or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Virginia Tech killing: more than 30 dead
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Virginia Tech killing: more than 30 dead - Page 9

post #321 of 524
I apologize if someone has already posted this, but I think it sums up the general line of chatter that has been going on since the shootings:

From Sadly, No!

Quote:
Shorter everybody on the internet: The senseless massacre at Virginia Tech basically confirms everything I’ve been saying all along.

This terrible incident is extremely unusual. Using it to argue any kind of policy or theory or notion about the state of things is pointless. You might as well use a lightening strike to argue about the robustness of trees.

Arming people or not arming people or locking down campuses or locking up crazy people or being extremely wary of foreigners or doing away with coed dorms or "doing something" about "political correctness" should be a matter of how things go, most of the time and not the rare exception.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #322 of 524
Makes me wonder why we can't add those who have been admitted to mental institutions and/or have been adjudicated mentally ill to the FBI NICS system for a period of five years... that makes sense.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #323 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous View Post

Since when is it heartless to discuss political and legal ramifications of a tragedy after the fact?

Three cheers!

No one's said it better.
post #324 of 524
Weird US nation...

Wants to disarm most other nations as potential threats to itself. Any national within said set of nations is a terrorist if he fights back or probably has weapons not agreed to by US.

But.. US refuses to disarm itself, because its own nationals have to have the right to defend themselves against the possibility of attack from their own government.

WTF is that all about?


I see it's all there in the blessed constitution. LMAO.
post #325 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by OfficerDigby View Post

WTF is that all about?

One word: fear.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #326 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Makes me wonder why we can't add those who have been admitted to mental institutions and/or have been adjudicated mentally ill to the FBI NICS system for a period of five years... that makes sense.

...damned conservative-leaning independent fascists, and their hatred of doctor-patient privilege...
post #327 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by thuh Freak View Post

...damned conservative-leaning independent fascists, and their hatred of doctor-patient privilege...

Oh, OK. Nevermind then. Hey....Wait a minute...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #328 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by OfficerDigby View Post

Weird US nation...

Wants to disarm most other nations as potential threats to itself. Any national within said set of nations is a terrorist if he fights back or probably has weapons not agreed to by US.

But.. US refuses to disarm itself, because its own nationals have to have the right to defend themselves against the possibility of attack from their own government.

WTF is that all about?


I see it's all there in the blessed constitution. LMAO.

Even more fascinating is the relationship between what we named as grievances against the Crown that we now actively do to other nations. And then we wonder WTF the problem is..
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #329 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Even more fascinating is the relationship between what we named as grievances against the Crown that we now actively do to other nations. And then we wonder WTF the problem is..

fair enough. ;-)
post #330 of 524
Student Arrested Over Va. Tech Remarks

"BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - A University of Colorado student was arrested after making comments that classmates deemed sympathetic toward the gunman blamed for killing 32 students and himself at Virginia Tech, authorities said.

During a class discussion of Monday's massacre at Virginia Tech, the student "made comments about understanding how someone could kill 32 people," university police Cmdr. Brad Wiesley said.

Several witnesses told investigators the student said he was "angry about all kinds of things from the fluorescent light bulbs to the unpainted walls, and it made him angry enough to kill people," according to a police report. Witnesses "said they were afraid of him and afraid to come to class with him," Wiesley said.

The student, identified by police as Max Karson of Denver, was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of interfering with staff, faculty or students of an education institution. He had a court appearance set for Wednesday afternoon.

His father, Michael Karson, told the Camera newspaper that the comments may have been misinterpreted and questioned whether his son's free speech rights had been violated.

"I would have hoped that state officials would know their First Amendment better than they seem to," he said.


University spokesman Bronson Hilliard said privacy laws prevented him from releasing personal information about the student.

(even though the police DID give his name to the press)

At Oregon's Lewis & Clark College, another student was detained by campus police Wednesday shortly before a vigil for the Virginia Tech victims when he was spotted wearing an ammunition belt. Portland police later determined that it was "a fashion accessory" made of spent ammunition, and said the man did not have a weapon. The belt was confiscated.

Come on America, we are really losing it here...

What is particularly egregious is that this was during a class discussion. So much for academic discourse. I don't worry about lone gunmen or terrorists, but what I do fear is the increasingly reactionary nature of people. Every time some loon does something stupid, we sacrifice rights and dignity for the illusion of safety, and in turn, a hegemonic bureaucracy gets its wings.
post #331 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I don't worry about lone gunmen or terrorists, but what I do fear is the increasingly reactionary nature of people. Every time some loon does something stupid, we sacrifice rights and dignity for the illusion of safety, and in turn, a hegemonic bureaucracy gets its wings.

100% Correct. Well put, too. \
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #332 of 524
I'm beat. I don't have television though, so I'd say I'd be worse.

Greg Palast can be a blow hard, but sometimes he can present another angle to this issue with guns. Of course it has to do with our president...


The Accomplices: Sundance George and Butch Reid and the Virginia Tech Massacre


"Sundance Bush is right now at the school for his photo op. The President is, “saddened and angered by these senseless acts of violence.” But will our senseless and violent President do anything about it? He already has: On July 29, 2005, the US Senate passed, then Bush signed, a grant of immunity from lawsuits for Walther, Glock and other gun manufacturers.

Now, corporations that make hand-guns can’t be sued for knowingly selling firearms to killers. Like that? No other industry has such wide lawsuit immunity — not teachers, not doctors, not cops — only gun makers."

Ugh...goodnight.
post #333 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch View Post

No, actually we're not in agreement there. Are you saying that we should arm "responsible citizens" because the cops are corrupt? \

Feel free to re-read my post instead of creating your own lines and then reading between them.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #334 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I'm beat. I don't have television though, so I'd say I'd be worse.

Greg Palast can be a blow hard, but sometimes he can present another angle to this issue with guns. Of course it has to do with our president...


The Accomplices: Sundance George and Butch Reid and the Virginia Tech Massacre


"Sundance Bush is right now at the school for his photo op. The President is, saddened and angered by these senseless acts of violence. But will our senseless and violent President do anything about it? He already has: On July 29, 2005, the US Senate passed, then Bush signed, a grant of immunity from lawsuits for Walther, Glock and other gun manufacturers.

Now, corporations that make hand-guns cant be sued for knowingly selling firearms to killers. Like that? No other industry has such wide lawsuit immunity not teachers, not doctors, not cops only gun makers."

Ugh...goodnight.

"knowingly selling firearms to killers" - now there is a stretch.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #335 of 524
The only stretch here is not knowing what the law says yet commenting on it.

Basically, if the companies are not careful, they
Have a read:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/20...ty-for-gun.php

If you are too lazy to click:
"The statute generally bars claims brought against manufacturers, sellers, or trade associations concerning harm resulting from illegal misuse of a firearm or ammunition. In other words, if Beretta carelessly distributes a firearm in a way that makes it easy for a criminal to obtain it, Beretta will have no liability to the victims of murders, assaults, robberies, or other crimes committed with the gun."

Another angle:
http://www.csgv.org/issues/freedom/immunity/

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #336 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The only stretch here is not knowing what the law says yet commenting on it.

Basically, if the companies are not careful, they
Have a read:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/20...ty-for-gun.php

If you are too lazy to click:
"The statute generally bars claims brought against manufacturers, sellers, or trade associations concerning harm resulting from illegal misuse of a firearm or ammunition. In other words, if Beretta carelessly distributes a firearm in a way that makes it easy for a criminal to obtain it, Beretta will have no liability to the victims of murders, assaults, robberies, or other crimes committed with the gun."

Another angle:
http://www.csgv.org/issues/freedom/immunity/

Well, you have to also put this in the context of the tactics used by anti-gunners to bankrupt the industry that produces a legal product. Remember tobacco?

This preemption law came as a response to the extreme tactics of gun control groups who were blaming every single misuse of a gun on the maker of that gun. You are bound to get such one-sided legislation when the attempted abuses of the judicial system are so egregious.

If Beretta hands out guns without following the law, they should be sued civilly and prosecuted criminally. But manufacturers were following the law to the letter out of fear of the Feds, when a bunch of trial lawyers show up and say "we'll get from the jury box what we cannot get at the ballot box."

The firearm industry has spent over $200 million to defend itself from these kinds of lawsuits, and has not been found liable by a SINGLE court for illegal use of a legal product. Such agenda-armed lawsuits are a threat to national security as well.

Maybe we should sue Ford because their LEGAL product can be used as a murder weapon? This is the same BS we went through with tobacco.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #337 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Maybe we should sue Ford because their LEGAL product can be used as a murder weapon?

Product legality in the context you're talking about has nothing to do with liability under the law
post #338 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Product legality in the context you're talking about has nothing to do with liability under the law

Especially when the intent of guns is to kill.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #339 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I can see that all that media coverage is swelling your brain. What made you even think that supported this? What?! I despise this asshole!

I hope Nate will pull his head out of his ass and realize that in a situation like these, people react differently than a television show or movie. There was chaos in those classrooms something that most people have never witnessed in their lives. And this NEOCON ASSHAT thinks we all have the the courage and resolve of a former holocaust survivor or people on a hijacked airplane who ALLEGEDLY took down terrorists brandishing BOXCUTTERS. Nate should be packed up and shipped to Iraq. I would like to see his courage and resolve over there.

Oh. By the way. Speaking of Iraq...

At least 130 Faculty, Students and Staff Killed in Bombings at Universities in Iraq so far this year.

I feel horrible about what happened in VT. But it still saddens me that there is so much public outcry when 30 people were killed monday, as thousands are killed daily elsewhere in the world (ie. Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan...et al).

Well you didn't put it in perspective like that when you posted it, so why wouldn't automatically figure you were backing up it?

If I post some twisted "Cho is a hero" article and don't say "look guys at how messed up this is" why would I expect you to know that I wasn't agreeing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #340 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celemourn View Post

Now lets stop with the excessive semantics arguments (more red herrings here) and start looking at the concepts. Lets all agree that we're willing to rephrase as necessary so as to keep the discussion intelligent.

Let's stop with the excessive semantics arguments? You just posted quite a few of them yourself. We can simplify all we want but the truth is that when there are more guns in circulation, more guns will end up in the wrong hands. People snap. People run into hard times and pawn/sell/barter things etc.
post #341 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Especially when the intent of guns is to kill.

Oh, pooh. The point of guns is to fire a projectile at incredible speeds! And for self-defense!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #342 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Oh, pooh. The point of guns is to fire a projectile at incredible speeds! And for self-defense!

Cars move at incredible speeds too! Should we ban them!?
post #343 of 524
Jub, you're ignoring the bigger picture.

Guns cost more lives than they save. Even legally owned guns cost more lives than they save.

You're clinging to your "God-given" right (which it is not), is 100% SELFISH and ignoring the fact that

THE REASON THERE ARE MORE KILLINGS IN THE UNITED STATES THAN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD

Is because of this "right" that you cling to.

Get rid of the "right" and you'll see a much lower homicide rate. Period. In other words (that you'll continue to IGNORE), the general population will be safer.

DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE GENERAL POPULATION? Or are you willing to admit your selfishness and deliberate ignorance of the statistics!!!!

(thanks for those links, franksargent)
post #344 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

THE REASON THERE ARE MORE KILLINGS IN THE UNITED STATES THAN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD

Well, I can think of one country that's got a mighty high murder rate. Four letters. Starts with "Iraq."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #345 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Jub, you're ignoring the bigger picture.

Guns cost more lives than they save. Even legally owned guns cost more lives than they save.

You're clinging to your "God-given" right (which it is not), is 100% SELFISH and ignoring the fact that

THE REASON THERE ARE MORE KILLINGS IN THE UNITED STATES THAN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD

Is because of this "right" that you cling to.

Get rid of the "right" and you'll see a much lower homicide rate. Period. In other words (that you'll continue to IGNORE), the general population will be safer.

DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE GENERAL POPULATION? Or are you willing to admit your selfishness and deliberate ignorance of the statistics!!!!

(thanks for those links, franksargent)

Too bad. I've been over and over the reasons I believe the way I do. I will NEVER back down from it. There is no compromise for me on this issue. No BS, no equivocation. I disagree with your arguments and can push just as many numbers as you can about why my view is right. I am alive and so is my family because people like you were not able to take my gun. It's a waste of time to debate, because I am not interested in compromise on the Second Amendment.

Self defense is a fundamental right. (ever used it?) As much as you hate to admit it, my having a gun keeps my fellow citizens safe too. I care about the general population... I train hundreds of them on how to NOT be victimized by violent criminals. Why do you want to make the US safer for violent criminals, Hmmmmm?

You have no idea how many lives guns save. That is your willful ignorance. It is selfish for you to want to disarm me so that you can have "your way" and create your fantasyland utopia, where criminals hand over their guns just because you want them to.

In my line of work, I am a target of violent, heavily armed criminals. They kill people. And you would have me and my family defenseless in the face of that threat? That, sir, highlights how detached you are from how things really are. You think criminals are going to give two shits if there are a few more gun laws on the books, while they are already committing crimes that are far beyond silly gun laws anyway. THINK.

Want to make a difference without costing innocent people their lives? Try supporting things like Project Exile, which punishes severely those that use guns in crime... and does not disarm the victims while leaving the criminals to run free.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #346 of 524
The difference in Iraq is that it is not necessarily Iraqis gunning down their own; it is also "fighters" from outside the country who are engaging in the suicide bombings, which are a manifestation of an opportunistic move to undermine the US (it is working, but wasn't needed because the US bongled things enough) and quite possibly of a civil war.

The US is not at war with itself and is not under occupation. Morons occupy the WH and many seats in government, but that is a different form of occupation.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #347 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Morons occupy the WH and many seats in government, but that is a different form of occupation.

Great.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #348 of 524
I used to work closely with my local police department back when I was in the States and they feared anyone who swore by the gun, law enforcement officer or not; indeed, the local chief would not hire anyone who said his gun was his best defence. Those types were more likely to end up dead --- after killing someone else, most likely an innocent, he would say.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #349 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I used to work closely with my local police department back when I was in the States and they feared anyone who swore by the gun, law enforcement officer or not; indeed, the local chief would not hire anyone who said his gun was his best defence. Those types were more likely to end up dead --- after killing someone else, most likely an innocent, he would say.

I teach that the gun is NOT the best defense. There are six steps in a conflict before it rises to the level of combat. I spend hours teaching conflict resolution, state management, and mental self-control to my students. Anything less is irresponsible. Last week I met with over 100 other instructors and we are all teaching the same thing. And furthermore, I spend hours teaching about the realities of using a firearm, both in damage to the human body, the legal ramifications, and the psychological effects of pulling the trigger. And yes, all of that training is based in the ever-demonized National Rifle Association.

So many of the anti gunners want to paint us as wild west cock-sure Rambos looking for a fight so we can pull a gun and kill someone. Ya know, cocky like Texas Dubya style. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wish I could live in a world without personal violence and criminals that no one can stop short of deadly force. But it is reality that we do not live in that world.

I am a peaceable, docile citizen who wants to live secure in my home and my business without fear of being victimized by a violent criminal. All too many here want to deny me that. My children will grow up with a father because I had a gun.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #350 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

All too many here want to deny me that. My children will grow up with a father because I had a gun.

Children where I live grow up with fathers who don't need guns because our society is essentially gun-free. It's really a shame that people like yourself live in places where you feel it is necessary to have a gun and train yourself in using it.

It creates a vicious cycle in which a gun-owning society can never go back to being a gun-less society even though it is undeniably true that far fewer people die in violent crimes in a gunless society.
post #351 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear View Post

Children where I live grow up with fathers who don't need guns because our society is essentially gun-free. It's really a shame that people like yourself live in places where you feel it is necessary to have a gun and train yourself in using it.

It creates a vicious cycle in which a gun-owning society can never go back to being a gun-less society even though it is undeniably true that far fewer people die in violent crimes in a gunless society.

If someone can tell me a way to get the criminals to hand their guns in first, I'll entertain being a gun free society. That's not going to happen. \
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #352 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

If someone can tell me a way to get the criminals to hand their guns in first, I'll entertain being a gun free society. That's not going to happen. \

So what. The US blabs on about being a Christian country - just turn the other cheek.

I don't recall Jesus advocating for Pilium rights and frothing "I'll give up my Gladius when the Legionary scum hand in theirs....."
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #353 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

just turn the other cheek.

Oh, Ok. Thanks for solving all of this for us.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #354 of 524
Jub paints a pretty dark picture of the US; I must have been one of the lucky wones to survive as long as I did there without getting killed. What is the population of the county now with all these rabid criminals crawling all over the place killing un-armed people too scared to stand up for their rights? About 300 million.

Teaching a certain part of the population to use guns is one thing, but you cannot reach everyone: kids too young to carry and those opposed to killing. If you taught, say, judo, then you could help younger members of the population defend themselves (they have a right, too, but do you want your kids toting guns around to soccer practice?). Mothers and others not desirous of engaging in what many see as a violent activity might also get involved with judo, which is basically very peaceful. It would not only help protect them during the one crime they may encounter in their lifetime but would also help improve their lives by making them more physically fit and reaching to their spiritual inner self (yeah, maybe not macho enough for some American dudes ). It could also help a father protect his kids at their school (where nobody should be carrying a gun, period, no matter how much training they have; anybody who carries a gun into a school except in an emergency situation is a verified threat to society and should be incarcerated IMO). You can practice judo in your own home, and you don't have to worry that the kids might grab your black belt out of the closet and go out in the back yard and kill someone. In short, judo is less expensive, more appealing, further-reaching and more beneficial to life than is gun-toting (eating 20 BigMacs a day probably is, too). Give it a try.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #355 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

If someone can tell me a way to get the criminals to hand their guns in first, I'll entertain being a gun free society. That's not going to happen. \

Education and social change, starting with the fear mongers and the doubters.

So you don't misunderstand: this would lead to fewer criminals and deny them the guns.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #356 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Jub paints a pretty dark picture of the US; I must have been one of the lucky wones to survive as long as I did there without getting killed. What is the population of the county now with all these rabid criminals crawling all over the place killing un-armed people too scared to stand up for their rights? About 300 million.

Teaching a certain part of the population to use guns is one thing, but you cannot reach everyone: kids too young to carry and those opposed to killing. If you taught, say, judo, then you could help younger members of the population defend themselves (they have a right, too, but do you want your kids toting guns around to soccer practice?). Mothers and others not desirous of engaging in what many see as a violent activity might also get involved with judo, which is basically very peaceful. It would not only help protect them during the one crime they may encounter in their lifetime but would also help improve their lives by making them more physically fit and reaching to their spiritual inner self (yeah, maybe not macho enough for some American dudes ). It could also help a father protect his kids at their school (where nobody should be carrying a gun, period, no matter how much training they have; anybody who carries a gun into a school except in an emergency situation and if they are an officer is a verified threat to society and should be incarcerated IMO). You can practice judo in your own home, and you don't have to worry that the kids might grab your black belt out of the closet and go out in the back yard and kill someone. In short, judo is less expensive, more appealing, further-reaching and more beneficial to life than is gun-toting (eating 20 BigMacs a day probably is, too). Give it a try.

Exactly. Spot-on nailed it.

If there is a problem then you can change tack or you can increase on the same course.

The default mode is to increase in the face of folly: see 'Surge' in Iraq.

But what is this based on? Basically a load of macho bullshit.

Think about it - it always is. Women aren't running around blowing people's heads off. It's men who gibber on about 'respect', 'losing face' and who's got the biggest weapon.

It's nothing to do with 'protection' and everything to do with men proving themselves to be Cock of the Walk.

And that goes for Gangbangers, Citizen Tom protecting his family/booty, GI Joe in Iraq, rabid criminal #2364a and George Friggin Bush.......
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #357 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

If someone can tell me a way to get the criminals to hand their guns in first, I'll entertain being a gun free society. That's not going to happen. \

You see, this is exactly what's wrong with your argument: hardline criminals where I live CAN get a gun, some/most do, although it's presumably harder/more expensive.

We have armed police to take care of those. Citizens don't have guns and LESS people die by violent crimes. According to your theory in our society MORE people should die but that is not the case. You will probably argue on endlessly but you simply can't negate the numbers that state that gunless societies lose LESS innocent lives due to violent crimes EVEN WHEN criminals still have access to guns.

You feel the need to have a gun to protect yourself against armed criminals. I feel the need to have a well-trained police force with guns that protects me and my family. When/if the unlikely case arises that I am robbed by someone with a gun I just give him/her my money. He/she will not shoot me when he doesn't need to and afterwards i go the police. As a result, most gun-deaths here concern one criminal shooting another. I'd choose this scenario anyday over yours as it makes me live in the safer society.
post #358 of 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You have no idea how many lives guns save.

Not nearly as many as they cost... you see... that's the BIGGER PICTURE.

"Guns save 1,000 lives per year!"
Uh, yeah, but they cost 20,000.

"Yeah, but guns save 1,000 lives per year!"
Uh, yeah, but they cost 20,000.

"But if you take away those guns, they won't save those 1,000 lives!"
Uh, yeah, but they'll cost thousands less... sure, not ZERO, but still, much less than that 1000 difference.

"Yeah, duh... but guns save 1,000 lives per year!"

ad ignoramus infinitum

Show me the statistics that say this is a safer society OVERALL because of gun ownership. Go ahead show them to me. Make my day.

Otherwise admit that you are wrong.
post #359 of 524
...it's changing the culture.

Show a nipple (NSFW) on primetime TV, and watch the media/cultural outrage.

Show thousands of murders during daytime and primetime? No problem!

Quote:
Number of murders seen on TV by the time an average child finishes elementary school: 8,000
Number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18: 200,000
Percentage of Americans who believe TV violence helps precipitate real life mayhem: 79%

Something I'm curious about: in countries with handgun/other gun bans, how much of a market is there for toy guns?

My kids don't have any (except for water guns that don't look like real ones, have to have some fun in the summer ), because guns are weapons, not toys...
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #360 of 524
These are my random thoughts regarding guncontrol in the US:

There is surely a benefit in carrying a gun, you are trained in to use efficiently, in the case that a criminal tries to do harm to you, ie. wants to rob, rape, kidnap, kill you or members of your family/friends.

In that case, if you are good enough you can kill the criminal/s before he/they can do irreversible damage to youm your family or your friends.

But, and that is a major but, that case is a rather rare experience, and therefore that benefit is rather rarely experienced.

Most of the time of your life, no criminal will cross your way, and most of the time you, the trained gun-carrier are not near your family and friends, instead you will have to rely on other gun-carriers to do the protection of them for you, which they will seldomly do, since it's not their family-members and friends, so why should they go through the troubles, and even if they chose to do something, it's not guaranteed they are trained enough if at all to do the job efficiently...
In the case of police-action, there might even be considerable confusion, who is really the criminal and who the civilian protector...

That said, most of the time nothing of that happens anyway, but millions of guns are legally out there doing harm accidentally leading to deaths and injuries far outweighing the benifit of being in the position at the right time and right place and trained and ready to protect people efficientlly against a determined criminal.

The other argument for the right of carrying guns, is the notion that it is part of the constitution. It was introduced into the constitution as a mean to ensure that the states can resist a federal government or a standing army. When everyone was armed and trained it was concluded that the states could use its armed population as a well regulated militia in order to resist an invasion or occupation/oppression by the federal government using its standing army unlawfully.

This point is of much bigger importance and relevance and in need of discussion than the rather naive criminal-argument.

The argument goes something like this: A standing army in times of peace tends to develop sinister ambitions, and therefore the states need a counter-weight that ensures that even in the worst-case-situation of a federal government turning into a dictatorship and using a standing army in sinister and unlawful ways or the other way around, that even in those cases that the states are able to form militias using the already armed and trained civilians to build a force that is stronger than the federal standing army simply through the much higher numbers of people involved.

In the past that was possible, today it is not possible anymore, due to the development of technology and economy, that made it possible that the federal standing army is equipped with tanks, fighter-jets, helicopters, nukes...

In order to have equality of power again, the militias must be in possession of tanks, fighterjets and even nukes, and the civilians trained in their efficient use.

You can all throw out your handguns, what you need as a minimum in order to fulfill the meaning of the constitution is a rocket-propelled-grenade-thrower, and also an installation of radar-technology in your backyard, complete with ground-to-air-anti-aircraft-rockets...

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Virginia Tech killing: more than 30 dead