or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › School shootings. Europe vs. US.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

School shootings. Europe vs. US. - Page 2

post #41 of 63
See what I mean about an appeal to blind patriotism?

Robertp, I really don't think your helping anyone make a case here. In fact, you're kinda proving my point. You seemed to be just centimeters (uh... inches) from a German racial slur.

I did not claim that criminals in Holland don't have guns. Don't put words in my mouth. I said most criminals in Holland don't have guns. The same might be true in the states, but I'm pretty sure that a greater fraction of US criminals carry or own guns, either legal or otherwise, because a) guns are easy to get and b) gun possession is east to hide ("he owns a gun. he must have a license").

Oh, and "Tennamen Sqare" as you call it is no where near Europe. It's in China.

And Germany does indeed practice gun control.

And to answerr the question:
[quote]Why is the world so resentful of our gun ownership? Could it be because at one time other countries had this right only to have it abolished by their government? <hr></blockquote>

No, that's not why. Most people feel that handguns are made to kill people. Most people feel that human life should not be taken under any circumstances. Which is why all other civilized countries have dispensed with capital punishment and impose gun control. The rest of the world (as represented by policy, not necessarily the opinions of individuals) find these facts repulsive: 1) The US is perpetually near the bottom of the Amnesty International human right violations list of offenders. 2) US prisons are overflowing. 3) Some states practice institutionalized execution. 4) People can buy a handgun in the US and feel proud about it.
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
post #42 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by wormboy:
<strong>See what I mean about an appeal to blind patriotism?

Robertp, I really don't think your helping anyone make a case here. In fact, you're kinda proving my point. You seemed to be just centimeters (uh... inches) from a German racial slur.

In what way was my statement a racial slur? Did or did not germany attempt global domination or not? The truth is only a slur when it offends the offender.

I did not claim that criminals in Holland don't have guns. Don't put words in my mouth. I said most criminals in Holland don't have guns. The same might be true in the states, but I'm pretty sure that a greater fraction of US criminals carry or own guns, either legal or otherwise, because a) guns are easy to get and b) gun possession is east to hide ("he owns a gun. he must have a license").

Oh, and "Tennamen Sqare" as you call it is no where near Europe. It's in China.
I am well aware on this and was not clear in my posting of this event, my bad.

And Germany does indeed practice gun control.
Sure they do just ask the Jews who survived the camps.

And to answerr the question:


No, that's not why. Most people feel that handguns are made to kill people. Most people feel that human life should not be taken under any circumstances. Which is why all other civilized countries have dispensed with capital punishment and impose gun control. The rest of the world (as represented by policy, not necessarily the opinions of individuals) find these facts repulsive: 1) The US is perpetually near the bottom of the Amnesty International human right violations list of offenders. 2) US prisons are overflowing. 3) Some states practice institutionalized execution. 4) People can buy a handgun in the US and feel proud about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

ALL guns are made to kill people...including military and police weapons. When only police have weapons then that place becomes a POLICE STATE. The citizens of the US enjoy a certain amount of security in owning a gun just for this reason. If the majority are against guns and gun control, then why are we still owners of them here? And I do resent the fact that you say I am inches away from racist. If history can not be called upon as a factual truthful event, then how can we expect to learn from the past? If the truth is hard to swallow then that's too bad. No need to sugar coat past events. The US is not without it's share of internal embarasement. We have assasinated 3 presidents here, not a proud track record I asure you. But I will stand by my convictions on gun ownership in America. And I will reinstate that addage: FEAR THE GOVERNMENT THAT FEARS YOUR GUN. As far as the prison issue is concerned, since when are criminals supposed to be incarcerated in a day spa? Prison is just that , prison not some workout gym with colot tv and internet access. Since when was it a human right to have these luxuries in prison? Our prison system woked fine all the way thru the late 1960's until the ACLU came onboard and said how poorly prisoners were being treated. Here in America I have seen drug pushers get longer sentences than someone who commited murder(and I do not mean self-defense). Capital punishment is the only deterent to high profile crime. Our justice system has failed us here..allowing plea bargains, letting those with money and / or influence walk away with little or no penalties. Our system is very flawed, but I will support it untill something better comes along.
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #43 of 63
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wormboy:
[QB]That sounds almost like Hollan

1) Where I grew up, and where I live now, society impose(d)(s) stricter gun laws. Gun-related crimes in both those countries are much lower than in countries with cowboy gun laws (and yes, I include texas in my run-and-gun definition of "cowboy".

Is this as racist as my remarks about Germany?
And as far as my " blind patriotism" is concerned..if beleiving in what my forefathers wrote as our Constitution , The Declaration of Independence, and The Bill of Rights..I stand guilty as charged.

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ]</p>
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #44 of 63
[quote]In fact, living in Europe gives me the authority to compare and contrast the two systems.<hr></blockquote>

There is a difference between critiquing the systems and making generalizations about American citizens.

I have lived in Texas for 20 years. I know many many many gun owners. Your generalization doesn't hold true.

[quote]The right to bear arms in the US was intended, as has been highlighted earlier in this thread, to protect the people from a corrupt or abusive government.<hr></blockquote>

Not entirely so. It was intended for the people to maintain a militia, which has little inherently to do with overthrowing a corrupt government.

[quote]any insurrection based upon the kinds of guns you can legally owen would be a joke indeed.<hr></blockquote>

Why not?
Do you actually think that U.S. soldiers would fire on U.S. civilians? You overestimate the loyalty to the president that soldiers have. Aside from that, our electoral system doesn't allow a president to stay longer than 8 years under normal circumstances to avoid just such buffoonery.

[quote]Second, who's to decide what is corrupt?<hr></blockquote>

It has nothing to do with corruption and everything to do with people wanting an new government. If corruption is the purose then so be it. And if a presidential assassin is backed up by 300 million American citizens, then absolutely.

Quote:
Why do you still think you need it when everyone else does not?<hr></blockquote>

Who is this "everyone else" you speak of?

Other nations? I honestly don't care what other nations have for gun laws, I don't see the point. Why should we allow other nations to dictate OUR domestic policy?

Tell you what, your government can make laws for YOUR country, my government will make laws for MY country.

--

QUOTE]Poor people can't own legal guns?

Sure they can, why shouldn't they?

Also, European cultures aren't generally cultures that were allowed guns on a widespread scale in the first place. When something is relatively scarce to begin with prohibition of it isn't very difficult.

And besides that, what difference does it make to someone who doesn't even live here?

[quote]See what I mean about an appeal to blind patriotism?<hr></blockquote>

How is this any different from what you are doing?

[quote]You seemed to be just centimeters (uh... inches) from a German racial slur.<hr></blockquote>

Yet you have no problem asserting that American gun owners are all ignorant and with poor speech skills.


Interesting that you'll dismiss my car point as off-topic yet you drag in a bunch of off-topic garbage to make an anti-U.S. policy argument. You're an amazing hypocrite.

Causeheads are extremely boring.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #45 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

Not entirely so. It was intended for the people to maintain a militia, which has little inherently to do with overthrowing a corrupt government.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Groverat,

Time for a history lesson. Below are some quotes regarding the 2nd amendment from some of the framers of the constitution.

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

I can post more for you to read if you don't understand what these quotes are saying.

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: sc_markt ]</p>
post #46 of 63
OK Groverat, I have to call you on some of this. There are several ad homs in your last "emotional" post, which over the course of the last few years I had come to believe were relatively rare at AI.

You accuse me of:
a) Making generalizations about Americans.

My discourse has been firmly planted in an issue, not the people. I have looked through my post and have not found any examples of disparaging Americans; in fact I don't even see anything I would judge as un-american.

b) You said: "Yet you have no problem asserting that American gun owners are all ignorant and with poor speech skills."

Again look at my post and show me where this is even implied? I did say "that not all gun owners are as eloquent as (you)". But that certainly says nothing about gun owners in general. If anything it was a veiled compliment to you; I always enjoyed your posts.

This is one of my favorites: "Interesting that you'll dismiss my car point as off-topic yet you drag in a bunch of off-topic garbage to make an anti-U.S. policy argument. You're an amazing hypocrite."

Off-topic??? Perhaps, groverat you should go back and look at the title of this topic. We are discussing school shootings. Specifically, the nature of and response to said events in the US as contrasted with Europe. Having lived in both regions and having an opinion on the subject left me a desire to contribute. I think gun control is quite germane to the topic. But maybe that is just me. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing un-american about my beliefs. Many Americans share them. The waiting period on gun purchases in the US recently (well... 10 years ago??) increased because of beliefs like mine. Not all American are members of the NRA, and most Americans are against capital punishment.

BTW My full time job appointment and permanent residence is Boston MA. You need to re-evaluate your assumptions.

Ug. I had written responses to the rest of your post, but it's just fuel on the fire.
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
post #47 of 63
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wormboy:
[QB]OK Groverat, I have to call you on some of
BTW My full time job appointment and permanent residence is Boston MA. You need to re-evaluate your assumptions.

You need to re-evaluate your thinking of yourself as aa American having authority to make european comparisons. Just because you live where ever the hell in europe you do does not make you an authority on this subject. Obviously you have some qualms with your American heritage or you are just another euro wannabe looking for a cause. I stand behind what my country has adopted as our laws and rights and the 2nd amendmant plainly states the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. There are no ifs, ands, or buts here. They wrote and meant what they said. Who are we to question the integrity and honor of the fine Americans. only modern re-writing of our amendments has watered down their effectiveness. America has become the whipping boy of the world with our materialistic lust, our money and our guns, yet when almost any country can't handle their finances or get their ass out of a jam with the local bully they have no problems calling on America for help. How two faced and pathetic this is. America has bailed out and saved so many countries in history only to have some spit in our faces, what thanks.
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #48 of 63
sc_market:

What exactly was the point of those quotes?

I quoted the damned Declaration of Independence with the exact same themes you posted *before* you posted that stuff and you think that can serve as some kind of refutation to what I've said?

And take that quote in context, look at what he said that I was responding to. Reading comprehension; learn it, love it. And feel free to not quote the sentence before that you selectively reading imbecile.

---

wormboy:

I really hate it when people hypocritcally whine about ad homs. They can speak in generalities about U.S. culture and use idiotic stereotypes to frame their arguments but god forbid you confront them on it! Then you're just a big meanie-head!

You speak in elitist generalities and employ the stereotypes of the intellectually lazy around me and you get called on it. I don't paint Europeans with a brush so don't whine when I call you for doing the same.

[quote]My discourse has been firmly planted in an issue, not the people. I have looked through my post and have not found any examples of disparaging Americans; in fact I don't even see anything I would judge as un-american.<hr></blockquote>

You said, "Not all gun-owners in the US are as eloquent as Groverat.". The inference is obvious and stereotypical, verified by your accusation that Americans are typically blind nationalists.

Once again, don't cast aspersions and then whine when they are thrown back, it's bad form.

[quote]If anything it was a veiled compliment to you; I always enjoyed your posts.<hr></blockquote>

Oh, I'm flattered.
"You're so well spoken for someone who is pro gun-owners!"

Yeah, I can't see how that makes any kind of ineference. Completely innocuous, that is.

[quote]Off-topic???<hr></blockquote>

What in God's name do human rights records from Amnesty International and our prison rates have to do with school shootings?

How is that not off-topic?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #49 of 63
Groverat,

In response to

"The right to bear arms in the US was intended, as has been highlighted earlier in this thread, to protect the people from a corrupt or abusive government."

You said
"Not entirely so. It was intended for the people to maintain a militia, which has little inherently to do with overthrowing a corrupt government."

I posted those quotes to show you when the framers wrote the 2nd amendment, they also had in mind protection for the people from corrupt government.
Your response that I was quoting says that its was only for the people to maintain a milita which is false.

Relax, and chill out. Name calling is what kids do.
post #50 of 63
[quote]Your response that I was quoting says that its was only for the people to maintain a milita which is false.<hr></blockquote>

I said:
"It has nothing to do with corruption and everything to do with people wanting an new government. If corruption is the purose then so be it. And if a presidential assassin is backed up by 300 million American citizens, then absolutely."

Now, using reading comprehension skills, me saying "It has... everything to do with people wanting an(sic) new government." means that I understand the point of the quotes you posted so much so that I even quoted similar things earlier in the thread.

The second sentence (the one you singled out) worked in conjunction with the first sentence to dispute wormboy's assertion that "corruption" in the government was the lynchpin. My point is, and was, that people wanting a new .gov for whatever reason is the purpose and a "militia" is the means of doing that.

[quote]Name calling is what kids do.<hr></blockquote>

"I can post more for you to read if you don't understand what these quotes are saying."

proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #51 of 63
Groverat. I'm sorry that I was not clearer. I did not mean to imply (nor do I think I did) that gun owners are idiots. I was defending the position that a single gun owner, who is also an idiot, can walk into a school and slaughter our children. That's the danger. That in a sufficiently large group of people there will be a tail on the distribution of any given variable that you care to quantify--including mental stability. If you give enough people guns, someone's going to get shot. Here is what I said in full, so that the context can be made more plain... [note, I fixed a typo]

[quote] 2) I have no doubt that many pro-gun writers to this forum are, or would be, responsible gun owners. But loose gun laws allow many people that you should be frightened of to also get guns. That is the issue. Not all gun-owners in the US are as eloquent as Groverat.
<hr></blockquote>

Do you seriously find that offensive? Do you seriously think that I am saying anything at all about gun owners in general? In fact I explicitly included a caveat saying that that was not the case.

Read the following more neutral statement:

I have no doubt that many medical doctors are, or would be, responsible practitioners. But loose medical certifications allow many people that you should be frightened of to also get practice medicine. That is the issue. Not all doctors in the US are as skilled as the surgeon general.

So... whats wrong with that?
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
post #52 of 63
[quote]If you give enough people guns, someone's going to get shot.<hr></blockquote>

More planes -&gt; more plane crashes
More cars -&gt; more car crashes
More bicycles -&gt; more bicycle crashes
More guns -&gt; more shootings
More hamburgers -&gt; more heartattacks
More drugs -&gt; more overdoses
More alcohol -&gt; more bad stuff all around
More cigarettes -&gt; more cancer

My point in bringing up how dangerous other things are (especially cars) isn't to distract it issue, it's to illustrate that the issue really isn't keeping the little children safe.

If keeping the children safe was the issue we would do more about the horrifying rates of automobile-caused teen death. We would force them to exercise and not eat so many cheeseburgers.

Of the list above, where do you think guns rank statistically danger-wise? I'd say 4th, if not lower.

I realize that no one would get shot if there were no guns on the planet. I understand this point, it's not a difficult one. I also understand that means nothing since people managed to kill off others by the millions without guns. It'll be more difficult to kill 30 in a sitting yes, but that is extremely rare and these are the cases we see every 4-5 years on the news.

I think, however, that it will be impossible to control illegal gun movement in a nation as large as ours and among a people who have always had guns. Prohibition of guns in the United States will not get rid of guns entirely. You cannot always apply policy in Europe to the US, and why would you even want to?

Even so, I don't think a few school shootings or kids ("OH GOD, THINK OF THE KIDS!!!! *weeps*") accidentally shooting themselves is any rationalization for taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

I don't think the 2nd amendment is an anachronism at all, I also think it's rather sad that it has become a political issue.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #53 of 63
[quote]
More planes -&gt; more plane crashes
More cars -&gt; more car crashes
More bicycles -&gt; more bicycle crashes
More guns -&gt; more shootings
More hamburgers -&gt; more heartattacks
More drugs -&gt; more overdoses
More alcohol -&gt; more bad stuff all around
More cigarettes -&gt; more cancer

My point in bringing up how dangerous other things are (especially cars) isn't to distract it issue, it's to illustrate that the issue really isn't keeping the little children safe.
<hr></blockquote>


First, thank you for the civil post.

Well, yes, I understand your point. But handguns are different from everything else you list in that thier primary raison 'd'etre is to kill people. Cars/bikes/planes are used to get around; if there were safer affordable ways to so, we would not use more dangerous methods. Drugs/alcohol/cigarettes are addictive, so their primary use is to satisfy craving (I will pre-emptively conceed that the addictive properties of alcohol are of questionable impact given the extent of its casual use/abuse). Hamburgers are food... sorta. The issue seems to be whether guns still have any legitimate use in the hands of the common man. We disagree. You think (correct me if I'm wrong) that guns serve as a form of homeland defence and can keep our administration intact. I think that these roles are antiquated.

Also, I would like to know if anyone knows whether the use of guns as a form of invasion defense was ever explicitly mentioned or even implied under the constitution. I've really never heard of that notion. Indeed, isn't that why we have the armed forces and the CIA?
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
post #54 of 63
Hello Wormboy..
I would like to addressa couple of issues in a civil manner, with one being that I have been accused by you as having been"inches away from a racial slur" in my last posting to you. I feel as the accused I am entitled to your pointing out my "racial slur" so that I may correct this. Also you pointed out to Groverat I believe that he must not use "assumption" in reference to you...the puzzlement being you list your location as "amsterdam" yet you corrected him that your permanet address and employer are in Boston, Ma. Were you purposely trying to deceive people on this post topic by "posing" as european, or was this just an oversight on your behalf? Please respond at least to my racial slur accusation.
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #55 of 63
[quote]But handguns are different from everything else you list in that thier primary raison 'd'etre is to kill people.<hr></blockquote>

That's a very simplified way of looking at it, but yes they were designed to kill, not always humans, but to kill. I don't think that killing is always wrong, though.

For instance:
You break into my house and attack me, I shoot you, damned if I try to fight off a knife wielding attacker George Harrison style.
If you break into my house period and I have kids (a future consideration) I might shoot unless your ass is running away immediately.
If you break into my house armed you get shot.

This might be a shocking way to look at the world, but I value my life and the lives of my loved ones above all others. I will try to get the person out of my house with saying "Leave, I've called the police." and by making sure I have my Brinks Security stickers on full display, but that doesn't always work.

Recently my sister's house was broken into by a speed freak. Now, she wasn't home, but she has three little boys and if some speed freak breaks into my house and I have 3 little boys, speed freak might find himself shot with a quickness (alive or dead, I don't care, so long as he's neutralized).

I'm not a "shoot people to protect your property" type, but it's a morally justifiable position, IMO.

Also, simply having a gun can diffuse an otherwise-dangerous situation. Especially a shotgun in a home defense situation (why do you think some models of shotguns have an extra-loud cycling mechanism?). *CHA-CHUNK*

[quote]Cars/bikes/planes are used to get around; if there were safer affordable ways to so, we would not use more dangerous methods.<hr></blockquote>

Many people could take much safer methods than cars. Busses are much safer than cars, for instance. Not everyone can get to their destinations on the bus, but there are thousands and thousands who most certainly could.

[quote]Drugs/alcohol/cigarettes are addictive, so their primary use is to satisfy craving (I will pre-emptively conceed that the addictive properties of alcohol are of questionable impact given the extent of its casual use/abuse).<hr></blockquote>

Alcohol is extemely addictive, but mainly for psychological reasons. Be that as it may, no one starts drinking/smoking/"drugging" to get hooked, they do it to have a good time.

[quote]The issue seems to be whether guns still have any legitimate use in the hands of the common man. We disagree. You think (correct me if I'm wrong) that guns serve as a form of homeland defence and can keep our administration intact. I think that these roles are antiquated.<hr></blockquote>

You think household defense is antiquated?

Did crime suddenly vanish? I would certainly love for that to be the case, but to think that home defense is antiquated is quite naive.

The main secondary (to home defense) in my eyes is the maintenance of a not-well-regulated militia. I think that an armed populace is a powerful defense tool on a global scale. War isn't going away, no matter how much flowerly language we like to use.

[quote]Also, I would like to know if anyone knows whether the use of guns as a form of invasion defense was ever explicitly mentioned or even implied under the constitution.<hr></blockquote>

It's not the citizen that's limited by the constitution, it's the government. Ever read it?

All powers not given explicitly to the federal government are left to the states, which is why you have different laws for different states.

If by "invasion" you mean "foreign invasion" then I think the 2nd amendment makes that fairly clear by calling for a "militia".

If by "invasion" you mean "home invasion" then it isn't explained in the constitution but once again it is the states who decide applicable laws.

[quote]I've really never heard of that notion. Indeed, isn't that why we have the armed forces and the CIA?<hr></blockquote>

Armed forces aren't always effective. And even if they weren't 100% effective, you would have to come up with a real justification to take away my rights, not just "THINK OF THE KIDS!!!!!!! *sob* *weep*".

[ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #56 of 63
Robertp,

I apologize. I did not intend to suggest you were racist. I did want to point out that you were referring to Germans in what I considered a disparaging way. I look back at your post now, and I realize that your remark was not really racist. (In any case, even if someone did consider your comment a racist slur, that does not make you a racist. And I did say "inches away from..." meaning that it I did not, in fact consider it to qualify).

As for my mysterious origins, let me assure you no deception is intended. I am, in fact, Canadian and proud of it. I have lived in the US in the past, as I indicated. I currently live in Holland (I have for 5 years now, hence "Amsterdam") and my current full time employer is in Boston. My time in Holland is almost up, and I will be moving back to Boston later this summer.
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
post #57 of 63
Groverat said:
[quote]
That's a very simplified way of looking at it, but yes they were designed to kill, not always humans, but to kill. I don't think that killing is always wrong, though.

For instance:
You break into my house and attack me, I shoot you, damned if I try to fight off a knife wielding attacker George Harrison style.
If you break into my house period and I have kids (a future consideration) I might shoot unless your ass is running away immediately.
If you break into my house armed you get shot.

This might be a shocking way to look at the world, but I value my life and the lives of my loved ones above all others. I will try to get the person out of my house with saying "Leave, I've called the police." and by making sure I have my Brinks Security stickers on full display, but that doesn't always work.
<hr></blockquote>

1) Statistically, the likelyhood of having your gun turned on yourself or your family is higher than you killing an intruder. [Caveat: my source is apocrophyl; I don't know that this is true...]

2) What about all those Americans that don't own guns? What do they do if someone breaks in and threatens their children (OMG!! the children!!)? It does not really seem to be a problem for them does it? I mean, they love their kids too, right?
[quote]
Recently my sister's house was broken into by a speed freak.
<hr></blockquote>
OK. Now that really sucks.
[quote]
Now, she wasn't home, but she has three little boys and if some speed freak breaks into my house and I have 3 little boys, speed freak might find himself shot with a quickness (alive or dead, I don't care, so long as he's neutralized).
I'm not a "shoot people to protect your property" type, but it's a morally justifiable position, IMO.
<hr></blockquote>
You know, I honestly don't have a clue what I would do in that situation. I guess I would fight... try to get to my baseball bat or something. Even if there was a gun in the house, I don't know if I could use it. To much chance for escalation; I'm probably not a very good shot.
[quote]
Also, simply having a gun can diffuse an otherwise-dangerous situation. Especially a shotgun in a home defense situation (why do you think some models of shotguns have an extra-loud cycling mechanism?). *CHA-CHUNK*
<hr></blockquote>
Sometimes. It can also escalate a situation (ie thief may shoot anything that moves on sight rather than just threaten). High stakes to gamble with.


[quote]Alcohol is extemely addictive, but mainly for psychological reasons. Be that as it may, no one starts drinking/smoking/"drugging" to get hooked, they do it to have a good time.
<hr></blockquote>
I suspect most people start because of peer pressure and/or advertising. Actually, as a point of fact alcohol is very poorly addictive. The addictiveness of a drug is determined by the degree of exposure needed to induce cravings which have irresistable behavioural consequences. We use massive quantities (in say mg/kg body weight per day) of alcohol, compared to other drugs, yet relatively few of us succumb to the scourge of alcoholism.

[quote]
You think household defense is antiquated?
Did crime suddenly vanish? I would certainly love for that to be the case, but to think that home defense is antiquated is quite naive.
<hr></blockquote>
I said homeland defense. I definitely see a distinction. You had suggested a justification for gun ownership by individuals was to protect US soil against a ground invasion. I was asking whether homeland defense (against invasion by a ground force, presumably) justifies ownership of handguns, under the constitution or any other document which belies the intention of the 2nd amendment, by the general population--not by militia, or military representatives, both of which I am in favour of--but rather by non-combatants.

[quote]
The main secondary (to home defense) in my eyes is the maintenance of a not-well-regulated militia. I think that an armed populace is a powerful defense tool on a global scale. War isn't going away, no matter how much flowerly language we like to use.
<hr></blockquote>

I, also would be in favour of an armed militia, but I would rather it was well organised. You know, with a gun repository, accountibility, and protections against local vigilantism etc..

[ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: wormboy ]</p>
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
Registered: Dec 1998
Reply
post #58 of 63
[quote]1) Statistically, the likelyhood of having your gun turned on yourself or your family is higher than you killing an intruder. [Caveat: my source is apocrophyl; I don't know that this is true...] <hr></blockquote>

From what I've read it is more likely to get shot accidentally or by a family member (on purpose) than it is to shoot an intruder, yes.

And this is a great argument... against owning a gun.

However, it isn't really applicable in the argument of whether or not guns should be outlawed, which is a separate matter entirely.

I can think of 10,000 reasons (&lt;- hyperbole) to not drink, but only 1 or 2 logical reasons to outlaw it entirely.

Accidents are cut down dramatically with training. Accidents happen when you aren't responsible with your gun. Millions of children have been raised covered in guns without a scratch on them (from guns, anyway) because they knew what they were doing. My grandfather used to take a gun to school (starting at 7) so he could hunt afterwards. 7!
He's alive, well and free of bullet holes. He was taught to respect, fear and to properly use guns.

[quote]2) What about all those Americans that don't own guns? What do they do if someone breaks in and threatens their children (OMG!! the children!!)? It does not really seem to be a problem for them does it? I mean, they love their kids too, right?<hr></blockquote>

Of course they do, they call 911 and try to fight the bastard off with a broomstick, perhaps. Sometimes they yell "I've called 911" and the intruder (hopefully) runs away. But sometimes, they get killed while they are on the phone with 911, and that's a big problem (happened recently in Las Vegas, but the <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=28609695&m=7100979144" target="_blank">link</a> is dead now)

They love their children absolutely, there's no doubting that. That's probably why they don't have a gun in the house, the statistics scare them.

[quote]You know, I honestly don't have a clue what I would do in that situation. I guess I would fight... try to get to my baseball bat or something. Even if there was a gun in the house, I don't know if I could use it. To much chance for escalation; I'm probably not a very good shot.<hr></blockquote>

Gun control is a 6 inch grouping at 100 yards.

Baseball bats are very dangerous, very easy to kill someone with a baseball bat. I prefer a shotgun in home defense situations, the great equalizer.

I don't think "I'm going to hit you with a baseball bat." is significantly less intimidating than "I'm going to shoot you." I'd be afraid of either.

[quote]Sometimes. It can also escalate a situation (ie thief may shoot anything that moves on sight rather than just threaten). High stakes to gamble with.<hr></blockquote>

Again, an argument for not owning a gun, not for outlawing them.

I, personally, feel that if someone in my home has a weapon they are a deadly threat to my life, they came in armed so there's no reason to think it's just the Dalai Lama looking for some food. If you have a weapon and I "provoke" you, it doesn't matter, you were looking for trouble to begin with. When faced with a shootout and getting away, I'm betting the burglar chooses getting away 99.99% of the time.

[quote]I said homeland defense. I definitely see a distinction.<hr></blockquote>

Aha, well, I was tilting at windmills then!

I think an armed populace is a very effective piece of homeland defense. Look at all the troubles large nations have had taking over smaller, armed nations (Afghanistan, anyone?).

[quote]but rather by non-combatants.<hr></blockquote>

If you feel it is your duty to defend your homeland against invasion you are no longer an non-combatant. So by the very act of taking up a weapon you are a combatant, thereby justifying your weapon per your logic.

I'll be damned if I have to pass Uncle Sam's Army tests to defend my territory against a foreign invader.

[quote]I, also would be in favour of an armed militia, but I would rather it was well organised.<hr></blockquote>

Go to Montana with all the militiamen then.

That's what they are, after all...

[quote]You know, with a gun repository, accountibility, and protections against local vigilantism etc..<hr></blockquote>

Gun repository == bad bad idea.

Putting all your eggs in one basket is never smart. Ever.

What's the point of people having guns if they are all locked up in one central location?

"May I touch my personal property now, Uncle Sam?"

[ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #59 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>artman:

What are you rolling your eyes at with that picture?</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's from the NRA site. The NRA needs to be reformed. The laws originally for the colonies (and again for the original states) are old and need reformation too.

The NRA is run by idiots. That's all I have to say on this topic...I might get shot.
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #60 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>

It's from the NRA site. The NRA needs to be reformed. The laws originally for the colonies (and again for the original states) are old and need reformation too.

The NRA is run by idiots. That's all I have to say on this topic...I might get shot. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Hey artman, I quit the NRA the day that President Wayne Lapiere made the comment about the ATF being "jack booted thugs". I felt this was highly innapropriate and not a very compelling statement for the NRA. However I must say Charlton Heston has done a great job trying to turn around the image of the NRA after this fiasco.
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #61 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Robertp:
<strong>

Hey artman, I quit the NRA the day that President Wayne Lapiere made the comment about the ATF being "jack booted thugs". I felt this was highly innapropriate and not a very compelling statement for the NRA. However I must say Charlton Heston has done a great job trying to turn around the image of the NRA after this fiasco.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe. But after seeing him on TV at some Gun Expo recently...he looked like on his last legs physically and mentally. Some of it was on the Daily Show (which Jon Stewart lambasted hilariously). There was a Democratic Senator (forgot who) who said in his speech that the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon would never have happened if the pilots were armed...please...

President Wayne Lapiere, Charton Heston and Ted Nugent? I would think the NRA can do better for rational spokespeople...
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #62 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>


President Wayne Lapiere, Charton Heston and Ted Nugent? I would think the NRA can do better for rational spokespeople...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hey Artman lay off the Nuge !!!
No, Ted is a die hard Constitutionalist and believes in it heart and soul. I respect the man for his consistency in his belief. And yes, Heston is lookin pretty rough lately! No I do not believe that if the pilots were armed they would have prevented a catastrophe. A bullet piercing the skin of a jet would surely cause a devestating crash in itself.
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #63 of 63
I don't give a crap about the NRA one way or the other, but...

The ATF is a bunch of jack-booted thugs.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › School shootings. Europe vs. US.