shootings point out how making the inocent vulnerable (sheep to the slaughter) is not the best policy.
People in the U.S. are much more virulent than watered down blooded brits and such.... you give the worst of em a place where they are guarenteed to be the most dangerous person there and they will kill as many as they can before they blow out their rotted out brains.
but..most, not all but most are cowardly. they won't even start if they think someone will pull out a gun and do them in before they kill enough to catch beetles hand wringing attention.
there are some tho that commit suicide by cop... they force cops to kill em...they are relatively rare and... our suicide rate is not that high.
I suppose that the pressure of not having any individuality or right to defend yourself is the reason the other countries have such a hitgh suicide rate.... that and because they are so stressed from trying to make the U.S. be more like them.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ben Franklin
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-
exactly funked...I wouldn't trade living here and our gun homicides for any aspect of living as a british ciizen... it is all bad so far as I can see including the weather.
It is not I that should apoloidgize to the parents of these teens. It is the foolish gun control nuts who made sure that the only people that are armed at a school are the insane criminals who would cause such a slaughter who need to beg for the forgivness of the parents. They allowed this to happen.
lazs
-
In my ancient times, the '60's, it was ROUTINE for many students to bring guns to school. We left them in the car though, because right after school let out we went hunting. Happened every Fall; no one thought a thing about it. No gun rampages in school.
So what's the difference? What changed?
I'm sure you all saw this one:
Cops: Man Goes On Killing Spree With Baseball Bat (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4301871/detail.html)
Michael Brown, 48, called police about 7 a.m. Sunday and confessed to killing his mother, stepfather and brother in their home in the 11000 block of Delphinus Way in Mira Mesa, San Diego homicide Lt. Kevin Rooney said.
Police discovered one victim in a bedroom and two in the living room when they arrived, Rooney said.
Police said all the victims were found with head trauma
or maybe this one:
Paperboy busted for bashing mother to death with baseball bat (http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/20050321p2a00m0dm004000c.html)
At around 3:15 a.m., Ishikiri hit his 60-year-old mother with a metal baseball bat more than 10 times about 300 meters from their home in Momoishi, police said.
Alerted by a nearby resident, police officers rushed to the scene, and found the victim lying dead, bleeding from her head. Police interrogated Ishikiri who was standing by his mother's body, and arrested him after he admitted to having hit her. (Mainichi Shimbun, Japan, March 21, 2005)
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
A valid point has been made about the difference between today's youth and those of the past.
The different generations are not at all the same.
I, too, grew up during a time and in a place where EVERY child had access to firearms. There wasn't a young male who didn't hunt and fish and carry shotguns to school in the trunk in order to be prepared for an afternoon afield.
During the first four decades of my life there was never an incident in the state of Arkansas where one student shot another.
The were any number of reasons why we didn't declare war on each other. First, our fathers took a personal interest in what we were doing. They spent time with us and taught us gun safety and personal responsibility. More importantly, we were taught respect for others.
Secondly, there was no gang culture in our schools. If two guys had a difference of opinion, they duked it out and then forgot about it. They did not get five more guys together and attempt to snuff the other guy's lights out.
Lastly, we were not as spoiled as the generation of our grandchildren. I can't emphasize this enough. Having observed the development of American society for at least half a century I have come to the conclusion that the level of violence amongst our youth and our society is in direct proportion to how egotistical, self-centered, and nihilistic a given generation is.
Many parents today do not deny their kids anything. Watch the new show The Nanny sometimes. The feather-headed notions about child-rearing exhibited by the parents is fairly typical of many American families.
Ya wanna let a three-year-old cross the street by himself, well, that's perfectly fine with ole dad!
Junior wants to punk his hair and get tattoos and watch hate-filled gangsta-rappa-all-my-buds-are-bad-ass-gun-totin-blount-smokin-ho-beatin-studs... then let him.
If 12 year old Susie wants to put on tons of makeup, bare her mid-riff and wear cut-off jeans with lots of derrier showing, well...mom is perfectly willing.
But...and most especially...when they get in trouble at school or on the streets or in someone else's home the parents teach them that they are neverevernever going to be held responsible for their actions.
Is it any wonder that a culture of youth-punk-gang-substance-abuse-is-cool-and-respectful-kids-should-be-picked-on mentality has spread across the country like a cancer?
Now some of you are obsessing over a symptom and ignoring the root causes of the problem.
If fathers were to become fathers and taught responsibility and respect and mothers became mothers and not advocates for their children then the cause of much of this violence would disappear.
I think you can point to a lot of different problems that contribute to the decline in our society. I don't necessarily agree with the perception, but for the sake of the discussion, I'll go with it.
I wouldn't consider anything we see on "The Nanny" to be typical. It's a televison show. They're not interested in the average family. They're going to get the most dysfunctional families they can find because it's good for ratings.
I'd wager that most of us over the age of 30 or 40 didn't grow up with two working parents. Our father went to work and our mother stayed home. I'm not certain how this can be quantified, but I believe that there truly is a societal cost to leaving our children home alone and unsupervised.
As for gang shootings and the like, I don't believe this is a gun issue at all. This is a lack of parenting coupled with poverty. Bad combination and it's going to result in bloody streets.
You can ban the guns, but the root cause(s) for this sort of societal malaise will remain and the violence will manifest in other forms.
-
Two twins went missing here recently. They are involved in some sort of theft from an underground gambling place.
This is clear proof gun control doesn't work.
Why? I'm not sure.
-
Apparently the shooters Grandfather was a cop, or former cop.
That's where this piece of **** got the weapons.
The gun control argument is mute here, unless you are arguing that the police should not be armed as well.
I wonder if the school security guard was armed.
-
the school security guard was not armed. perhaps because it would present a bad image.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
now... where is there better gun control than at schools? What is it? like no guns at all within 500 yards of a school? schools have more draconian gun laws than england.
Lazs, I think you're being obtuse! That 500 yard law does not equate to gun control. It's just a silly little byelaw; sop to concerned parents, and akin to banning nail scissors or safety razors on airliners. What guys like myself and curval understand by gun control is targeting of the supply of guns.
Shuckins - interesting post. We didn't have guns at my schools in the 60s, and neither did we go hunting! But, like you, we had two-parent families, respect, and a strong sense of societal values. None of my immediate peers was from a one parent family, and in every case that I know about, the mother stayed at home while dad was at work.
This scenario has now changed completely. We've had the ME generation, we had flower power, free love and all that crap. We've had an explosion of drugs, which has gone hand in hand with an explosion in crime. Two-parent families are now the exception, not the norm. We're now in the "rights generation". Children now know exactly what they can get away with. Whereas we respected teachers and addressed them as Sir or Miss, nowadays it's not unusual for children to physically assault staff or to tell them to fork off. Is it any wonder that a culture of youth-punk-gang-substance-abuse-is-cool-and-respectful-kids-should-be-picked-on mentality has spread across the country like a cancer?
We've got exactly the same problems in Britain, but as Lazs would quickly point out, we're generally a few years behind you.
And it's because of this ^ that I believe that gun crimes in Britain would be in proportion with those of America, if guns were freely available here. They aren't. Originally posted by Sandman
You can ban the guns, but the root cause(s) for this sort of societal malaise will remain and the violence will manifest in other forms.
I agree. But the societal malaise that would remain might not result in the deaths of nine people at a stroke, but for the availability of guns. If this kid, in his deranged state of mind, had only been able to lay his hands on a frying pan/rolling pin/Tate & Lyle syrup tin with string attachment, or a stake from a chain linked fence, I doubt that anyone would have died.
-
You know its funny, but as soon as I read this article I figured that exactly the kind of responses we are reading here would already be on the O club board.
A few observations:
1) "Red Lake Fire Director Roman Stately said the gunman had two handguns and a shotgun. The shooter may have obtained his weapons from his grandfather, who was a long-time police officer in the area"
The shooter in this case illegally obtained his weapons from a law enforcement officer, no gun control law other than one aimed at disarming the police (which to date I haven't heard proposed on either side of the aisle) would have made one wit of difference in preventing the shootings.
1) "The alleged shooter believed he was the "angel of death" and a Neo-Nazi. School officials reportedly were afraid he would do something violent in April 2004, which was the month of Adolf Hitler's birthday"
Does anyone really think its odd that a nihilist with a predisposition to violent behavior would kill his classmates and then himself?
Lest we forget, Klebold and Harris's main plan of attack was a series of giant propane bombs which were supposed to take out the entire cafeteria of Columbine highschool. As one official put it at the time, it was only by the grace of God that they didn't go off because the final death toll would have been much higher than 14. Do we seriously think the solution to that problem is to ban access to propane?
As was the case with this fellow we had two nihilists who dressed in black and who had nothing but teen angst, total self-absorbtion, and an absolute moral vaccuum to direct them. With that kind of philosophy on board, its only providence that prevents these massacres from happening all the time.
As has been pointed out, 100 years ago guns were considered a tool in most American households, not very different from a hammer, and children were raised around them and taught to use them. And yet we didn't have school massacres back then. What has changed? Well, what's different is that today our kids are by and large spiritually moribund and morally adrift if not simply amoral. I encounter kids on a fairly regular basis who have no concept of an objective right or wrong and simply weigh decisions on the basis of "Do I want to do it? Will the perceived upside be greater than what I perceive to be the downside?" And since the average teen has a limited capacity to assess long range consequences, even that grotesque means of decision making is inherently flawed (witness the sterling decisions made by teens both in the drivers seat or the back seat of cars).
What needs to be emphasized is that by and large this wasn't the case 100 years ago, "ethics and morals" had not become dirty words that send ACLU lawyers in to a legal feeding frenzy.
So it seems to me that we only have 3 possible courses of action to choose from as a society:
1) Accept that these massacres are going to occur as amoral mini-barbarians do what is right in their own eyes and get used to them.
2) Accept that what President John Quincy Adam's stated is true "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion" and concluding that we will no longer tolerate morality and religion in the public square, accelerate the inexorable move towards a 1984-like socialist police state where all individual liberties are subsumed by the government.
3) Realize that we are tearing apart the very fabric of a free and civil society by removing every vestige of religion or morality from the public square and begin the painful process of reforming our way of thinking about the importance of the disemination of ethical instruction both corporately and individually.
Sadly, I believe that because we cannot endure choice #1 and detest the very idea of #3, then #2 will eventually become the defacto choice.
"Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them, either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man, either by the Bible or by the bayonet."[/i] - Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the house of Representatives.
- SEAGOON
-
Tate and Lyle tin....that's the one that is green in colour and has a picture of a dead lion on it being swarmed by flies right?
Good stuff.
Best on panckaes and excellent for Treacle Tart.
It now comes in plastic squeezie bottles. Damn you for getting the metal tins banned beet. ;)
-
"Lest we forget, Klebold and Harris's main plan of attack was a series of giant propane bombs which were supposed to take out the entire cafeteria of Columbine highschool. As one official put it at the time, it was only by the grace of God that they didn't go off because the final death toll would have been much higher than 14. Do we seriously think the solution to that problem is to ban access to propane?"
Why would you ban propane? The bombs DIDN'T go off. The guns sure did though. This argument is just dumb.
You can't ban guns in the US now anyway...they are just too prevalent.
-
There have been 4 attempts at massacres in schools in the UK that I know of.
One was by an ex-pupil of a school in NE England. He stabbed 1 girl dead before a teacher overpowered him.
One was by a deranged man armed with a machete, who jumped over the fence of a kindergarten and attacked 4 children and 3 adults. None suffered life threatening injuries, although several had head wounds.
One was by an ex pupil at a school in Northern Ireland, who built a flamethrower out of a fire extinguisher he filled with petrol. 3 boys were burned, all survived.
One was by Thomas Hamilton, who walked in to a school armed with handguns and shot dead 16 children and a teacher, and wounded 2 teachers and 12 children.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Why would you ban propane? The bombs DIDN'T go off. The guns sure did though. This argument is just dumb.
You can't ban guns in the US now anyway...they are just too prevalent.
So when the next round of total losers does a better job and the propane bombs go off it will be a smart argument?
You're right about the ban but for the wrong reason. Check the Bill of Rights for the correct answer.
Like it or not, Seagoon actually has the correct summation.
IMO, of course.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Tate and Lyle tin....that's the one that is green in colour and has a picture of a dead lion on it being swarmed by flies right?
You know, that's another problem with the loss of Biblical instruction in society, no one knows what's on the Tate & Lyle tin.
The dead lion is swarmed by bees, not flies. It's from Samson's riddle to the Philistines in Judges 14. If I remember rightly the Tate and Lyle motto was from Judges 14:14 "Out of the strong came forth sweetness", but its been ages since I last saw it.
Mmmmm.... Jam-Treacle-Butties.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Toad
So when the next round of total losers does a better job and the propane bombs go off it will be a smart argument?
You're right about the ban but for the wrong reason. Check the Bill of Rights for the correct answer.
Like it or not, Seagoon actually has the correct summation.
IMO, of course.
Whatever Toad...I regret posting in this thread to begin with. I will just bite my lip and try harder to resist the next time some nut blows your people away. My lip will be very sore very soon I suspect.
-
Why did I post this?:confused:
(Makes a note...never post anything to do with guns again)
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
You know, that's another problem with the loss of Biblical instruction in society, no one knows what's on the Tate & Lyle tin.
The dead lion is swarmed by bees, not flies. It's from Samson's riddle to the Philistines in Judges 14. If I remember rightly the Tate and Lyle motto was from Judges 14:14 "Out of the strong came forth sweetness", but its been ages since I last saw it.
Mmmmm.... Jam-Treacle-Butties.
- SEAGOON
lol...
Seagoon..I apologise for my post referring to yours. I'll just say that my aching back has affected my mood very badly.
Thanks for the info on the bees though.
:aok
-
Nashwan.
I wonder what would've happened if those guys all had guns when they went on the rampage? look at what happened in the incedent that did involve guns for the answer. Whatever the NRA lobby in here say, I'm thankfull that we don't have the same gun culture here.
-
Yes, I'm sure it will Curval.
Just as I'm sure you bit your lip when the Japanese man killed his mother with a baseball bat.
Just as you bit your lip when the San Diego man killed his mother and stepfather with a ball bat.
Just as you bit your lip when a drunk driver killed Joanne Yvonne Oullette Young and Drake Brian Young, 22 years and 4 years repectively in Calgary, Alberta.
The driver was only .04, the breathalyzer was taken 2 hours after the crash. The driver was playing the game of leapfrog with some friends.
Joanne and Drake were on their way to spend the day at the Calgary Zoo when they were hit head-on by Greg Gallager. Drake was killed instantly, Joanne died a few hours later. Greg was charged with criminal negligence causing death x 2.
He is currently serving 2 years less a day, house arrest, 240 hours of community service, loss of licence for 5 years. There was no jail time, as they didn't want to interrupt his education.
[/b]
Actually, with all the unnecessary sorrow in the world, I'm sort of suprised you even have a lower lip.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Why did I post this?:confused:
(Makes a note...never post anything to do with guns again)
You're learning!
-
"Seems to me 2 of these in 6 years indicates something of a problem. Glad I live in Canada."
ahem, taber,
situation at hand...
the kid killed his grandparents earlier as well...crazy **** had more issues than big billy stealing his lunch money...
gun control would not do one tiddly bit to stop it, especially when there are cheaper, easier ways to stop em.
-
Nope..I will reserve my lip biting to gun massacres in the US.
But you are right...soon I probably won't have a lower lip based on the recent spate.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I suppose that the pressure of not having any individuality or right to defend yourself is the reason the other countries have such a hitgh suicide rate....
Yup - that's gotta be it.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Nope..I will reserve my lip biting to gun massacres in the US.
Ah, so you are totally blase and unconcerned about the tens of thousands of deaths world-wide caused by drunk drivers?
And murder using any other inanimate object doesn't cause concern or sympathy?
And only pointless death in the US is of interest to you? The rest of the world is not worthy of concern?
OK. I guess.
-
How many everyday chores of an average persons are hindered or made impossible by removing cars?
How many everyday chores of an average person is hindered or made impossible by removing firearms?
Those two can't be compared directly.
-
My you read alot into my posts there Toad.
I was just referring to gun threads on this BBS.
Tell you what...Nashwan has posted a very interesting statistic on school attacks in the UK. Comment on that instead of trying to bait me.
-
Anyone checked lately on the numbers of student instigated massacres in Isreal? Last I checked some of the teachers are armed. But then they are in a state of persistant war and have experience with madmen armed with bombs and guns attempting to assault their schools. The Isrealies are moral, religious and they carry guns.
In every case of a school massacre in the US, an armed teacher could have stopped it dead cold. But then the litigation and civil suits by the parents of the deceased littel monsters would bankrupt the school districts for allowing the teachers to defend the lives of their students from these innocent littel darlings. After all we are a victem society. Poor littel me, I think I will go out and kill someone today..boo hoo,,poor littel me. My life is so hard.....
Regardless of how anyone feels about guns and the what if collateral damage to innocent victoms on this board. If teachers shoot 2 or 3 of these monsters in the next year, the monsters will find another venue to express their love and grooviness for their fellow man. Like drug addiction, nihilism ruins individuals, families and societies. It's funny how we make a dog owner responsible for the conduct of the dog. If the dog assaults someone we remedy that very quickly. But we don't hold parents responsible for their monsters, nor do we hold the monster responsible for it's choices. We just keep sending our kids to die at the hands of these littel monsters in our tax payed for victem disarmemant zones.
-
Redtop - it's not that the WORLD is getting crazier. America is getting crazier.
====
I thought that UK dude killing all those little UK kids in that UK school with a UK gun a few years ago was pretty UK sad.
Also, why would an amurican indian do this to his fellow amurican indian friends? could it be......close proximity to canada?
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
You know its funny, but as soon as I read this article I figured that exactly the kind of responses we are reading here would already be on the O club board.
A few observations:
1) "Red Lake Fire Director Roman Stately said the gunman had two handguns and a shotgun. The shooter may have obtained his weapons from his grandfather, who was a long-time police officer in the area"
The shooter in this case illegally obtained his weapons from a law enforcement officer, no gun control law other than one aimed at disarming the police (which to date I haven't heard proposed on either side of the aisle) would have made one wit of difference in preventing the shootings.
Ummm OK, lets translate this directly to NZ (cos hey its where I know best). First of all the cop should have had the weapons and ammo stored securely. Second there would have been no need to own handguns, and if he was a "collector" they would have been in a safe. Worst case scenario the kid would have had to break the shotgun storage and all he would have been able to go on the rampage with was a shotgun - and in NZ it would be of a slow hand loaded (ie non-automatic, or small magazine) type, meaning he may have been disarmed easily.
Hmmm, seems to me your wrong seagoon, gun licensing and proper gun storage laws would have made a difference, but that is NZ of course and the USA is a whole different kettle of fish.
So why am I typing this? I just like to point out the path the USA could have taken but missed out on, and now your reaping the consequences. And that gun laws serve to protect the rights of the innocent, rights... freedom.... lives.
-
so with no guns new zealanders dont kill each other? wow!
must be something in the water cuz it sure aint the queen.
-
Get this thread back on topic.... it's irrelevent what happens in other countries, or mentioning cars or other forms of killing etc. This happened in a US school. This tragedy is terrible but the question is how can the US prevent this or act upon it? What options do they have?
Forget the 'ban the gun', it's never going to happen in the US. Even if everyone in a whole state got shot they still wouldn't ban them. So, better education? Pyschological checks on gun owners? Limiting use? What other feasible options are there? Or are people content with what's happening and just see it as an everyday risk like being run over by a car?
-
People murder people nexx, its that simple. Nothing will ever change that. You can argue about HOW people kill people but it will never change the basic reality. And like you say, doesnt matter what country you live in or whether your country has no freedom to own firearms, people kill people for no good reason all the world over.
We just hope it never happens to us or ones we love. And it usually does not. I guess......
-
what yeager said.
If that kid had no access to guns he wouldve probably got himself a spear a sword or a bow and arrow...results wouldve been the same.
And this aint no 'kid'.. 16 years old is almost as big as most adults.
I think the solution is the new smart gun tech. Cant fire if you dont have the other device..and a gun owner should have that with him at all times.
-
Yes, people do kill others, unfortunately it's a fact of life. It depends on whether you view what happened at this school is a problem or not. If it is a problem then you must think of ways of how to reduce/prevent it. If it isn't a problem then do nothing.
What is this new smart gun technology you speak of? It sounds like a very good idea... but I guess the purists wouldn't want anyone tampering with their 'classic' guns would they?
What other feasible options are there?
-
replicant..its called "parenting"
-
Originally posted by OIO
If that kid had no access to guns he wouldve probably got himself a spear a sword or a bow and arrow...results wouldve been the same.
I don't agree with that. I doubt that he could have killed nine people with a bow and arrow before being stopped - or a sword, or a spear. Guns are so efficient - that's why they're favoured above swords by the police/army etc.
Curval - yes, it's my fault that T&L tins were banned. When I was allowed back to school, I was freaked out by the kids who screamed and backed up against the wall when I came near. I had to be kept in a break times, and kept in at home time (to give the other kids a chance to escape - lol) and it really did my head in. That plus the thought of being sent away to boarding school really turned me around - though I'm still a bit screwed up. ;) Bet you never realised you were sitting next to a mad syrup tin killer that night in London. :lol
OK, gun guys. Let's not turn this into a pissing contest. I have one question: WHAT can be done about these multiple assassinations? Two this month. Then there was the four year old who got a gun and killed his two year old sister.
The common denominator is that someone who was not sufficiently responsible to possess a gun managed to lay his hands on one. What can be done about that?
I was impressed at Lazs's hovel - he had all his guns locked in a big green safe. :aok
-
replicant... you have a very valid question. I believe that bustr answered it for you and that I have also but, again...
I believe that simply allowing those teachers who qualified and who wished to, to carry concealed you would eliminate all but a very few of these school shootings and those that did happen would end very quickly.
If the kids knew that a smalkl percentage of the adults were armed the cowardly little pukes wouldn't even consider it. Even if one of em dredged up the stones to try it he would be shot down before long.
course... being Americans they would probly just make fertilizer bombs like mcveigh.
Another thing is... we should have th4e media do long invoilved stories on this shooter... saying how this proved what a weak and effeminate guy he was and that he was a repressed homo who couldn't face the fact that he was... or that he was molested and liked it.. Instead.... the media will make him out to be some badass goth cultural hero (cultural hero to guys like him)..
If these little bedwetters knew that their lives would be mocked for such an act a lot of the appeal of being a copycat badguy would go away.
as for nashwans examples... I think we all know that british are just wimpier than Americans... even their psycos are pale imitations of real red blooded American psycos.
lazs
-
Vulcan,
The average American police officer owns at least two pistols - his service pistol and his back-up. Additionally all patrolmen, sheriffs, and deputies, have a pump-action or semi-automatic shotgun that is carried in their car. The situation in Europe isn't too radically different, although a stroll through any rail or air terminal will also indicate that many European police are actually more heavily armed than their American counterparts. The average American generally reacts negatively to the idea of police officers openly carrying H&K SMGs on patrol.
Few law-enforcement officers are going to store their daily working gear in the kind of gun safe that would be necessary to defeat a determined homicidal teen.
Also, comparing NZ to the USA is beyond even Apples and Oranges. NZ is a tiny, mostly agrarian, socialist leaning, still-fairly homogenous society which also still has the husk of the values of 100 years ago in place (actually a bizarre mix of small town "small c" conservatism contrasted with the radical ecco-socialism of the big cities - personally I think you'd be better off with the worldview of the Sheep Farmers than the University Profs, but that's just me). And yes, if every place in the USA looked like a tiny town in New Hampshire (actually Vermont would be a better comparison to NZ) our cops might not need more than a few shotguns to police the place. America is a vastly different society, and I say that as an expatriate Brit living in the USA for the last 28 years who has been blessed to have visited most of the Commonwealth countries.
REPLICANT: I'd still refer back to my original post - either we self-consciously choose a path of substantial ethical reform and abandon our current "what is truth?" bent or we will find that the socialist police state is an inevitability.
We aren't going to suddenly see widespread morality arise out of the current vacuum, especially when the pop-culture works to ridicule and destroy it and a host of angry lawyers descend like a plague of locusts whenever it is even discussed.
When society actively regards accidently viewing "Thou Shalt Not Murder" to be a threat to children, but having access to Kiddie Porn in the public library to be an inalienable right the result is going to continue to be mayhem.
It's rather like the pubs in the UK. Used to be you could have a pint in most places without fear of being glassed, now we have to have the magistrate mandate that we drink out of plastic because we are becoming a nation of spoiled toddlers apt to hurt one another in the midst of their infantile tantrums. And this indicates that we have progressed beyond the petty morality of our ancestors because now we are all "free" to act like a pack of wild dogs if we wish?
Defang a rat and he's still just vermin.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
How many everyday chores of an average persons are hindered or made impossible by removing cars?
How many everyday chores of an average person is hindered or made impossible by removing firearms?
Those two can't be compared directly.
So any automotive deaths are "acceptable losses" while any firearms deaths are "unacceptable losses"?
Just trying to get an understanding here.
-
Seagoon, great post.:aok
-
"as for nashwans examples... I think we all know that british are just wimpier than Americans... even their psycos are pale imitations of real red blooded American psycos.
"
Thanks for pointing out the weakness of your argument. Its just the availablity of guns. Simple. When brit psycos have easy access to guns they do the same things as american psycos.
I think its clear that the things that are driving people to behave this way are common in the western world. Only the results differ.
-
And... how many lives do cars save a year or prevent from crime... certainly some... emergency vehicles etc. but private ones? the odd inury that you drive to the hospital (not recomended by EMT people btw) maybe a few tho...
In the U.S. 1.5-3 million crimes a year are stopped by firearms...seems that they are "necessary" to some degree.
and... brits have to have plastic glasses in bars to keep from hurting one another? seagood seems to have a handle on it... we may all be going to hell in our own countries but... If we can't get a handle on the moral end of it...
I think I want to go down shooting rather than wimpering and wondering what rights will be taken away today.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Curval
My you read alot into my posts there Toad.
Really? I just read what you wrote.
I said :
Ah, so you are totally blase and unconcerned about the tens of thousands of deaths world-wide caused by drunk drivers?
You wrote:
Originally posted by Curval
Nope..I will reserve my lip biting to gun massacres in the US.
I said:
And murder using any other inanimate object doesn't cause concern or sympathy?
You wrote:
Originally posted by Curval
Nope..I will reserve my lip biting to gun massacres in the US.
I said:
And only pointless death in the US is of interest to you? The rest of the world is not worthy of concern?
You wrote:
Originally posted by Curval
Nope..I will reserve my lip biting to gun massacres in the US.
[/b]
The conditions under which you will bite your lip seem pretty clearly defined in your post.
What did I read into it that is not there?
As for Nashwan's stat, clearly there are fewer school shootings in England. Also, in their violent incidents, fewer people die. Note that school violence is not absent there and that it's quite possible that the incident/100,000 is even higher. Someone posted that we've had 10, they've had 4? Can't vouch for the count or the averaging; I'm sure some one will stat it up.
Now, all we have to do is account for any factors other than firearms that may influence this stat. For example, England has always had less violence than the US. What differences in child rearing/parental involvement might there be.
Lastly, once again, youth deaths from in-school violence in both countries are absolutely dwarfed by youth deaths from other causes. Why no outcry over the other lives lost?
Simply because the "other causes" are considered to be "necessary" for a particular poster's lifestyle?
-
Replicant -
Smart gun tech - http://www.metalstorm.com/
I would hate to bet my life on the life span of a battery or that the circuits havent started to suffer that 1% acceptable feild malfunctioning we all experience with PC's and servers at work. No electronics manufacturer will ever make a 100% garuntee especially with the tort system that exists in the US today.
I can see the headline - Metalstorm Inc. pays $100M to suvivors of a leagaly licensed gun owner after the smart circuit fails to recognise him as the guns owner. A 17 year old monster kills him in a high school shooting spree. Then the smart circuit recognises the 17 year old monster instead. 8 die to the Metalstorm personal defence hand gun. The families of the 8 victems have filed a separate class action suite for $1billion.
My Glock or Kimber 1911 model are both desinged to mechanically work all the time. The state of New Jersey has a law on the books that when the first smart guns are availabel to the public, only those make of guns can be sold in the state. The law has a clause exempting the police because they don't believe the guns can be garunteed 100%, 100% of the time. I suppose a policemans life is more important than ours.
I listened to the news this morning, almost all of the pundents solutions were to increase the states intrusion into our lives, minds, and activities while disarming us and requiring stricter social comfermation to the PC norms as the solution to the killing spree. Although by midnight tonight in the same state as the high school murders the same number will have died to car accidents. All of these good citizens want the state to make it go away. One kid shooting 8 sheep in a barrel is more devistating than trying to visualise 300 times that dead to car accidents in one year. The media makes sure of it.
We became sheep in this country when we gave up morality and personal responsibility for the benifits of secularism. Arm the teachers. Supposedly they are responcible for the safety of our children while in school. But then the teachers want the state to make it all go away to. Sheep herding sheep...................
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Or are people content with what's happening and just see it as an everyday risk like being run over by a car?
Well, the risk of being run over or killed by an automobile is far higher than being killed by a firearm.
These stats are from 2001, haven't seen any newer.
Lifetime Odds of death by:
Firearms discharge, 1 in 4,605
Car occupant 1 in 247
But dying in a car is an "acceptable loss".
-
toad... you do realize that you are arguing with someone who lives on a tiny little vacation/tax shelter island?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
It's rather like the pubs in the UK. Used to be you could have a pint in most places without fear of being glassed, now we have to have the magistrate mandate that we drink out of plastic because we are becoming a nation of spoiled toddlers apt to hurt one another in the midst of their infantile tantrums. And this indicates that we have progressed beyond the petty morality of our ancestors because now we are all "free" to act like a pack of wild dogs if we wish?
Defang a rat and he's still just vermin.
- SEAGOON
What pubs are these? I've never known a pub to use plastic glasses anywhere in the UK. They're used at festivals etc., mainly because they're disposable.
-
I don't view it as an "argument". It's the free exchange of opposing viewpoints.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
toad... you do realize that you are arguing with someone who lives on a tiny little vacation/tax shelter island?
lazs
??? (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tw.html)
-
one word... where do you think curval lives?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, the risk of being run over or killed by an automobile is far higher than being killed by a firearm.
These stats are from 2001, haven't seen any newer.
Lifetime Odds of death by:
Firearms discharge, 1 in 4,605
Car occupant 1 in 247
But dying in a car is an "acceptable loss".
That's because your country's total use of automobiles greatly exceeds your country's total use of guns. About half of your (and our) population uses an automobile each day. But very few people (relatively speaking) use a gun.
cheese, I had to call tomato just now. Bah, never mind....
-
Doesnt he live in the Bahamas? The land of pink shorts and neckties?
:D
-
Originally posted by Replicant
What pubs are these? I've never known a pub to use plastic glasses anywhere in the UK. They're used at festivals etc., mainly because they're disposable.
The change is being made region by region via the local licensing laws. Here is the case that really got the ball rolling in 2000:
Calling Time on Pub Pint Glasses (http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/22/22330_calling_time_on_pub_pint_glasses.html)
If you would like I can give you a few articles on localities (particularly in Scotland) that already have licensing laws on the books mandating it. Several chains are already "voluntarily" switching over to the kiddie cups solution.
- SEAGOON
-
hehe..nice try Gto ;)
All this talk about little old me.
Toad...you are really upset by all of this. I responded to a thread regarding a gun massacre in the US. I will simply try not to comment in the plethora of posts that are inevitable on the same subject in the future, that's all. Thus I will bite my lip and try to keep my fingers off my keyboard when these events are posted.
Now...should someone post about the horrors of Japanese baseball bat killings or road traffic fatalities I may or may not respond. That I will decide upon when, or if, such things are subjects of pots in the future.
The subject matters are completely unrelated...in my opinion of course.
You have turned what I said into an opinion that I don't care about anything but gun related deaths in the US.
As to Naswan's post..I felt that it spoke very clearly to your idea of banning inanimate objects. As you can see the injuries and fatalities in the attacks he mentioned were relatively minor with the exception of his last example.
lazs' explanation for this is so stupid it deserves no comment at all.
-
I love how this has come down to gun control and how America is going crazy.
Anyone ever think about the kid himself? Maybe his grandparents abused him, or raised him in a way to snap.
Guns can't shoot themselves. It takes someone holding the handle, finger on the trigger, to aim and rationalize in their head that killing someone is the right thing to do in the situation in their head.
I blame bad influences from the grandparents and on the school for not noticing his behavior and keeping tabs on it.
I have anger issues too, but I'm not about to go mow down kids at school. My mind isn't SCREWED UP.
-
Curval, have you ever wondered why Palestinian terrorists almost never go into restaurants in Israel and start blasting away at the patrons?
They've tried it...and found that very soon they wind up very dead...because the owners and patrons are almost all armed.
They don't try it in the schools anymore either...because Israeli teachers ARE armed. I've seen it.
The only safe method of striking at Israeli civilians is the suicide bomber. A gunman might get one or two patrons in a restaurant before the patrons gunned him down like a dog...therefore, they've turned to explosives...which kill far more people.
Let's see you try to convince the Israelis to give up THEIR guns. You would be laughed out of the country.
-
no plastic glasses in my city
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I believe that simply allowing those teachers who qualified and who wished to, to carry concealed you would eliminate all but a very few of these school shootings and those that did happen would end very quickly.
If the kids knew that a smalkl percentage of the adults were armed the cowardly little pukes wouldn't even consider it. Even if one of em dredged up the stones to try it he would be shot down before long.
You just don't get it lazs, these kids are suicidal. An armed teacher just makes it easier for them to go out in a blaze of glory.
Seagoon: I totally agree. However there are people (lazs is a good example) here that have a blinding belief that every person on this planet should be armed to the teeth like some sort of Mexican Bandito. They often cite and critize laws of countries like NZ, Australia and the UK as infringing on peoples freedoms - yet can't see the flipside of the law protecting peoples freedom (to live). So I take oppotunities like these to point out the different path we choose to take, its results, and its benefits - not to change their minds about gun laws in the US, but to educate them that the US is not the only "way".
-
Originally posted by beet1e
That's because your country's total use of automobiles greatly exceeds your country's total use of guns. About half of your (and our) population uses an automobile each day. But very few people (relatively speaking) use a gun.
cheese, I had to call tomato just now. Bah, never mind....
beet1e ever noticed how automobiles, which are required to be registered, warranted as fit for the road, and drivers of such vehicles who are required to be licensed and are the subject to very strict road laws are compared to firearms to which the pro-gun crowd want to be free for all - unlicensed, unregistered etc ;) ironic isn't it.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Toad...you are really upset by all of this.
[/b]
Hardly. OTOH, I feel free to point out the tears over firearms deaths and the blythe "necessary to my lifestyle" discounting of deaths by other inanimate objects.
Originally posted by Curval
You have turned what I said into an opinion that I don't care about anything but gun related deaths in the US.
[/b]
I didn't write it, you did. It sure LOOKS like an opinion that you don't care. Now that you explained it, I can see what you may have meant to say. Next time perhaps you'll provide more depth and detail.
As you can see the injuries and fatalities in the attacks he mentioned were relatively minor with the exception of his last example.
Yes, they are. Of course, all firearms deaths are dwarfed by the magnitude of vehicular related deaths. Aren't they?
-
I've been looking for info on the plastic glasses, i can't find much other than proposals and plans to serve drinks from glass bottles in plastic glasses. Not a thing about any laws or banning glasses. I've never been to a pub and had a pint in a plastic glass.
A bit OT- Toad you were in the southwest not long ago, what was your pub experience like? If you went to one that is
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
beet1e ever noticed how automobiles, which are required to be registered, warranted as fit for the road, and drivers of such vehicles who are required to be licensed and are the subject to very strict road laws are compared to firearms to which the pro-gun crowd want to be free for all - unlicensed, unregistered etc ;) ironic isn't it.
Ever notice how despite the requirement to be registered, warranted as fit for the road, and drivers of such vehicles who are required to be licensed and are the subject to very strict road laws doesn't stop automobiles from being used to kill many, many, many MORE thousands of innocent people than firearms do?
-
Didn't see any trouble in the pubs I visited. No plastic glasses either, but that was 2003.
-
If you take Nashwans examples and say that Great Britan is equal in size and population to one state in the US. Then you have a rate about on par of ours for domestic violent incidents in schools and general violence in the population. If you read Seagoons article about glassing, it says there are around 5000 incidents in Great Britan a year.
Glassing - smashing a glass or bottel upside a persons head or into their face. Rather violent. Really messy. Ive seen it done with a beer pitcher. Guy lost all the skin on one side of his face. But the article points out the governments answer to human violence is banning inanimate objects. I suppose at some point you will be required to check your rings at the door because of the damage that can be done in a fist fight.
Now if you take just total numbers of violent crimes each year per National Sovergin entity, sure Breat Britain is a peace love and groovyness paradice. We should all imigrate to England and live in the south side of London. Or to the Bahamas. Being a smaller island I'm betting the government has tighter control of the population. I would bet the incident per year of violent crime in the Bahamas is on par with Vermont, maybe a bit more with the drug gangs on the Island. Though Vermont's gun carry law is very simple. There is none. Just put your peice in your pocket and go about your business. Vermont has a very low rate of crime compaired to the rest of the US.
Issues like this high school shooting tend to polarise people into their tolerance levels for personal risk. Long term state intervention tends to breed out the independance that is tollerant of risk. Those with less tolerance are more open to their lives being externaly regulated if the result is an illussion of comformity and safety. Populations locked into small geographic areas or ideologic affinities tend toward societies of this nature.
Here in the US we still have the geographic space and cultural foundation to breed large numbers in the risk accepting group. So from one side our answer is to shoot the littel monsters if they suddenly decide today i will kill my whole school. After all the littel monster decided to take the risk of living by the sword so to say. But then the risk averse portion of the population will say we have to understand the littel monster because, well he is a victem of the risk accepting portion of our society and didn't know what he was doing.
So folks, 1 dead littel monster vs 10 dead innocent citizens? All the understanding in the world didn't save the 10 innocents, did it?
-
Originally posted by thrila
I've been looking for info on the plastic glasses, i can't find much other than proposals and plans to serve drinks from glass bottles in plastic glasses. Not a thing about any laws or banning glasses. I've never been to a pub and had a pint in a plastic glass.
A bit OT- Toad you were in the southwest not long ago, what was your pub experience like? If you went to one that is
Thrilla,
Here's just one brief article on it indicating the change in at least 45,000 pubs: Pint Glasses to Go Plastic (http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=585&id=64282005)
I'm glad that the majority of Englishmen here drank in nice quiet establishments, I myself worked as a student as a barman at the Ardgowan pub in St. Andrews which used Glass and had precious few violent incidents, so obviously this problem of glassing is not universal and the consumption of beer doesn't inevitably lead to bloodshed [the same coordinate principle applies to the vast majority of gun owners in the US]. But I'm sorry to say that as far back as the early 90s I also drank at places in Glasgow, Dundee, and even several student unions that served Pints in plastic due to glassing (during the push in 2001 they estimated 5000 glassing incidents a year).
But if I may comment - to detail the number of pubs that have or haven't gone plastic is to miss the point entirely, the fact that we have proposals and a move to go to plastic glasses (i.e. to limit the access to potential weapons) indicates a mindset that says "the solution is to deal with the instrument rather than the actor. Since we must not question the root of his actions, we can only remove the instruments" Simply put, we cannot, indeed must not deal with the causes of the upsurge in public violence and antisocial behavior, instead we can only hope to make the violence less lethal. Hence my comment about defanging the rat.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Sometimes I think the world is getting crazier and crazier.
Originally posted by Toad
In my ancient times, the '60's, it was ROUTINE for many students to bring guns to school. We left them in the car though, because right after school let out we went hunting. Happened every Fall; no one thought a thing about it. No gun rampages in school.
Shortly after Columbine, John Stossel did a series of reports on school violence and he found that, like Toad said, in the 40's and 50's guns at school weren't uncommon and there were way more school shooting incidents resulting in more deaths on a per capita basis than we've seen in the last two decades. Media hype has skewed our perspective.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Curval, have you ever wondered why Palestinian terrorists almost never go into restaurants in Israel and start blasting away at the patrons?
They've tried it...and found that very soon they wind up very dead...because the owners and patrons are almost all armed.
They don't try it in the schools anymore either...because Israeli teachers ARE armed. I've seen it.
The only safe method of striking at Israeli civilians is the suicide bomber. A gunman might get one or two patrons in a restaurant before the patrons gunned him down like a dog...therefore, they've turned to explosives...which kill far more people.
Let's see you try to convince the Israelis to give up THEIR guns. You would be laughed out of the country.
Funny how you cannot compare New Zealnd with the United States according to Seagoon " comparing NZ to the USA is beyond even Apples and Oranges" but it is perfectly acceptable for you to compare Israel to the US?
Israel is effectively at war 24/7 Shuckins. Granted it may seem that way in the US, especially recently, but it is still apples and oranges.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yes, they are. Of course, all firearms deaths are dwarfed by the magnitude of vehicular related deaths. Aren't they? [/B]
There you go again.
Four incidents of school attacks were mentioned. Knives were used in one, a machete and a flamethrower on two others. In these three attacks with inanimate objects one death resulted. In the last instance a gun was used and 17 people were killed. The logical conclusion that I reached was that guns are significantly more deadly in such attacks thatn the inanimate objects.
You conclude that cars cause more deaths.
I just don't get the connection...and I suspect you are using the car deaths as a red herring argument to try and minimise a very valid point against your arguments.
-
If I may....
The guns aren't the problem, nor are the availability of guns the solution.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
If I may....
The guns aren't the problem, nor are the availability of guns the solution.
:aok
-
MT has a good point. I tried to make that same connection by my reference to Israel. Culture has a lot to do with violence...and the Israelis are highly trained and professional in their use of firearms...and they are CIVILIANS....trained and trusted by their government to do the right thing during a crisis.
-
new zeeland has lots an lots of sheep, i feel this has a calming influnce on young men as it satisfies their "feelings"and takes their mind off guns and girls.
-
Curval based on the efficiency of the tool in killing instantanious numbers you are prescribing it's uniqueness for denial to the population at large. In your post you have made a Freudian slip:
Curval said:
The logical conclusion that I reached was that guns are significantly more deadly in such attacks thatn the inanimate objects.
Guns are inanimate objects, the slip is your ellevating it above the other tools used to kill or maim humans, and not identifying as the primary tool of their deaths, the "DANGEROUS HUMAN" who comitted the act. A human in all of these cases commited the violence against those people while manipulating a tool. Not the tool manipulating the human. Who are you afraid of more, the gun or the man pulling the trigger????????????
-
Originally posted by Curval
I just don't get the connection...and I suspect you are using the car deaths as a red herring argument to try and minimise a very valid point against your arguments.
Read all that I've posted.
This was early on in response to you asking me to address Nashwan's post.
Toad:
As for Nashwan's stat, clearly there are fewer school shootings in England. Also, in their violent incidents, fewer people die. Note that school violence is not absent there and that it's quite possible that the incident/100,000 is even higher. Someone posted that we've had 10, they've had 4? Can't vouch for the count or the averaging; I'm sure some one will stat it up.
Now, all we have to do is account for any factors other than firearms that may influence this stat. For example, England has always had less violence than the US. What differences in child rearing/parental involvement might there be.
Lastly, once again, youth deaths from in-school violence in both countries are absolutely dwarfed by youth deaths from other causes. Why no outcry over the other lives lost? [/color][/size]
Simply because the "other causes are considered to be "necessary" for a particular poster's lifestyle?
[/u]
I haven't seen that addressed as yet. Many posters come here to tell the US folks how much they prefer the approach their particular country has taken. They tell us they feel their country has the right approach.
However, what I really see is this:
"I don't really see a need for firearms in the particular lifestyle I prefer. Therefore, I see no problem if they are removed from everyone."
Fine. However, when the point is made that autos kill tens of thousands more people than firearms, the response is:
"Well, I need autos in the lifestyle I prefer. Therefore, they cannot be banned and we must accept the loss of life they generate."
If 10,000 die from firearms and you don't like firearms, that's an unacceptable loss.
If 40,000 die from autos but you like autos, that's an acceptable loss.
I'm sure you see the hypocracy without further examples.
-
Cars have some other purpose I am sure. Firearms have none.
The whole argument is so silly that it is hypocrocy to pretend its even a rational debate.
-
Pongo you are right. Its a nonsense.
Take away the guns and you take away a large cause of death. Guns have no other purpose than to kill other people Its what they were origionaly invented for fer chrissakes!
Over here we have shotguns and some hunting weapons. Fine no problem with that. Went Shooting last weekend as it happens. For the first time. Clays only. Was good fun.
Now cue the NRA men telling me a Glock or a semi automatic is for sport shooting.
I don't need a gun I'm pretty confident the burgler/ criminal is unlikely to have one too. I don't live in fear of crime. I live a happy non paranoid life. Aren't I lucky. Oh And I live in the UK in a major city. In truth I actualy pity those of you who feel it neccessary to have a gun incase the other guy bad guy, does too. How bloody awfull it must be to live with that fear and paranoia all the time. You should try a gun control country sometime you realy should. You never know you might actualy realise what real freedom is.
ITS FREEDOM FROM FEAR!
:cool:
-
Originally posted by john9001
new zeeland has lots an lots of sheep, i feel this has a calming influnce on young men as it satisfies their "feelings"and takes their mind off guns and girls.
Actually in 2001 NZ had the highest per capita ratio of teen male suicides.
-
has anyone figured out why this young man killed a bunch of people then commited suicide?
I cant imagine killing another human being. I stumble right out of the gate even trying to comprehend why anyone else would do it, especially when life is not being defended.
-
Could you foreign know-it-alls at least wait for the bodies to cool down before starting the political indoctrination attempts?
-
Skydancer said:
The reality is that on this board there are those who believe in the right to bear arms but won't accept responsibility for the inevitable deaths that result from that right and its consequent abuse by some .
How am I responsible for what others do? Why are you attempting to hold law abiding citizens responsible for the acts of criminals and the mistakes of fools? This is the first time you have said something that even I think is BS.
If you come into my country and shoot someone dead, how am I, or any law abiding citizen owner of arms in the United States responsible for your murderous action? You pulled the trigger and denied the other person their life. Not 80 million of us. Are you advocating growing nations of sheep who are no longer required to be responsible for protecting their own lives? And so because they are powerless we assume some collective responsibility and guilt for any misfortunes they encounter? Last time I heard anything like this it was by an avowed Marxist Professor in a class at the University of Maryland. By any chance are you a member of the Socialist Workers Party or any of it's afilliates?
Collective guilt in the way you are useing it is a classic Marxist technique for deconstructing a societies fundimental beliefs and freedom. It turns the whole against its self and lays the ground work for politicaly correct speech and conduct codes which enevitabley destroy individuality and personal liberty. And subsiquently the ones spouting it beleive they are the only members of the collective smart enough to guide the collective in any meanigfull and enlightened way.
The responsibility for the abuse of a tool and subsiquence harm to another is the individual who performs the deed. I guess you aint responsible in England if you run down and kill a child on the street by accident with your car? It's the collective lack of accepting responsibility for your accidental abuse of your tool by all the 15million or so safe car drivers in England that's at fault.
I suppose by your logic all 80 million of us lawful american gun owning citizens are guilty and should be punished for the murdered judge in Atlanta. I don't remember being in atlanta shooting anyone that day. I don't think Laz was there either. I beleive whitnesses saw a balck man, 6ft 5inches 220 lbs walk into the court room and choose to kill the judge. This was after he chose to over power his female guard and steal her pistol from her locked locker. But then again some cultures today belive in witchcraft and bad JooJoo. I suppose the collective aura of 80million gun owners over powered the man, placed the gun in his hand, and pulled the trigger against his will.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Cars have some other purpose I am sure. Firearms have none.
The whole argument is so silly that it is hypocrocy to pretend its even a rational debate.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1111546230_deathstats.jpg)
Firearms have no use? Did you really say that?
Or did you mean firearms have no use that you personally consider essential?
Cars have many uses. One of them is recreational, just like firearms.
Cars are the leading cause of death in the US in the 3-33 age group.
The LEADING cause of death. Yet no one here seems to feel a need to deal with that. It's sillly to admit that cars kill tens of thousands more than guns and no one wants to talk about it.
-
the first one was better Funky lol.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Take away the guns and you take away a large cause of death.
[/b]
Take away cars and you take away the LARGEST cause of death (by wide margin). In the US, homicide by firearm is somewhere down past #15 or so as a cause of death. Cars, OTOH are the #1 cause, age 3-33.
Guns have no other purpose than to kill other people Its what they were origionaly invented for fer chrissakes!
Over here we have shotguns and some hunting weapons. Fine no problem with that. Went Shooting last weekend as it happens. For the first time. Clays only. Was good fun.
[/b]
Now re-read what you just wrote. Seems you used a gun for a purpose other than killing people? And you had fun doing so?
You realize how intelligent that statement makes you look, right?
Now cue the NRA men telling me a Glock or a semi automatic is for sport shooting.
[/b]
I've got a Glock. I sport shoot with it. I'm in the NRA. Now... what point of yours does that prove, exactly? Other than YOU have never shot a Glock for sporting purposes? I have; it's as much fun as shooting clays. Try a "bowling pin" shoot sometime.
I don't live in fear of crime. I live a happy non paranoid life. Aren't I lucky. Oh And I live in the UK in a major city.
[/b]
I don't live in fear of crime. I live a happy non-paranoid life. Aren't I lucky. Oh And I live in the US, in the edge of a major city.
You never know you might actualy realise what real freedom is.
[/b]
Basically it's more what freedom is not. For example, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Otherwise, you're free to swing your arm anyway, anywhere and anytime you like.
Think about it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Take away cars and you take away the LARGEST cause of death (by wide margin). In the US, homicide by firearm is somewhere down past #15 or so as a cause of death. Cars, OTOH are the #1 cause, age 3-33.
[/B]
Where are cigarettes on the list? They have to be responsible for more deaths than guns, why aren't cigarettes outlawed in GB??
-
Originally posted by Toad
Firearms have no use? Did you really say that?
Or did you mean firearms have no use that you personally consider essential?
Cars have many uses. One of them is recreational, just like firearms.
Cars are the leading cause of death in the US in the 3-33 age group.
The LEADING cause of death. Yet no one here seems to feel a need to deal with that. It's sillly to admit that cars kill tens of thousands more than guns and no one wants to talk about it.
I'm sorry toad, I didn't realize the USA had done away with all its road laws, like drunk drivers, speed limits etc. OH whats thats? You still have those LAWS? Oh? Your government IS dealing with it.
Firearms uses versus automobile uses. Hmnmm
Firearms: primary purpose is to kill;
Automobiles: primary purpose is to transport.
Automobiles: withdraw use... and what happens. Commerce grinds to a halt. Kids can't go to school. Ambulances can save people. In fact withdrawing the use of automobiles would probably cause in increased number of deaths. So automobiles while creating their own level of deaths offset that by the contribution they make in saving lives....
Firearms: withdraw access to the general public and what happens... well in any "western" country but the USA you will probably save lives (and I am serious, I could see the crims having a field day in the US if this happened).
-
Hey! Will you guys shut up for TWO SECONDS?!!!
Okay...
Continue.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Where are cigarettes on the list? They have to be responsible for more deaths than guns, why aren't cigarettes outlawed in GB??
Primarily cigarettes only have the victim as the smoker. The only other victims are second hand smoke breathers and the strain on the health system. Most goverments have dealt with this by taxing smokers to offset the cost to any health system, and in some countries the places you can smoke is restricted to protect the freedom of those who don't smoke from having to inhale that crap.
So, if you're happy with the fact that governments ARE dealing with cigarettes shall we get the ball rolling on firearms?
-
As always, the rush is to cure the symptom, not the disease. Why did this kid do this? What were the signs? How many were ignored? What did the fact his father had committed suicide and that his mom was in a home because of brain injuries from a car accident play in it? How about the fact this was on a reservation? Was the school underfunded and there wasn't enough people around to notice? What type of parents were his grandparents? Were they able to see the signs and what did they do about it?
There are a thousand questions to be asked before we even get to "guns". But those wont be asked. And they wont be answered. So the next kid might shoot up a school. Or he will just off himself and it will never be reported. And nobody gives a **** other than that it suits their beliefs on some issue like gun control.
Concentrate on the kid and leave my guns alone. Figure out how better to treat and raise kids and he could have a mini-gun in his house and nobody is worse off. The problem isn't the gun, it's the kid.
If he just offs himself no one cares. Perhaps if we have more of these, someone will start looking at the root cause of it, rather than the guns. Which is the same as saying, let him kill himself (as long as it's with something other than a gun), just don't make it a scene that we all have to take notice of. Becuase if you force us to look at the situation, we'll just have to ignore the point and make a bunch of noise about something that's NOT THE ****ING POINT.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I'm sorry toad, I didn't realize the USA had done away with all its road laws, like drunk drivers, speed limits etc. OH whats thats? You still have those LAWS? Oh? Your government IS dealing with it.
[/b]
Oh, indeed. We have all those laws and more, MANY more. In fact, they keep adding all sorts of laws.
To no avail. Despite all the legislation and regulation, transportation deaths continue to reign at the top of the list for cause of death.
So is my government dealing with it? Yes. Very unsuccessfully.
It ought to be a lesson for those who continue to think restricting the inanimate object will some how control a problem caused by the human.
Originally posted by Vulcan
Firearms uses versus automobile uses. Hmnmm
Firearms: primary purpose is to kill;
Automobiles: primary purpose is to transport.
[/b]
Of what significance at all is "primary purpose"? Would you make the case, that if a golf club was the leading weapon used in homicides, that golf clubs shouldn't be restricted because their "primary purpose is not to kill, it's recreation"?
The fact is autos kill something like 4 or 5 times as many people as firearms every year.
Originally posted by Vulcan
Automobiles: withdraw use... and what happens.
[/b]
Withdraw use? Did you withdraw use of firearms from your police or military? No, you restricted their use by the general population.
And so, if one REALLY cares about stopping the slaughter, you folks should be crying out for restricting the use of the tool that kills 4X as many people as firearms.
Only the police, military, medical and mass transit folks....properly trained and licensed to use these dangerous forms of transport... should be allowed free use of them.
Either eliminate them for the rest of the unwashed public and substitute mass transit (over a suitable timeframe, of course) OR restrict civilian autos to no more than 25 mph top speed and a 0-60 time of 25 seconds. That should be enough to match the skills and reaction time of the average driver and keep him out of trouble. I'm certain this will save THOUSANDS of lives.
But..... no.... since you guys like your fast cars, like racing down the highway, like not having to utilize mass transit.... since restricting the car would impact YOUR desired lifestyle... cars simply cannot be restricted. In fact, discussing restrictions on the tool that kills 4X more than firearms is silly.
-
Vulcan,
You have the benifit of living on an Island that has strick imigration rules. I don't think you have the minority inflated crime rates that much of the industrialised world is experiencing. I suspect England with it's current rates of legal and ilegal immigration is seeing cities like London starting to have the flavor of our Detroit. Remember that England is usually a few years behind the US in social trends, and England seems to have no plans to stop 3rd world immigration.
Norway and Sweden have seen an increase in reported rapes by minorities from 1995 to present of 200+ up to nearly 500 per year. The source is 2nd and 3rd generation unemployed youths 15-27. Unemployment for minorities in the EU is 40-50%.
US crime rates show the highest amongst minority youths 15-27. 40% of rapes in the US are commited by minorities. Minority murders are higher than those by whites, but whites are 63% of the population here. As baby boomers world wide begin to get old and retire, they will become the targets of these youths because of their age and ease of over powering. In the next 10 years the US will see the beginings of 70million 55-65 start leaving the work force. UK and the EU will see a similare trend. There will not be enough police to go around, and last I checked the police are not required by law or any constitution state or federal to protect citizens in the US.
You are not going to change the life styles of these criminals who will be waiting in the wings as we baby boomers retire. The baby boomers will not be a physical match for 15-27 year olds. So what do we do? Die for your fantasy visions of utopia? I think you are much younger than I and so older age and the down sides that come with it are not a factor in your world view.
But then you live in NZ and most of this is academic for you.
-
We can make a deal. I agree to live without a firearm if Toad loses his cars at the same time as they're directly comparable. :D
-
America sucks for many small reasons, but it doesn't have anything to do with the "country" itself.
3 options:
1.) Normal kid (no mental problems) + supportive and carring family + morals = Good
2.) Normal Kid ( No mental problems ) + No supportive or carrying family, without morals / values = Possiblity for a bad kid.
3.) Mentally unstable kid + ( caring ) / (uncarring) family = :unknown ( the kid could be crazy, or good
Problem:
America is filled with people who do not give a cheese.. ( I am speaking in general and obviously this doesn't apply to the few good parents left in the country)
Solution:
Take care of your damn kids, and make your family work.
:rolleyes:
-
Yes I can live without the Guns but I think a Car is a tad more usefull, as Siaf rightly points out. What a ridiculous argument comparing the two.
As for cigarettes well you can't smoke in most buildings, Inc Pubs clubs soon. They are taxed way high in this country so cost a bomb. Getting on for £5-00 for a pack of 20. Id say thats pretty regulated.
Anyhow I'd enjoy watching all you gun guys walking everywhere while I drove past. Mind you you'd probably end up so frustrated that you'd lose it and shoot me!
:lol
-
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/ostrich1.jpg)
Notice that I still haven't said that guns should be banned in the US! But all this crap about it not being the guns' fault because guns are "inanimate objects" brings new meaning to "obtuse". The fact is that while guns are safe on their own, and only marginally less safe in law abiding, competent hands, guns change nutjobs into much more dangerous nutjobs. As I have said (about 500 times actually, but some readers are slow to learn) a gun crime requires TWO ingredients. 1) a loaded gun; 2) the crim/nutjob holding it. America is full of nutters, and you can't legislate against them. So the only answer is to make damn sure they don't get their hands on a gun. What's open to discussion is how that should be achieved. Simply saying that the guns themselves are not to blame is NOT the answer.Originally posted by bustr
Though Vermont's gun carry law is very simple. There is none. Just put your peice in your pocket and go about your business. Vermont has a very low rate of crime compaired to the rest of the US.
Bustr, in your own way, you are comparing apples and oranges. It's a well established fact that the majority of crime occurs in large cities, with all the social problems that shuckins described, further up^. I've been to Vermont. It's a lovely state with nice countryside, good homes, and I would hazard a guess that there is a higher proportion of two-parent families than say the Watts district of Los Angeles, or Washington DC. The largest city in Vermont is Burlington, a city with fewer than 40,000 people and less than 1000 blacks, so no ghetto problems which are the scourge of cities like Los Angeles. As yet, Vermont has not needed to legislate against guns, just as Britain hadn't 100 years ago. You speak of Vermont people putting their piece in their pocket as they go about their daily business. I bet you most of them don't. Of course, the NRA would be quick to draw one of its false parallels - that the low crime rate is directly linked to the absence of gun control law, and at the same time completely ignore all other factors. :rolleyes:
Vermont data, 2000 census (http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=25096)
But let's look at the rest of the country, and how the US lawmakers are addressing the guns issue. I think we agree that the big cities are the crime hotspots. More guns = less crime? It's funny how three of the states which do not allow carriage of concealed weapons are the states in which America's three largest cities are located. And (according to the NRA website, so it may well be false) Washington DC - a crime hotspot with a huge ghetto problem - does not allow its residents to arm themselves at home for self defence! More guns = less crime: Tell that to the US lawmakers then.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/ccw.jpg)
-
Airhead was right, put them all on ignore. This has gotten beyond stupid.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Vulcan,
You have the benifit of living on an Island that has strick imigration rules. I don't think you have the minority inflated crime rates that much of the industrialised world is experiencing.
....
But then you live in NZ and most of this is academic for you.
Says who? We have a very high influx of refugees from the Middle East, Africa and Asia. We have one of the highest densities of pacific islanders in the Southern Hemisphere in Auckland. Pacific Islanders follow the "african american" culture very closely, luckily for us they can't easily get their hands on firearms to complete the picture.
Funnily enough most of our gang-related gun crimes occur in rural areas where firearms are naturally more prolific.
-
Hey Thrawn. Is that official policy? Don't listen to or read anything that might challenge your tiny little limited view of the world? Come on mate. Lighten up. Read learn choose to disregard if you wish. But what is the point of limiting a free and sometimes zany exchange of ideas. This BBs would be ultra ultra dull if it was just full of people patting each other on the back and agreeing with each other!
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Cars have some other purpose I am sure. Firearms have none.
The whole argument is so silly that it is hypocrocy to pretend its even a rational debate.
Correct.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Curval based on the efficiency of the tool in killing instantanious numbers you are prescribing it's uniqueness for denial to the population at large. In your post you have made a Freudian slip:
Curval said:
The logical conclusion that I reached was that guns are significantly more deadly in such attacks thatn the inanimate objects.
Guns are inanimate objects, the slip is your ellevating it above the other tools used to kill or maim humans, and not identifying as the primary tool of their deaths, the "DANGEROUS HUMAN" who comitted the act. A human in all of these cases commited the violence against those people while manipulating a tool. Not the tool manipulating the human. Who are you afraid of more, the gun or the man pulling the trigger????????????
Toad is being silly and stating that ALL inanimate objects should be banned if a gun ban is advocated. My point was that in the four cases quoted 3 inanimate objects he suggests should be banned caused a total of one death. The fourth "inanimate object" caused 16. That one was the gun.
Stop trying to play clever "gotcha" word games and address Naswan's post.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
We can make a deal. I agree to live without a firearm if Toad loses his cars at the same time as they're directly comparable. :D
I'll counter with the offer to live without my firearms which are way down on the list of causes of death in comparison to autos if YOU will give up your mudering vehicles.
-
This is becoming surreal!
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Yes I can live without the Guns but I think a Car is a tad more usefull, as Siaf rightly points out. What a ridiculous argument comparing the two.
Which clearly shows you are not concerned about the loss of life. You might as well drop that pretense now.
Autos kill tens of thousands more than guns but since they are "usefull" to YOU any talk of banning them is "ridiculous".
There are alternatives to autos; mass transit as the primary example.
You willing to ban someone else's inanimate object but no way will you accept a ban on your inanimate object.
In 2000, there were 2,789 deaths in the US linked to motorcycles. There's absolutely no need for motorcycles, as there is public transportation in the cities which is more efficient.
In rural areas, a Toyota Corolla provides better mpg than the large cycles and is safer by a factor of 4 or 5. Therefore, motorcycles have no purpose other than increasing an already needless loss of life and should be banned.
There is absolutely no true need for motorcycles.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Stop trying to play clever "gotcha" word games and address Naswan's post.
You also ignore the stats. Autos kill over 4 TIMES as many people as firearms in the US.
Now, are you concerned with saving lives or not?
Or are all of you only concerned with saving lives if it is convenient to you and your desired lifestyle?
While you are at it, you'd best figure in tobacco and alcohol. Autos and alcohol are an especially dangerous mix as the stats show. As alcohol has no essential purpose in society, it should be banned as well. It would save incredible numbers of lives beyond the savings in automotive slaughter; death from medically alcohol-related cause would drop significantly as well.
Now are you guys serious about saving lives or not? I suspect not.
-
The point is to save lives, is it not?
Or is there some other agenda?
-
SAVE LIVES
To do list:
According to 2001 data , the 10 leading causes of death in the United States are:
heart disease
cancer
stroke
chronic lower respiratory disease
accidents
diabetes
pneumonia/flu
Alzheimer's disease
kidney disease
suicide
OK, let's clear up these 10 if we're really serious about saving lives. Get busy.
-
BTW, before you say "we can't cure cancer"
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 9.5/100K
13. Homicide 7.1/100K
So you guys will have to ban alcohol to save livers and thus save lives.
Homicide includes "all means"; not all are firearms related.
What? Alcohol is necessary to YOUR lifestyle so it can't be banned?
Thought so.
-
Look
Listen
No one is trying to tell you guys on that side of the slighly more salty than pacific side of the pond what to do. We are merely pointing out that we seem not to have even a fraction of the gun related violence and death that you do. In addition we have much stricter gun control. It seems rather common sense that if there are fewer guns in circulation there will be fewer chances for them to be used in crime and in acts of unbalanced violence. It aint rocket science. Its pretty straighforward and appears to work quite well for us. ( nothing is perfect though as I'm sure you'll point out ) It's what you do in a discussion. Personaly I think its odd that you are happy with the ammount of gun related homicides you have. Now maybe Guns are not the cause of this as you say. But isn't a mad man with a gun far more destructive and dangerous than one without. Isn't that same argument used when you guys rant about Iran and its nukes.
Yes cars kill people, but cars can be used to get us to work, hospital, see the relatives etc etc etc. You'd look pretty bloody silly sitting on your Glock in the middle of the road wondering where the ignition swith is wouldn't you. Its a completely different issue. You might as well call for a ban on weather as that kills people too!
C'mon Toad you are more intelligent than that surely mate.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No. The point is to prevent unnecessary fatalities. Road accidents are unfortunate but largely unavoidable results of a necessary activity in our societies. Banning cars will have a huge impact on our lives.
Ah, so we're back to "acceptable losses". Auto deaths are acceptable because YOU, your lifestyle, needs them.
YOU don't need guns, so those losses are unacceptable.
Do you "need" alcohol? Are cirrhosis of the liver losses "acceptable"? Are drunk driving losses "acceptable"?
And no one said BAN cars... we just want to ban PRIVATE cars mostly. A slow transition to safe, cheaper mass transit. Only professional, trained governmental drivers allowed to handle the dangerous police cars, ambulances, buses, etc.. Clearly, viewing the carnage created by the inept "civilian" drivers, this slaughter can't be allowed to continue. I'm afraid you'll just have to take the bus.
Again, you are all for banning things that, if banned, will cause you no personal inconvenience.
Is it about saving lives or not?
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
...Guns have no other purpose than to kill other people Its what they were origionaly invented for fer chrissakes!...
....Went Shooting last weekend as it happens. For the first time. Clays only. Was good fun....
And you are surely more intelligent than that. I'm sure we'll see some evidence sooner or later.
Now... is it about saving lives or not?
-
Originally posted by Toad
In 2000, there were 2,789 deaths in the US linked to motorcycles. There's absolutely no need for motorcycles, as there is public transportation in the cities which is more efficient.
In rural areas, a Toyota Corolla provides better mpg than the large cycles and is safer by a factor of 4 or 5. Therefore, motorcycles have no purpose other than increasing an already needless loss of life and should be banned.
There is absolutely no true need for motorcycles.
They've tried to do that in Europe for years, and no doubt they will some day be succesful.
-
Be real what personal inconvenience is it not to shoot a handgun? This is not the wild west.
Rerad the bulk of my argument and then say it isn't so rather than picking on one odd comment!
-
My life you hand gun defenders will use any daft old argument.
Its madness. You are losing thousands of people each year to a weapon that is endemic across your society.
How simple can this be. A mad man, dangerous criminal etc is far more dangerous with a gun than without. If he hasn't got a gun you don't need one.
Its just common sense. But hey if you want to live in such a mucked up place then who am I to stop you. I actualy feel sorry for you gun guys.
-
Intent is important. Accidents vs. homicides is apples vs. oranges.
I don't think your getting good mileage from the premise, Toad. The 2nd ammendment doesn't seem in jeopardy and neither Beet1e, nor you, are going to change positions. Can't we just say that the US is not the UK, and vice versa, and leave it at that?
-
I have no strong views either way on gun control in the US context, but IMO you'd have to be on crack to genuinely believe that automotive accidents or self-inflicted death to smoking or alchoholism are in any way comparable to deliberate homicides. It's pure sophistry.
Originally posted by Rolex
I don't think your getting good mileage from the premise, Toad. The 2nd ammendment doesn't seem in jeopardy and neither Beet1e, nor you, are going to change positions. Can't we just say that the US is not the UK, and vice versa, and leave it at that?
That argument has been made previously but unfortunately certain posters keep coming back to the issue like a dog returning to its vomit. (Hi Lazs, Beet :p)
-
Momus you speak the truth.
As far as I'm concerned subject ended.
-
skydancer... your ignorance and prejudice of firearms is making it impossible for you to think clearly.
now... lets see what the frightened little socialists say.. They say that if you simply removed firearms then all the firearms deaths would go away. Really? are they saying that the people in the U.S. that comit suicides with firearms would simply say "no gun handy... forget the suicde" ? That seems odd since we are like number 31 for countries that commit suicide way below some UK and ice bear countries... perhaps we are a less suicidal country?
next... they say that all the homicides commited by guns would cease... Really? those angry, nutty and greedy people would just say "no gun... drat! foiled again!" ? they use the UK's low rate of homicide as proof even tho... even in the early 20'th century when guns were fairly common in england they had a lower rate than us and... their murder rate has not really gon down because of any gun laws... is it possible they are a more watered down, less murderous and passionate people with less diversity?
Then... they say... Firearms have no use at all but we will let you have single shots for hunting. Really? no use? The founding fathers never mentioned hunting... I don't hunt. If we don't hunt then they must be "useless" really? well the FBI stats show that between 1.5-3 million crimes a year are prevented by firearms... What would we substitute? motorcycles? hiking gear? cricket paddles?
skydancer is fond of quoting 1984 veryu apt in this case... he says that takling away your gun rights is "freedom" freedom is slavery in newspeak.
beetle himself points out that the worst citries in the U.S. are gun banninig cities not in tune with the rest of the nation.
and... as has been pointed out... school shootings don't happen in israel where teachers are armed... mad bombers happen.
so far as comparing countries... I would take one of our rural mostly white states with concealled carry and compare it's homicide rate with NZ say certainly I would add suicides to the homicide rate.
but most of all... you euro ******* don't know squat about guns because you don't have any freedom to.... we know all about guns because we have the choice.
I may never "need" a firearm again... I have in the past. I have never "needed" a seatbelt and I doubt that I ever will but I reserve the right to own either one.
I wonder what side of the arguement zulu skydancer will be on when they ban motorcycles? He won't even have a point for their being protected by his worthless constitution or by any useful purpose... but... what is the problem? you can still own one if it is used only at government sanctioned races for sporting purposes only.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Be real what personal inconvenience is it not to shoot a handgun? This is not the wild west.
You be real. What personal inconvenience is it not to ride/own a motorcycle? Cars are safer, just as efficient for the most part and carry more people, making them more efficient.
You, and the people in this thread like you, are all about telling the other guy what is good for him.
Matthew 7:3-5
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
-
It's all well and good for you anti-gun people to bring up how firearms are misused by criminals and idiots in violation of the many laws on the books. The point is taken.
But laws are only good if they are respected by the general public AND the riff-raff of a society. MY point in this debate has always been that the law-abiding citizen who owns firearms are not the problem. Which of the two groups just mentioned has total contempt for the law and makes no effort to comply with it? Yep...you got it...the criminal class of gang-banger punks which is responsible for at least 60% of the reported cases of violent assault and homicides in this country.
Stating that cars have a useful purpose and firearms do not is outside the scope of the argument about the country's laws. The virulently anti-gun crowd is advocating taking firearms away from EVERYONE in the country because of the depradations of the nation's gangs and criminals. What can that possibly accomplish? Our criminals are well-funded by drug money and so dominated by a cult of violence that they have no intentions whatsoever of complying with any such law. If need be, they'll establish a black-market in weapons.
The laws won't work because that class of fools will not respect them. To prove my point I will simply state that traffic laws have not worked to reduce highway deaths in this country because YOU the nation's drivers do not respect them.
When was the last time you advocates of the need for firearms laws obeyed the 55mph speed limit on a two lane highway? Or even came within 15 mph of it? Or got your giggles driving while under the influence, however slight, of booze or some other controlled substance? Have you ever personally known a drunk driver who killed somebody on the road? Isn't he just as guilty of murder as someone who pulls out a knife or a gun or a baseball bat and deliberately takes a life? Don't give me all that watermelon about "intent" being the difference between a murderer and a drunk driver who takes a life because as far as I'm concerned the drunk "intended" to drive the car in that condition.
How often have you drag-raced on a public-thoroughfare when you were in high-school? Isn't that a threat to innocent life? Wasn't it against the law? Yet you did it anyway didn't ya?
Have you ever crossed three lanes of traffic at once, at high speed, even tho' it's against the law? Ever driven down the interstate at speeds in excess of 120mph? I did it once as a snot-nosed punk college student. Was it dangerous? You're dam straight it was! Stupidest, most irresponsible think I've ever done...and it was done in violation of the law and with total disregard for my own safety and the safety of the two people riding with me and the safety of the other vehicles I met.
On a two-mile stretch of two lane highway that runs between my house and a Crackerbox convenience store there have been 7 traffic fatalities in the last 10 years. In that same amount of time there have been exactly 0 firearms fatalities or homicides in the neighborhoods fronting that same stretch of highway. Which of the two problems do you think is of the greatest concern to me?
Total moving-vehicle deaths in the U.S., which has about 200 million drivers, is routinely over 40,000 a year.
Total homicides, both murder and justifiable, in the U.S. are below 20,000 a year, in a nation where more than 100 million citizens own firearms.
Do the math yourself.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, it is a question of “acceptable casualties” compared to personal and public usefulness. If your “lifestyle” needs guns you should seek professional help because you’re a nutcase.
Ah, I see... I'm a nutcase because I need a gun to go pheasant hunting with my Labradors?
And now you will be the judge of "acceptable losses"?
Good.
Please justify allowing alcohol in societ; tell us why alcohol related deaths are acceptable losses. Address the fact that over half the auto deaths in the US are alcohol related and some large portion of firearms deaths are alcohol related as well.
Discuss the vast amount of wife abuse, child abuse and life-threatening disease caused by alcohol.
Or are you ready to ban alcohol to save lives?
Again, you call for a ban based on YOUR preferences in lifestyle.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Can't we just say that the US is not the UK, and vice versa, and leave it at that?
We could. I could. However, some folks seem to always know best what everyone else should do.
Note that I have never said anyone should be forced to have a firearm. Nor do I greet every report of senseless death by castigating the societal preferences of someone else's society.
I want to be left alone to pursue my own lifestyle. I do not try to force it on others, nor do I continually tout it as the "best way" unlike several posters in this thread.
I suggest they tend to their own knitting.
-
just using the U.S. ... If only a fraction... a small percent of the crimes that are stopped every year by firearms, if they would have resulted in a death otherwise then firearms are a net gain in life.
adding firearms decreases crime in the U.S. this seems "useful" to me.
The founding fathers felt that fireams in the U.S. were a deterent to tyranny and so far... they have not been proven wrong.
motorcyles and swimming kill untold thousand and serve no useful purpose whatsoever yet.... any insane person can participate... there is no waiting period to check out their criminal or background or sanity. The untold grief caused by these activities that have not useful purpose whatsoever.... the selfish participants justifiy this horror perpetuated on the rest of us byu saying "we do it because we want to"
Wher is our freedom to not see their bloated or mangled corpse or have them cause accidents with their insane power to weight ratio?
On that... there are groups that hate cars and feel that restricting speed and power is a viable way to save lives.
Free people have to draw a line in the sand and say to the wussies.... "past this point you don't cross" so far as rights go... certainly we all have different ideas of what is "useful" and what we like to do but.... to take away others rights out of fear only leaves you vulnerable as the next in line.
I don't know why they can't see that.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Momus--
... genuinely believe that automotive accidents or self-inflicted death to smoking or alchoholism are in any way comparable to deliberate homicides.
It's not the loss of life that's in question, it's the inanimate objects that are the instrument of that loss of life.
Cain killed Abel with a rock. The intent was in Cain, not the rock.
Auto accidents don't usually have homicidal intent. Nonetheless, they cause greater loss of life than firearms by a wide margin.
If the solution to saving lives lost to homicide is to ban the inanimate object used by defective human to kill, then the clear solution to auto deaths is to ban the inanimate object used by a defective (or incompetent) human to kill.
There is no attempt in a firearms ban to alter the intent of the defective human. It's an attempt to remove the (pardon the pun) vehicle used in the loss of life.
It's the same logic.
-
Guns are not the problem, people are.
I could list of all of the causes that resulted in this effect, but it wouldn't matter. You have your anti-gun lobby with their prejudices and no amount of explaining what the real problem is will point them in that direction. They believe guns are the problem, they enjoy an alternate reality where guilt and personal responsibility do not exist.
-SW
-
wulfie... that is putting it in about as easily understood terms as it can be. You are dead on. especially if prejudice also equals fear.
lazs
-
This thread has turned into a pro-gun circle jerk now.
Jerk away boys. There is absolutely NOTHING any of you have said that convinces me that my country should make guns legal again. Quite the opposite actually.
Sorry to interrupt. Continue the jerk session.
-
Toad, misquoting for a joke can be funny, but if you're going to do it to make a serious point it just makes you look lame, ok?
As previously stated, I don't think the US and UK firearm control models stand up to any kind of comparison, and I've never advocated any kind of UK style legislation for the US. But your comparison between automobiles and guns evades the issue of intent, which as far as I am concerned makes it a specious argument, which is all I object to here really.
-
Funny thing is that the POS killer aunt is my mother's associate.
I live in Bemidji where those injured kid's went to the hospital.
Took a walk over to it when the doctor's had a press conference.
:eek:
-
Gentlemen,
I'm probably going to bail out of this discussion as it doesn't seem to be following any sort of rational progression any longer, unless "Nyah, nyah" and "nuh-uh" are considered to be substantive arguments these days.
I hope you will forgive me if I leave with a few parting thoughts.
1) Although the thread has degenerated into a "private ownership of guns good" vs. "private ownership of guns bad" the horrific incident that spawned the thread really doesn't provide a test case either way. As you will see from this CNN story: School Gunman stole police pistol, vest (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/22/school.shooting/index.html) the actual incident could have taken place in any Western nation with armed local police. The boy in question even drove his Grandfather's squad car to school. If you want a close parallel, you have the incident where the fellow stole the M-60 Tank from a California National Guard Armory and went on a rampage.
2) The real heart of the matter is the fact that we have built a society that has ceased to teach any sort objective ethics grounded on eternal truth, and in the vacuum that has been created in the hearts of children all we pour in is "situational ethics" (do whatever seems right to you at the time) or worse and which tolerates and defends the peddling of philosophies of death and annihilation.
If you teach children that there is no such thing as truth, no right and wrong, no judgment, no hope of or need for forgiveness, and that they are after all merely sentient animals who have come from nothing and ultimately return to nothing, then they will begin to act more and more in accordance with that philosophy, and as their baser instincts kick in, rape (because it feels good), violence (why not?) murder (because I want to kill) and suicide (because nothing matters and I just want it all to be over) will become more and more common - which is exactly what is currently happening throughout Western culture. We have reached the point where ethically, we don't even have a solid basis for calling such events "evil" - because after all everything we are told is relative and evil for me may not be for thee. Truth? There is no truth!
Now you may say, "Butt out! keep your 'ethics' to yourself. You practice them in private and teach them to children if you must (until we become tired of that) but don't you dare tell us what to do. We are going to continue to teach the children we have access to no standards and simply attempt to modify their behavior through the abstract idea of "potential punishment" (i.e. being restrained for a while) for doing certain things which we disapprove of because our legislators or judges have currently expressed a preference against certain behaviors (without having any absolute reason for doing so, thus what is "bad" today may be "legal" and therefore "good" tomorrow)." A case in point of this principle is the creep towards legalizing every form of sexual activity."
Eventually such a system ultimately collapses, it will not bear the weight of the increasing tide of malignant behavior. But the ironic thing is that while that is taking place I am told I must "shut up about my beliefs" while being forced to live in the foetid swamp that this system produces. Meanwhile, I and my wife and children become prey to the amoral monsters this worldview spews forth, and the only solution that is offered is to gradually remove every civil liberty from society, not because I and my family abuse them, but because others will have no ethical restraints whatsoever placed on them.
I'd say "what madness!" but actually I think "what evil" is more apt.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
This BBs would be ultra ultra dull if it was just full of people patting each other on the back and agreeing with each other!
I am fully in support of open and free discourse. What I am not in support of is the same arguements made by the same people and having them be refuted over and over again. That isn't discourse, it's brow beating.
-
Seagoon you are right.
"Eventually such a system ultimately collapses, it will not bear the weight of the increasing tide of malignant behavior. But the ironic thing is that while that is taking place I am told I must "shut up about my beliefs" while being forced to live in the foetid swamp that this system produces."
Problem is that collapse is much bloodier when its armed with firearms!
-
I still remember the black and white films of the british populace preparing and training for the unavoidable german invasion. The vast majority of people carrying broomsticks and yard tools for defense.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Yes cars kill people, but cars can be used to get us to work, hospital, see the relatives etc etc etc. You'd look pretty bloody silly sitting on your Glock in the middle of the road wondering where the ignition swith is wouldn't you.
:rofl:D -priceless!
A gun ban in the US would be unworkable, and only the law abiding would disarm. I'm opposed to unilateral disarmament now, just as I was in the Cold War, and this is not the first thread in which I've expressed this point of view.
But I'm glad that Britain has the laws it has with regard to guns. I'm sure our proportion of nutjobs is no different from the US proportion. And I am convinced that our per capita murder rate would increase to be in line with the US rate if guns were freely available here, as in the US. In fact I think our homicide rate would then be much higher than the US rate because our population is more tightly packed. But, owing to the relative absence of guns here, our homicide rate is less than one third of America's.
The comparison between guns and cars is of course a fatuous one, not worthy of any serious debate. Of course there are more car deaths in the US because more people drive than shoot guns, and cars are used on a daily basis because of their versatility in helping us achieve the lifestyle we want. No-one buys a $25,000 car just to keep it in the garage, but many guns are bought and never used. Those that are used are quite often used with bad intent, whereas very few people get into a car with the intention of killing someone.
With regard to road deaths, cars are not the problem - bad driving is. With regard to gun deaths, the gun itself is not the problem - the ill intentioned or incompetent person holding it is. Having said that, a gun is designed to kill, and is therefore much more likely to be the instrument of choice for someone who wants to kill.
So the real problem is keeping guns out of the hands of those who would like to kill someone, or even a whole group of people. The UK decided that it was too difficult to decide who could/could not be trusted with a gun, and because guns are not a universal requirement in Britain, they are pretty much banned.
According to this report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/23/weise223.xml), there were 23 US school shootings in the 2003/04 academic year. According to Ken Trump, of National School Safety and Security Services, during the 2003-04 academic year the number of school-related violent deaths hit 49, higher than any year since before Columbine. Of those, 23 were shootings. Since last August there have been 11 fatal school shootings.
"People say it's a wake-up call but then they hit the snooze button," he said. [LOL! - beet] "And you always hear the same comments from every school with a shooting across the nation - 'We never thought it could happen here'."
He added: "The problem we face is that time and distance from any high-profile incident breeds complacency and fuels denial. We are a reactive society, we react after the crisis - but these are short-lived lessons."
Indeed. And I blame all this "it's not the guns - they're just inanimate objects" thinking for the fact that even in the wake of Columbine, there continue to be dozens of school shootings in the academic year.
The kid that killed all those people at Red Lake should not have been allowed to come anywhere near a gun. And yet he was able to get his grandfather's cop gun. Surely the grandfather knew of the kid's irrational state of mind? Surely he could have taken better precautions to keep his gun from being taken by the grandson?
But then again, he probably thought naah, guns are not the problem.
Yeah, that would explain it. :rolleyes::(
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Guns are not the problem, people are.
I could list of all of the causes that resulted in this effect, but it wouldn't matter. You have your anti-gun lobby with their prejudices and no amount of explaining what the real problem is will point them in that direction. They believe guns are the problem, they enjoy an alternate reality where guilt and personal responsibility do not exist.
-SW
This is the garbage that annoys me the most. Guns are the problem and so are the people. When you have easy uninhibited access to firearms such as handguns and automatic weapons. No amount of "guns aren't the problem" when a teenage can arm himself with a pair of handguns, a shotgun and a bulletproof vest relatively easy is going to work - because if that teen had been going to a NZ school today the most he could have done was off himself. If he had been able to arm himself it most likely would have been with a simple shotgun, not something that would enable him to whack 16 people.
Of course you can't rip all the guns out of the US, its impossible, herein lies the problem.
And the problem for the pro-gun corner is this, the antigun crowd in the USA is growing increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress made in stopping stuff like this from happening. They are pissed off with the freedom to live without fear of being shot being taken away from them. Their cause is gathering momentum.
Now what are you going to do? In NZ they took a moderate approach and moderate laws were passed that satisifed all the except the extreme fringe lunies on each side (who amount to little political force).
In the USA it seems the pro-gun crowd won't give an inch. IMHO this problem will reach critical mass sooner or later, and instead of moderate laws you guys are gonna have euro-style laws shoved down your throats whether you like it or not.
Remember, if you satisfy the majority the fringe lunies opinion has less effect. Right now, you're gonna get the fringe antigun lunies passing laws because you won't 'negotiate'.
-
Vulcan, how is a gun going to be freely available unless some irresponsible person left it lying around?
It all comes down to people. This isn't a chicken/egg deal, this is a "someone bought a gun, didn't keep it safe, didn't educate their children, and then bad **** happens".
Sorry, irresponsibility + people = the problem.
-SW
-
The thing that troubles me most about this most recent incident is this...why in Heaven's name wasn't the school guard armed?
What sense does it make to have an unarmed guard in a school in light of the Columbine incident?
-
vulcan and beetle...
How can you say guns are the problem when schools are the most gun free areas in the U.S. even disneyland has a more liberal gun policy.
The kids are doing the shooting at school because they know they will be able to kill the maximum amount of helpless sheep before someone with a gun can finaly get there and stop em.
they don't go on shooting rampages at shooting ranges or cop stations or military bases... the same kids often end up in the military where they walk around with loaded assault rifles or even more powerful weapons.
When an "ex military" goes nutso and starts shooting it is allways the unarmed sheep they shoot..
I don't get it... schools are the perfect example of total gun control short of the old soviet union... they should be the safest places on earth according to the pink shorted and eruo panzies on this board.
Removing guns from schools is getting kids killed. The only thing that stops the killing eventually is.... a gun.
lazs
-
and.... curval complains of the "circle jerk" of second amendment advocates here but what he really means is that he is angry that he is being mocked and refuted and not getting any support from anyone other than studmuffingoty hand wringers and lip biters of the foreign persuasion... in fact... the foreign persuasion seems to be about evenly divided on the subject.
curval is angry that everyone who knows anything about guns disagrees with him and the "guys" who do agree with him are all as devoid of any real knowledge or experiance with firearms as he is.
but.... still he is happy that the people around him have no right to defend themselves.
lazs
-
lazs is wrong...as usual.
-
curval is wrong as usual.
curval is wrong as usual
lazs
-
...and lazs is being deliberately obtuse.
I'm not even going to answer.
-
Vulcan,
Are you by chance a member of an affiliate organization to any of the US Anti Gun groups? Or a member of one of the UN affiliate NGO world small arms disarmement groups? You seem to have no regard for our constitution or understanding of how it works. It is non-negotiable. Other wise it would leave itself to the mercy of constant tampering to suit the whims of elite individuals.
Untill the Second Amendmant is repealed, it is the law of the land. The segment of our society you claim to know so much about can change the law if they can do so with a constitutional covention. In the case of doing that, there is not enough support for the position to accomplish it through the manner prescribed by the constitution. Any other manner as you have noted runs into the "brick wall" of those who believe in the constitution.
Your assertions about knowing the future of American politics and policy and the intimate feelings of the anti gun groups would lead one to think you might actually be a member and or a shill on this web board to drum up new membership and or political support for their movements.
But instead I'll chock your assertions up to coincidence rather than rote from their hand books and talking points.
-
why is it always the same 3 or 4 people who jump into a thread like this and turn it into a gun thread? Doesn't it get old by now?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval is wrong as usual.
curval is wrong as usual
lazs
I know you are, but what am I?
:p
Neener neener
-
Originally posted by NUKE
why is it always the same 3 or 4 people who jump into thread like this and turn it into a gun thread? Doesn't it get old by now?
Nuke...it's a gun thread...check the title.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Nuke...it's a gun thread...check the title.
about as much of a gun thread as a car accident/homicide death/deaths is about cars.
-
Bah!
Which "well regulated militia" do you belong to lazs?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Bah!
Which "well regulated militia" do you belong to lazs?
NRA?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Bah!
Which "well regulated militia" do you belong to lazs?
Who peed on your fried chicken today?
-SW
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Bah!
Which "well regulated militia" do you belong to lazs?
Try again.
"The "Militia" as understood at the Founding was not a select group such as the National Guard of today. It consisted of all able-bodied male citizens. The Second Amendment's preface identifies as a justification for the individual right that a necessary condition for an effective citizen militia, and for the "free State" that it helps to secure, is a citizenry that is privately armed and able to use its private arms."
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#2c
-
i doubt this thread have anything to do with guns or rifles,
they are only tools used for something nobody have the right words.
If you ask me Seagoon hit the nail.
-
nm
-
Originally posted by KBall
Try again.
"The "Militia" as understood at the Founding was not a select group such as the National Guard of today. It consisted of all able-bodied male citizens. The Second Amendment's preface identifies as a justification for the individual right that a necessary condition for an effective citizen militia, and for the "free State" that it helps to secure, is a citizenry that is privately armed and able to use its private arms."
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#2c
An opinion paper written specifically for Mr. Ashcroft does not equate to the final word on the subject.
The Supreme Court has never ruled in favor of the individual right to bear arms, in fact they have leaned the other direction. AND ther has NEVER been a gun control statute overturned on 2nd amendment grounds.
-
I consider myself an able bodied citizen and essential for any militia that may need forming for whatever reason.
but... Are you saying that if you belong to a group like the michigan militia then your rights shall not be infringed? That is their premise... I would gladly add my name to the roster if that would get the gun grabbers off my back.
beetle.. simply saying I am obtuse doesn't make it so.. I believe you are being evasive and my proof is that you are doing everything you can and (uncharacteristically for such a verbose person) you are not commenting on my suggestion... you don't refute it because you can't. How would letting teachers who wanted to and qualified carry concealed hurt anything? how does having and armed policeman in the school hurt? That seems to be working.
vulcan... please explain to me which of your "sensible" gun laws caused a decrease in crime in your country. If there are any handguns or shotguns in the hands of lawenforcement in your country then why hasn't some one of their grandchildren stolen them and shot up one of your schools?
why is your suicide rate so high even without guns?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Removing guns from schools is getting kids killed. The only thing that stops the killing eventually is.... a gun.
lazs
What a weird world you live in, Lazs. When I went to school, the teachers had no guns, neither did the caretakers, nor the school crossing guard, nor the parents.
And no-one got killed.
-
beet1e said:
What a weird world you live in, Lazs. When I went to school, the teachers had no guns, neither did the caretakers, nor the school crossing guard, nor the parents.
Beet this almost qualifies for the definition of insanity. The world has changed. This generation of children in the US brings guns to school and commits massecers. Insanity in the face of this is allowing students and teachers to be sitting ducks. It's a "suckers bet" to say it won't happen again, or that the current laws and measures in place will work to stop the next unhappy sociopath. By the way, the current little Monster was on Prozac, just like the Columbine monsters were on atidepressents.
Isreal arms it's teachers. The teachers shoot the gunmen "dead". No more sitting ducks.
Insanity - Wanting the world to be what it once was while allowing people to be murdered now.
-
the antigun crowd in the USA is growing increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress made in stopping stuff like this from happening. They are pissed off with the freedom to live without fear of being shot being taken away from them. Their cause is gathering momentum.
====
Dunno bout this one. Clinton started the whole gun ban movement back in 94 with the assault weapons ban. Ever since then, the democratic (anti-gun) party has suffered a continual loss of power at the voting booth and is now a defeated minority party experiencing greater reduction in influence than even the republican party did under four FDR administrations.
It appears to me that the american consensus is this: We will suffer the small but tragic loss of our people to insane sick nutjobs amongst us as a sacrifice to sustain our shared freedoms as a whole nation. Thats what we are about in large measure I guess, sacrifice. Most americans I know shudder to think of living life as europeans do, cocooned and protected from themselves, obediant servants to a higher malignant power.
You stay the way you are, we will stay the way we are. If you share our values come join us. If not, stay as you are and be happy. I guess.....
-
Originally posted by bustr
Beet this almost qualifies for the definition of insanity. The world has changed. This generation of children in the US brings guns to school and commits massecers.
There you go again, dragging the rest of the WORLD into what is essentially a US problem, caused by doing NOTHING to stop nutjobs from getting guns, and justifying this inaction by citing that avoidable deaths resulting from the inevitable school massacres are "not the guns' fault".
OK, let's fast forward to 2004. My brother retired from his teaching career that year. When HE went to school, the teachers had no guns, neither did the caretakers, nor the school crossing guard, nor the parents. And no-one got killed.
There. Will that do?
;)
-
I have never seen or heard another person being shot or even mugged or stabbed for that matter. I have seen a few people get punched in the button (nose) for various reasons. I am 40 years old and have lived in the same community most of my life.
I have however seen people get seriously injured and killed in car and motor bike accidents. Heck I have been in two car accidents and seriously injured in one of those. Come to think of it, alot of people I know have been hurt in car accidents. I know of three people in my life that have died in cars. Crime with guns just hasn't been a problem as far as I have experienced life. I guess its because I live in a right to carry state. Maybe.....
-
Well yeager, I invite you to come over to visit sometime. I'll dispel a few myths!
But, with 23 school shootings in a year, don't you think some changes are needed?
I think we need to drop the car/bike accident thing, as these contrivances are much more useful than guns, and we could not sustain our lifestyles without them. I say that even as one who was knocked down by a car at age 5, and was hospitalised as a result. Guns we can do without.
Crime with guns just hasn't been a problem as far as I have experienced life. I guess its because I live in a place where there aren't any. Maybe.....
-
eeek! guess i shoulda looked back at this thread earlier. OT: I didn't know you studied at Scotland seagoon, i've never actually been that far north, the furthest i've even been is leeds:D What made you decide to go there? far too cold for my liking.
-
Yeager,
Location - Muroc Dry Lake
I may be thinking the wrong dry lake, but, do you live in Antelope valley or Apple valley out there in the high desert? Iv'e visited people out there. And I used to live west of there in Escondido while I did a year of temp work in San Diego. My impression is the area is more like Arizona than California. I think many of the locals don't think having a shotgun or a pistol under the car seat is a problem. It can be a long time between state troopers or local PD if you call 911 or the local PD.
-
Ok beet.. you don't have to have guns in your country if you don't want to... course... you don't want to make the decision for yourself.. you want to make it for all your countrymen.
If you ever do have school shootings I bet your solution will be to put guns (armed police) in the schools. Why are you arming more and more police if the problem isn't getting worse? why does your royalty have armed guards while they are in england?
lazs
-
I think teachers should be at least armed with an UZI.
School is war.
And in war u have the freedom to defend.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
But, with 23 school shootings in a year, don't you think some changes are needed?
Not that it makes a difference to anyone involved in those 23 incidents, but there are 50 Million School age children in the U.S.
Makes that about 2x more likely to be hit by lightning than gunfire.
outta here
-
I don't think you need an uzi but... if two or three guards walked around openly carrying them in school it would probly go a lot further to stopping the problem than making up a new law...
What will it be this time... No guns within 600 yards of a school? the more stringent the gun control in schools the easier it is for the nutjobs to kill the sheep. If some of the sheep were know to be wolves in sheep clothing there would be no problem either....
Unless you are afraid that like armed pilots on airlines... the teachers would simply go crazy and start shooting students like the airline pilots shoot passengers.
lazs
-
The unarmed guard made a heroic attempt to stop the perp. Students say he saved lives by delaying, however briefly, the punk's murderous attack, allowing the kids time to exit the room.
Whatever the merits of some of you people's arguments about the usefulness of gun-control laws, they would not have prevented THIS particular catastrophe because the jerk stole the weapons from his grandfather, who was a policeman and legally entitled to have them, and murdering him in the process.
How many lives the school guard might have saved if HE had been armed is being ignored, rather conveniently I might add, by those pushing an agenda. In light of Columbine, why in the Lord's name didn't that school have an armed guard? What good is an unarmed security guard in that situation?
Or would an armed guard have disturbed the delicate sensibilities of the parents and administrators of that school?
Those lives COULD have been saved, if the people just mentioned had faced reality.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Vulcan,
Are you by chance a member of an affiliate organization to any of the US Anti Gun groups? Or a member of one of the UN affiliate NGO world small arms disarmement groups? You seem to have no regard for our constitution or understanding of how it works. It is non-negotiable. Other wise it would leave itself to the mercy of constant tampering to suit the whims of elite individuals.
You neither seem to read most of the stuff I write or you'd understand where I'm coming from, nor do you seem to understand the role of democracy.
Good luck with your second amendment, when the luny fringe of the anti-gun crowd eventually force a gun ban down your throats that is far worse than any gun laws found in NZ I'll be sitting on the sideline telling you I told you so ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't think you need an uzi but... if two or three guards walked around openly carrying them in school it would probly go a lot further to stopping the problem than making up a new law...
Lemme, see the kid steals his grandads guns, his grandad is a law enforcement officer. Lazs says give the law enforcement guys uzi's. Wonder what the end result would have been then lazs? A kid with a couple of uzi's at school would've been "interesting".
Shuckins: its a catch 22 scenario. Because of our gun laws, the majority police are unarmed, thus his grandfather would never have had the firearms to be stolen (I'm not advocating disarming US Police, just saying that you can't write off this situation like you do)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
the antigun crowd in the USA is growing increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress made in stopping stuff like this from happening. They are pissed off with the freedom to live without fear of being shot being taken away from them. Their cause is gathering momentum.
====
Dunno bout this one. Clinton started the whole gun ban movement back in 94 with the assault weapons ban. Ever since then, the democratic (anti-gun) party has suffered a continual loss of power at the voting booth and is now a defeated minority party experiencing greater reduction in influence than even the republican party did under four FDR administrations.
Well, thats the way it appears to the outside observer, so I may be wrong. But everytime you get a school shooting like this you get the knee-jerk pass a law crowd out, until finally it reaches critical mass and they start passing stupid laws.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
You neither seem to read most of the stuff I write or you'd understand where I'm coming from, nor do you seem to understand the role of democracy.
Good luck with your second amendment, when the luny fringe of the anti-gun crowd eventually force a gun ban down your throats that is far worse than any gun laws found in NZ I'll be sitting on the sideline telling you I told you so ;)
Vulcan,
We live in a Constitutional Republic. Not a Democracy. Our constitution is "non-negotiable". After getting majority votes in congress to convein a constitutional convention, the repeal or change to the Sencond Amendmant\any amendmant will still have to be ratified by legislative majority votes in all 50 states.
This eliminates the ability to tamper with the constitution by an elite minority for personal gain\power. Or by an emotionally histerical minority (Liberals) to force unwanted social engineering on the majority. A guard against the tyranny of the "minority" manipulating Mob rule. You never know, the break might be the "Luny Fringe" causing an exercise of the real purpose of the Second Amendmant. I've talked to alot of very pissed Americans myself. After all, aren't we gun owners just a bunch of cowboys and rednecks holding back the enlightenment of our country by an eilite minority of Liberals domestic and foreign?
The rule of a democracy "Mob Rule" at it's worst was in Athens. 1 vote 1 citizen, majority wins period. In voteing for a new leader, part of the process would result in an additional vote to have the old out of favor leader executed, forced to commit suicied, or banished. This vote was often the first official act of the new leader who had the "Majority Vote\Mob Vote" sewed up at that moment so to say.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Shuckins: its a catch 22 scenario. Because of our gun laws, the majority police are unarmed, thus his grandfather would never have had the firearms to be stolen (I'm not advocating disarming US Police, just saying that you can't write off this situation like you do)
I agree with Vulcan here.
Pro-gun/anti-gun, I think we're all agreed that we'd prefer not to see these horrific school shootings, and promising young lives curtailed long before their time.
I have not suggested the US should disarm, though I'm glad we don't have a flood of guns where I live. But surely the US could start looking at ways to stop nutjobs like irrational school students getting their hands on lethal weapons?
-
Originally posted by thrila
eeek! guess i shoulda looked back at this thread earlier. OT: I didn't know you studied at Scotland seagoon, i've never actually been that far north, the furthest i've even been is leeds:D What made you decide to go there? far too cold for my liking.
And here I promised to bail out, but since its entirely off topic... Well I wish I could give you some highly admirable reasons for going to St. A's but in a nutshell they were:
1) It was the best school that accepted me.
2) It was still considerably cheaper than most US Unis even with me paying the non-subsidized, no grant, US student rate.
3) My parents wanted me to study in the Old Country, and had the thinly veiled agenda of trying to get me 3,000 miles away from the girl I was obssessing over (Didn't work, she came over to London Uni. for a junior year abroad and I took the bus down from Dundee a lot. 4 Years later we got married, she's the redhead helping to hold our children in the Website photo. ;) )
4) Most compelling reason: I may be terrible at math, but not so much that I couldn't figure out that the drinking age in the UK is considerably lower than the US (and as I discovered as a barman, functionally it's about the point that you can effectively reach over the bar to grab a pint) and my main agenda was to see how much beer and hash one could consume in the process of a school career.
So, there it is, I majored in killing brain cells at one of the UKs finest educational establishments. I was... How you say? Ah yes! A Beeeeg idiot.
PS: Visit Thurso some time, just so you can say I've been as far North in the mainland UK as you can go without getting your Wellies wet. No on second thought don't, its dead boring.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Toad, misquoting for a joke can be funny, but if you're going to do it to make a serious point it just makes you look lame, ok?
As previously stated, I don't think the US and UK firearm control models stand up to any kind of comparison, and I've never advocated any kind of UK style legislation for the US. But your comparison between automobiles and guns evades the issue of intent, which as far as I am concerned makes it a specious argument, which is all I object to here really.
I clipped your post for brevity; missed the "I" that is the first word, sorry. Otherwise, it is what you said and serves as reference to avoid confusion as to the reply.
Now as to "intent" are you trying to say that it's only important that we control loss of life that is intentional?
I doubt that's what you mean, so what do you mean?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
HAHAHAHA! It must hurt to be so pathetic. How many murders are done with bolt-action hunting rifles and single/two-barrelled shotguns? Very few indeed. No, it is the handguns that are the problem ... and you know it. You just choose to be ... pathetic.
Yes you are a nutcase if you need guns to fulfil your “lifestyle”.
Is a handgun a gun?
Is a shotgun a gun?
Is a rifle a gun?
I can't help it if you generalize. That's your problem.
Now, I DO happen to need guns to enjoy my lifestyle. I like to hunt pheasants behind Labradors. There are literally millions of "nutcases" like me; I'm happy to be one.
That's only the pheasant hunters too.........
-
I really just want to point this out.
The kid went ****ing crazy. He had posted in Neo-Nazi forums, hailing Hitler as his role model. His mind was mentally messed up.
Forget about the guns. The kid WANTED to find WEAPONS and KILL people.
He KILLED HIS GRANDPARENTS. The guns did not wake him up in the morning and say "Load us up, and kill people." His evil, twisted, ****ed up mind did!
You think he would have settled with a sword, or a butcher knife? Yes, I think so. Hell, I bet he would have tried to use a bomb. Heck! What if he used a car and ran over people! Oh no! Lets ban something!
All you gun-banners and pro-gunners and NRA's can chew on my armpit because you're obviously ignoring the fact that the kid was screwed up in the head and killed people with a gun.
-
Easy availability of guns makes it easier for people to commit crimes like this.
Also nobody pays attention if someone has a gun at his home or so.
and in some cases when a person snaps off momentarily, he can quickly get a gun and shoot someone.
If it'd be a little harder to get a gun, he might've cooled down by the time he would actually find a gun and dropped his thoughts about shooting the other guy.
but now.. they all have guns at their homes and its just a quick trip to get the gun, if they dont already have it with them and pop the guy.
-
According to Micheal Moore's award winning documentary, "Bowling for Columbine", Canada has easy access to weapons and yet Canada does not have near the gun crime we do.
He went down to the local Wal Mart and bought all the ammo he wanted, as a foreigner.
Therefore easy availability of guns makes no difference.
-
RTSigma,
Screwed in the head monsters like this kid are passing by you every day on the roads, walking by you on the street, and in line with you at your local supermarket. One could be living next door to you.
No law will stop them. No banning guns, toothpicks, bats, rocks or cow patties will stop them. And if you are unlucky enough that your number in the lottery of life comes up, you will be just as dead at the hands of one of these monsters as those in Minissota.
Chucking the 2nd amendmant because some foreign Liberals think it will solve our problems is madness. This is the US. By the nature of our society we will see many more of these monsters before we see less. Untill the valuing of morality, good vs. evil is restored as the foundation of our social structure over secularism and moral relativism, Minissota is only one in a long line of these kinds of tragedies that will continue to be played out.
We are reaping the harvest of our great american experiment in 40 years of socialism. Before the great experiment we knew the answer because our society taught us to be self reliant and to face evil where ever it showed it's ugly littel head. Before the great experiment the local people would have stopped him, not cowered and run away. Each one running away was leaving others to die in their place. That shows me how very littel we love each other.
-
Well, we’re on to page 5! Let’s not lose sight of the original topic, which was of course a school shooting.
I know that more people are killed on the roads than by guns. That’s certainly true here, and I guess it’s true in the US. I read from an unconfirmed source that “Road fatalities in the US have fallen from 52,600 in 1970 to 41,600 in 1999.” Here it went from ~5000 to ~3000 after the introduction of the seat belt law in 1983.
Most people will be fortunate enough never to be injured on the roads, and most people do what they can to avoid it. I had to – oops – I chose to drive to the Malvern hills to go walking on Wednesday – getting in shape for that Ben Nevis hike! I drove more than 200 miles that day, and did not (IMO) endanger myself or anyone else. I could not have got to Malvern and back in the time available if using trains, what with having to walk from the railway station to the beginning of the footpath in addition to the planned hike. So I used my car, and accepted the risk. I’ve never been injured IN a car, so I assess the risk of being injured or killed to be quite small.
However, I would have no problem believing that 50 people had died on our roads that day. But think of the hundreds of millions of vehicle miles being driven on that day, by people in the course of their daily lives and by people functioning in our economy.
But then consider the nutjob gun shootings in the US – two this month at least. The one that is the subject of this thread, and the one outside that Church in Wisconsin. 23 school shootings in the 2003/04 academic year. What these tell us is that every time a nutjob gets his hands on a gun, a lot of people end up dead, and usually the gunman himself.
That’s why I mourn the loss of life on our roads, but try to do my part to minimise it. Seat belts, air bags, better tyres than existed 30 years ago, mandatory wearing of helmets for motorcyclists since 1976, driver awareness and crumple zones in cars are all features that have helped us to cut our death toll on the roads by about half in the last 25 years. We do what we can.
But the fact remains that we cannot function without road transport – we saw what happened when the pumps ran dry in the 2000 fuel blockade. People had no way to get to work/school etc.
But why does an irrational 16 year old kid need to have access to a gun? He doesn’t, and he shouldn’t. And when he or anyone like him does get hold of a gun, in almost every case it’s because he has the sole intention of killing someone – either one person with whom he has a gripe, or as many people as possible, saving the last bullet for himself. These deaths are avoidable and completely unnecessary. These events tell us that not enough is being done to keep guns out of the hands of nutjobs. And that, I believe, is why the “antis” are so alarmed about the number of guns in circulation. Because in their view, the law abiding gun owning public cannot be trusted to take sufficient precautions to secure their weapons from the hands of nutjobs, when not in use. You may agree or disagree, but the facts speak for themselves.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
However, I would have no problem believing that 50 people had died on our roads that day. But think of the hundreds of millions of vehicle miles being driven on that day, by people in the course of their daily lives and by people functioning in our economy.
How many Americans do you figure shot guns at gophers or beer cans that day and did no harm to humanity?
-
How big an impact on daily economy do people shooting cans make Holden.
Comparing ants to elefants there.
-
So you believe that sport shooting industry ammo sales pale in comparison to the people shooting industry ammo sales?
I have a buddy who is a competetive skeet shooter. He goes thru $10,000 a year in ammo, and he re-loads.
I'd bet 10,000 people or more base thier livelihoods on sport ammo alone. Add camo clothing and other hunting supplies and you get a huge industry.
Go to Cabela's (http://www.cabelas.com/) and look around their catalog, then tell me how small the hunting and sport shooting industry is.
-
The Malverns are realy great aren't they beet1e?
only a half hour from here and great dog walking territory.
( sorry off topic but I think I've had enough of the gun debate for this thread;) :lol )
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
How many Americans do you figure shot guns at gophers or beer cans that day and did no harm to humanity?
As Siaf says - ants to elephants. But it's beside the point anyway. The point I made was not about legitimate gun owners in pursuit of legitimate pastimes.
My point was about guns being allowed to get into the wrong hands, and rightful owners taking a cavalier attitude with regard to their "inanimate objects" by doing precious little to prevent it.
Off topic
SD, yes the Malverns are great on a nice day. I took a picture. I went over these two humps twice. Wondered if I'd run into any beer cans with shotgun holes in them, but I didn't. ;) Not exactly the Himalayas, but a welcome change from the Chilterns!
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/malvern.jpg)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
As Siaf says - ants to elephants. But it's beside the point anyway. The point I made was not about legitimate gun owners in pursuit of legitimate pastimes.
My point was about guns being allowed to get into the wrong hands, and rightful owners taking a cavalier attitude with regard to their "inanimate objects" by doing precious little to prevent it.
You attempted to make your point by apparently accepting that 50 or so people died on the roads (I assume) of Britain that day.
I was making a point that you accept the hazards of the legitimate use of the automobile even though some sicko may run down a pedestrian every once in awhile.
I think another thought is why the youth murders in school have been happening in apparent lockstep with using pharmacuticals to control children. This kid was on Prozac.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You attempted to make your point by apparently accepting that 50 or so people died on the roads (I assume) of Britain that day.
I was making a point that you accept the hazards of the legitimate use of the automobile even though some sicko may run down a pedestrian every once in awhile.
Yes, and I suspect that a good proportion of those 50 fatalities were avoidable, had the parties involved been exercising due care, just as I believe that most if not all of the US school shootings could be avoided, if legitimate gun owners secured their weapons in a safe or other secure repository, instead of crowing about the "freedom" of not being required to by law.
-
This kids grandfather broke the law by allowing access to his police issued gun...
The kid broke the law by murdering his grandfather (a police officer), stealing the squad car and driving to school...
The kid broke the law by taking firearms to school, then again by discharging a gun on school grounds, then again by shooting people.
-
vulcan.. the uzi comment was a tounge in cheek one to bugs silly one. I said I don't think uzis are needed in schools.
scholtzie... I think plenty responded to nashwans post... england is just less murderous. it is a pretty pale and watered down society.
vulcan... if you have any armed police at all (which you do) then the exact same thing that happened here could happen there.. some kid could steal his policeman relatives guns and go on a school shooting.
as for those of you who think bolt action only rifles will stop crazy people... some of the most high profile shootings here have been done with bolt action rifles or less including the first school shooting (and bloodiest) from a tower in Texas.
No.. if killing is the thing they desire let's pray to gawd that they don't realize how much they can do with a car. Some of our worst massacres have been when a person is deranged and gets behind the wheel to mow people down. What will be the answer then? what will you ask nannie to do to save you then? what about bombs or poison? can nannie save you?
An armed guard would have ended this trajedy as would allowing teachers to carry concealed.... probly... you wouldn't know it tho because it simply wouldn't have happened at all.
There is hope...We are getting smarter tho... more and more people are seeing the gun bans as not only worthless but... a cause of needless trajedy... armed guards are appearing in schools and pilots are of comercial flights are being armed.... more and more states are allowing concealed carry and... crime is going down.
lazs
-
and... speaking of not answering.... vulcan never answered me... What gun laws passed in NZ have caused a drop in crime or even suicide?
lazs
-
Ah yes, Thomas Hamilton. Known pervert...a suspected paedophile...who had unrestricted access to the Dunblane school...good friend to local police authorities, who issued him a firearms certificate despite his reputation...the man which the government made the focus of an official investigation and inquiry and then locked up the records of that inquiry for 100 years...(One HAS to wonder why. Sounds like they're trying to protect somebody's arse.)
THAT Thomas Hamilton. A seriously disturbed, perhaps mentally ill individual. A man bent on inflicting as much punishment on the society that had offended him as humanly possible. The man who committed an extremely atypical, for Scotland, act of violence. Had he not had access to a firearm, he could just as easily have followed the example of an American psychopath of the early 20th century who drove a truck full of explosives to a school and detonated it outside the entrance, killing more than 75 students and teachers.
A maniac in south Africa a few years ago committed a similar atrocity...the perp killed more than 50 homeless young men who were sleeping in a type of flop house. He simply tossed in a gallon-sized molotov cocktail and then blocked the door.
Defenseless innocents have been, and always will be, targets of violence.
-
wait till the little buggers realize that you can kill more sheep with a truck running up on the sidewalk than a gun.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
No.. if killing is the thing they desire let's pray to gawd that they don't realize how much they can do with a car.
We've solved that problem here. Gasoline is too expensive for the perps to afford it. And I now realise why the govt. priced diesel even higher than petrol.
But don't forget death by syrup tins.
-
Beet,
I assume in england you can purchase chlorox and ammonia for cleaning purposes? Mix 1 to 1 in a sealed glass container. Throw into a crowded class room, subway stop, store, your favorite pub on a saturday night. Can you purchase nitrogen based fertilizer in england? I know you can purchase deisle fuel.
Can you purchase small propane canisters for saudering copper tubing. You can produce home grown napalm in your bath tub. Take some styrafoam and petrol along with the propane. All bug sprays can be boiled down on your stove top to create concetrated toxins which are lethal to humans. Smear some of the resulting slime on a small sharp object and bump into someone in a crowded shopping mall. It goes on and on....Are you adovacting progessive banning for each technology every time people kill each other with it?
South Africa has just banned firearms. Now everyone is buying battel axes, spears, knives, cudgels and cross bows. SA has one of the highest crime rates in the world. You have a 1 in 60 chance of being violently assulted. The criminals have discovered that cross bows have advantages over guns. Silent and bolts are not traceable like bullits.
All of the formulas for these alternate applications are on the internet. The peices for making any of it are freely purchased from your local stores. Oh and don't forget about making shanks out of plexiglass, hardwood, and metal strapping. Ive been reading about an increase in knife crime lately in England. Some kind of a knife ban has been put in place recently. But last I checked people are still shanking each other, especially teenagers where the marked increase recently in knifings in and around schools was the cause for the new ban.
People of all ages kill each other with "Tools" all the time around the world. There is a point where in the zeal of banning, and the full time enforcement of access to tools by the people, citizens, or subjects; The government crosses a soft imperceptable line from servents of the people, to the overserers of the people. This is why you cannot get many Americans to be reasonable about limiting the 2nd Amendmant. It's real purpose is for the people to kill the members of the government if or when they succeed in crossing that soft imperceptable line. England taught our founders alot in 1776 about that "line".
-
Originally posted by bustr
Beet,
I assume in england you can purchase chlorox and ammonia for cleaning purposes? Mix 1 to 1 in a sealed glass container. Throw into a crowded class room, subway stop, store, your favorite pub on a saturday night. Can you purchase nitrogen based fertilizer in england? I know you can purchase deisle fuel.
Can you purchase small propane canisters for saudering copper tubing. You can produce home grown napalm in your bath tub. Take some styrafoam and petrol along with the propane. All bug sprays can be boiled down on your stove top to create concetrated toxins which are lethal to humans. Smear some of the resulting slime on a small sharp object and bump into someone in a crowded shopping mall. It goes on and on....Are you adovacting progessive banning for each technology every time people kill each other with it?
But they don't, do they. I never heard of anyone making a chlorox/ammonia bomb, and throwing it into a crowded room, and even if they did, I doubt that they would kill 16 people, which is how many died in each of the Hungerford and Dunblane tragedies.
In the US, they could use any of those methods you suggested, but they don't generally. When they want to kill lots of people, they use a gun. Also, have you noticed that police and military use guns in place of swords? I wonder why that is. Erm... read nashwan's post again! :)
-
Beetle, you mean you're not watching 'The Two Ronnies', or are you like me and watching it behind your laptop? :)
-
beetle what are you talking about? in the U.S. the worst slaughters have been because of explosives and deadly, purposful use of motor vehicles. That is the fact. It is easier to use a gun in a lot of cases tho so that is the most popular right now.
using your country as an example is silly since you are nothing like us. you are much less likely to commit murder no matter what your gun laws are.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beetle what are you talking about? in the U.S. the worst slaughters have been because of explosives and deadly, purposful use of motor vehicles. That is the fact.
You're just fishing for ways to divert attention away from guns, by presenting hypothetical scenarios of mass killings by any other means. I know all about murder by explosives. We lived with the IRA threat for a couple of decades.
But the fact remains that when someone flips his lid and wants to go on a killing spree, a gun is the instrument of choice. He doesn't want to have to rendez-vous with some underworld figure to buy semtex, and then acquire the other bits he'll need - battery, wires, timer, detonator. Why bother doing that, when your grandfather's gun is right there on the dresser in the bedroom or wherever it was.
-
how had is it to drive your car up onto the sidewalk and mow down people? some of our feeblest and weakest citizens have done it.
you don't need plastic or conventional explosives to make bombs all the literature is out there for making very effective bombs with common materials.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you don't need plastic or conventional explosives to make bombs all the literature is out there for making very effective bombs with common materials.
The point is that it would all take time. But you are right, and look what happened with Timothy McVeigh - OK City, 168 (?) dead...
But the question is... how often does that happen? It's rare. But we're hearing about these school shootings/church shootings almost every week.
Which solution is easier/quicker for mass murder: - make a bomb using explosives, but first learn how to do it off the internet, go out into the desert to test prototype, build the real deal, carry it to school (undetected) position it, and detonate at the opportune time...
Or........
Grab your grandad's gun off the dresser.
Come on, Lazs - even you know the importance of having your big green gun safe. :aok
-
How many school shootings does it take to make 168 dead? The federal government under the biggest gun control regiem ever in America (klinton reno) burned 28 children alive and then went on to shoot a few more at ruby ridge.
I never needed a "big green safe" in the past. Too many druggies out stealing everything they can get their hands on these days tho... I don't only use the safe for guns tho. It is fireproof for any fire I might have in my house and a great place to store important pics and papers.
There is allways a gun on the loose in my house tho when I am there.
lazs