Holly2003
Worth reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13799616
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Holly2003
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
Point?Unless you mean killing is okay in 2nd and 3rd world nations.[/QUOTE]
Only if the 2nd world is Mongo and the 3rd is The Planet of the Apes.[/QUOTE]
A map of Planet Mongo, yesterday: http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/mongo_map.jpeg
Most violence takes place in Ming's name.
[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
Point?Unless you mean killing is okay in 2nd and 3rd world nations.[/QUOTE]
Only if the 2nd world is Mongo and the 3rd is The Planet of the Apes.[/QUOTE]
A map of Planet Mongo, yesterday: http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/mongo_map.jpeg
Most violence takes place in Ming's name.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
Worth reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13799616
[/QUOTE]
Very enlightening.
It's probably a bit of all ten things.
And there are probably even more things they didn't think of. Rarely do things actually end up as tens.
Like George Carlin said ... "the eleven commandments? Get the fuck out of here!"
Worth reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13799616
[/QUOTE]
Very enlightening.
It's probably a bit of all ten things.
And there are probably even more things they didn't think of. Rarely do things actually end up as tens.
Like George Carlin said ... "the eleven commandments? Get the fuck out of here!"
tero! 48531
[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
It was taken in Switzerlandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpgNow, if I wanna play your game, I guess we could debate it the gun was real or not, or if the store was real or not, etc. I would think it quite bizarre to go thru all the trouble of staging that photo.[/QUOTE]
Okay. Now, I suppose you have read the Wikipedia article about Switzerland?
The one where it says that 99% of the population aren't allowed to possess the ammunition for these weapons, had their previous state-issued ammunition retrieved, and any ammunition purchased at a shooting range is used at the shooting range?
The point here is that these guns aren't used for shooting at home, nor CAN they be used for shooting at home. They are only being stored there.
The statistic you posted (from Wikipedia) states that one out of every 10,000 Americans were shot to death in the years 2004-2006. In 2006 in Switzerland (just BEFORE the ammunition was retrieved from homes) Switzerland had 34 cases of people killed or attempted to be killed with a firearm which gives a rate of one out of 200,000 (20 times better than the USA).
What we see here is that even though the number of guns doesn't directly tell us how violent a country is, some countries are more worried about loaded guns at home than others.
For Switzerland it was easy to handle this by retrieving 99% of the state-issued ammunition, but I don't see how the USA can improve its statistics without getting rid of the guns at home altogether?
It was taken in Switzerlandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpgNow, if I wanna play your game, I guess we could debate it the gun was real or not, or if the store was real or not, etc. I would think it quite bizarre to go thru all the trouble of staging that photo.[/QUOTE]
Okay. Now, I suppose you have read the Wikipedia article about Switzerland?
The one where it says that 99% of the population aren't allowed to possess the ammunition for these weapons, had their previous state-issued ammunition retrieved, and any ammunition purchased at a shooting range is used at the shooting range?
The point here is that these guns aren't used for shooting at home, nor CAN they be used for shooting at home. They are only being stored there.
The statistic you posted (from Wikipedia) states that one out of every 10,000 Americans were shot to death in the years 2004-2006. In 2006 in Switzerland (just BEFORE the ammunition was retrieved from homes) Switzerland had 34 cases of people killed or attempted to be killed with a firearm which gives a rate of one out of 200,000 (20 times better than the USA).
What we see here is that even though the number of guns doesn't directly tell us how violent a country is, some countries are more worried about loaded guns at home than others.
For Switzerland it was easy to handle this by retrieving 99% of the state-issued ammunition, but I don't see how the USA can improve its statistics without getting rid of the guns at home altogether?
Micrówave
[QUOTE]Well done - you spotted hyperbole. But the reality is, it is easier to obtain a gun in the US than anywhere else in the civilized world. There are 140,000 gun dealers in the US. No other country comes close. [/QUOTE]
Illegal hand guns and such do NOT come from gun dealers.
[QUOTE]Combine that with the "right to bear arms" being part of the national discourse, and voila, gun violence galore.[/QUOTE]
I think I may understand why you hate the US so much. You're mad that we seceeded and then succeeded you as a world power in a few years. The "national discourse"? You mean the 'Bill Of Rights'? Yes, and I'm sure you hate our constitution as well.
[QUOTE]Or do you have a better explanation as to why the US has the most gun violence in the civilized world? [/QUOTE]
Yes, actually I do. There are more "civilized" people living here than any other "civilized nation"... by quite a bit. That's why there's more "gun violence".
But, there is much more "bomb violence" in the UK than there is here... and a lot fewer people living there. Does that mean that an American likes to shoot people, while a Brit would rather take out the whole block?
Illegal hand guns and such do NOT come from gun dealers.
[QUOTE]Combine that with the "right to bear arms" being part of the national discourse, and voila, gun violence galore.[/QUOTE]
I think I may understand why you hate the US so much. You're mad that we seceeded and then succeeded you as a world power in a few years. The "national discourse"? You mean the 'Bill Of Rights'? Yes, and I'm sure you hate our constitution as well.
[QUOTE]Or do you have a better explanation as to why the US has the most gun violence in the civilized world? [/QUOTE]
Yes, actually I do. There are more "civilized" people living here than any other "civilized nation"... by quite a bit. That's why there's more "gun violence".
But, there is much more "bomb violence" in the UK than there is here... and a lot fewer people living there. Does that mean that an American likes to shoot people, while a Brit would rather take out the whole block?
Micrówave
[QUOTE] Tero wrote:
For Switzerland it was easy to handle this by retrieving 99% of the state-issued ammunition[/QUOTE]
Yes, and it's quite easy to obtain illegal ammunation over there as well.
[QUOTE] but I don't see how the USA can improve its statistics without getting rid of the guns at home altogether? [/QUOTE]
"Getting rid of the guns at home altogether' will not stop this from happening. But it would increase the rate of burglaries and car jackings and other "gun violence" related activities.
"getting rid of the" booze (prohibition) "at home altogether" did not stop it from flowing. It only created a larger criminal enterprise.
Also, "getting rid of the" crack "at home altogether" will not stop it from being a problem in the community.
"getting rid of" pornography "at home altogether" will not stop it from being distributed.
"getting rid of" a certain album "at home altogether" will not stop it from being listened to.
"getting rid of" a queenzone troll "at home altogether" will not stop them from posting.
For Switzerland it was easy to handle this by retrieving 99% of the state-issued ammunition[/QUOTE]
Yes, and it's quite easy to obtain illegal ammunation over there as well.
[QUOTE] but I don't see how the USA can improve its statistics without getting rid of the guns at home altogether? [/QUOTE]
"Getting rid of the guns at home altogether' will not stop this from happening. But it would increase the rate of burglaries and car jackings and other "gun violence" related activities.
"getting rid of the" booze (prohibition) "at home altogether" did not stop it from flowing. It only created a larger criminal enterprise.
Also, "getting rid of the" crack "at home altogether" will not stop it from being a problem in the community.
"getting rid of" pornography "at home altogether" will not stop it from being distributed.
"getting rid of" a certain album "at home altogether" will not stop it from being listened to.
"getting rid of" a queenzone troll "at home altogether" will not stop them from posting.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
Yes, actually I do. There are more "civilized" people living here than any other "civilized nation"... by quite a bit. That's why there's more "gun violence".[/QUOTE]
Per capita, you are just plain wrong.
The data that you provided even confirms that.
Yes, actually I do. There are more "civilized" people living here than any other "civilized nation"... by quite a bit. That's why there's more "gun violence".[/QUOTE]
Per capita, you are just plain wrong.
The data that you provided even confirms that.
Saint Jiub
Why does one need an assault weapon, or drum ammunition with 100 rounds? To defend their home? Fortunately that drum jammed or there would be more dead.
He bought everything legally because he did not have a criminal record ... and none of the internet sales were immediately trackable by law enforcement.
I can see owning a gun for self defence, but it is just too easy to buy an arsenal.
He bought everything legally because he did not have a criminal record ... and none of the internet sales were immediately trackable by law enforcement.
I can see owning a gun for self defence, but it is just too easy to buy an arsenal.
YourValentine
I do not believe that gun laws can explain such incredible outbursts of violence. We might discuss gun laws in connection with gang wars or such but these inexplicable individual killings cannot be explained by them imo. Many factors must come together to enable a person to commit such a senseless crime.
What can we do to prevent all this violence and hatred? Which kinds of role models do we actually give young people? The message we give young people is one of "survival of the fittest" rather than "love your neighbour". Look at our politicians and the lack of respect towards the opponent. Look at the economy and how big parts of the people are left behind in favour of the profit of a few. Look at our nations and how we "solve" problems with armies and violence.
Recently I spoke with friends about the movies we saw and books we read as kids and how that has changed. We loved the hero stories when the heroes fought for the weak and poor - Robin Hood, Sandokan, Winnetou. Today kids play killing games and games you can only win when you destroy as many competitors as you can. In school they do not get extra credit for helping other students, instead they learn very early that they have no chance in life if they are not on top of the performance. As a result we have bullying, suicides, shootings. School and computer games cannot be blamed for the shooting but the whole society must look into a mirror and wonder what we do to the future of our countries if we do not change around and stop to make profit the measure of everything. There must be a place in society for everybody, not just the "elite" and young people must grow up with a feeling of belonging and security.
On CNN I read an article that pointed out that violence is almost exclusively committed by young men while women are usually not violent at all. Certainly we must ask which message we give young males to make that happen.
What can we do to prevent all this violence and hatred? Which kinds of role models do we actually give young people? The message we give young people is one of "survival of the fittest" rather than "love your neighbour". Look at our politicians and the lack of respect towards the opponent. Look at the economy and how big parts of the people are left behind in favour of the profit of a few. Look at our nations and how we "solve" problems with armies and violence.
Recently I spoke with friends about the movies we saw and books we read as kids and how that has changed. We loved the hero stories when the heroes fought for the weak and poor - Robin Hood, Sandokan, Winnetou. Today kids play killing games and games you can only win when you destroy as many competitors as you can. In school they do not get extra credit for helping other students, instead they learn very early that they have no chance in life if they are not on top of the performance. As a result we have bullying, suicides, shootings. School and computer games cannot be blamed for the shooting but the whole society must look into a mirror and wonder what we do to the future of our countries if we do not change around and stop to make profit the measure of everything. There must be a place in society for everybody, not just the "elite" and young people must grow up with a feeling of belonging and security.
On CNN I read an article that pointed out that violence is almost exclusively committed by young men while women are usually not violent at all. Certainly we must ask which message we give young males to make that happen.
john bodega
More gun laws wouldn't prevent gun related homicide.
I think the average toting American is a fool for thinking it's a good idea to have a gun. And I think that the 'if they didn't have guns, they'd just get knives!' approach is a lot of hooey. Honestly, I'd rather have someone come at me with a knife than a gun. I'd still be screwed because I'm not physically virtuous, but that's beside the point.
Having said all that, changes to gun ownership laws won't stop one-offs like this from happening; I'm talking particularly about this kind of carnage, or the Virginia Tech shooting.
Now the kind of stuff that might be curtailed by changes in your mindset towards guns would be more like that neighbourhood watch kid who shot the black fella a while ago. Guns really ought not occupy any part of your brain that deals with decisions related to problem solving. You should never find yourself in a logical frame of mind thinking "hey, this is okay, everyday shit that I am doing" when you are in the position to shoot someone. If you do, then you're a disturbed individual.
Anyways. No sense tossing proposed solutions to this stuff around because there aren't any. You won't win votes by saying "sorry, nothing can be done" and so you won't hear anyone in government saying it, but that's the sad fuckin' truth. Give people more guns, take them away - what's the difference? If some idiot had a gun in his pocket in that cinema and thought "this is my big chance to save the day", he probably would've hit just as many bystanders as that cunt Holmes did. Despite what we like to picture in our daydreams, we do not all shoot like pornstars when the time comes.
I think the average toting American is a fool for thinking it's a good idea to have a gun. And I think that the 'if they didn't have guns, they'd just get knives!' approach is a lot of hooey. Honestly, I'd rather have someone come at me with a knife than a gun. I'd still be screwed because I'm not physically virtuous, but that's beside the point.
Having said all that, changes to gun ownership laws won't stop one-offs like this from happening; I'm talking particularly about this kind of carnage, or the Virginia Tech shooting.
Now the kind of stuff that might be curtailed by changes in your mindset towards guns would be more like that neighbourhood watch kid who shot the black fella a while ago. Guns really ought not occupy any part of your brain that deals with decisions related to problem solving. You should never find yourself in a logical frame of mind thinking "hey, this is okay, everyday shit that I am doing" when you are in the position to shoot someone. If you do, then you're a disturbed individual.
Anyways. No sense tossing proposed solutions to this stuff around because there aren't any. You won't win votes by saying "sorry, nothing can be done" and so you won't hear anyone in government saying it, but that's the sad fuckin' truth. Give people more guns, take them away - what's the difference? If some idiot had a gun in his pocket in that cinema and thought "this is my big chance to save the day", he probably would've hit just as many bystanders as that cunt Holmes did. Despite what we like to picture in our daydreams, we do not all shoot like pornstars when the time comes.
Micrówave
Great last 3 posts.
[QUOTE]Panchgani wrote:
I can see owning a gun for self defence, but it is just too easy to buy an arsenal.[/QUOTE]
I could not have said this better. This shooting did not happen because it's easy to buy a gun "at the corner store". These kind of outbursts happen, it's a fact of life. And it is terrible. But you don't fix things by taking away a society's rights that have worked out pretty well so far.
Donate the shooter's body to science. They've been making an awful lot of great progress lately.
And don't blame Christopher Nolan.
[QUOTE]Panchgani wrote:
I can see owning a gun for self defence, but it is just too easy to buy an arsenal.[/QUOTE]
I could not have said this better. This shooting did not happen because it's easy to buy a gun "at the corner store". These kind of outbursts happen, it's a fact of life. And it is terrible. But you don't fix things by taking away a society's rights that have worked out pretty well so far.
Donate the shooter's body to science. They've been making an awful lot of great progress lately.
And don't blame Christopher Nolan.
tero! 48531
[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]Yes, and it's quite easy to obtain illegal ammunation over there as well.
"Getting rid of the guns at home altogether' will not stop this from happening. But it would increase the rate of burglaries and car jackings and other "gun violence" related activities."getting rid of the" booze (prohibition) "at home altogether" did not stop it from flowing. It only created a larger criminal enterprise.Also, "getting rid of the" crack "at home altogether" will not stop it from being a problem in the community."getting rid of" pornography "at home altogether" will not stop it from being distributed."getting rid of" a certain album "at home altogether" will not stop it from being listened to. "getting rid of" a queenzone troll "at home altogether" will not stop them from posting.[/QUOTE]
Of course it's possible to get illegal ammunition, just like it's possible to get illegal guns to begin with. But that's not the real point, is it?
Not having a loaded gun under your pillow and having to find a source of illegal weapons prevents 99% of crimes of passion, accidental shootings of your relatives, drunken revenges, and people who are angry for failing a university class. It won't stop the robbers of course, but how many average Joes are a match for hardened criminals anyway?
Colorado has very little control over buying guns, and apparently just about any applicant can get a license to carry a concelaed weapon (about 80% of applicants, tens of thousands every year)... If that didn't help to prevent a shooting, how do you expect more guns to prevent it?
"Getting rid of the guns at home altogether' will not stop this from happening. But it would increase the rate of burglaries and car jackings and other "gun violence" related activities."getting rid of the" booze (prohibition) "at home altogether" did not stop it from flowing. It only created a larger criminal enterprise.Also, "getting rid of the" crack "at home altogether" will not stop it from being a problem in the community."getting rid of" pornography "at home altogether" will not stop it from being distributed."getting rid of" a certain album "at home altogether" will not stop it from being listened to. "getting rid of" a queenzone troll "at home altogether" will not stop them from posting.[/QUOTE]
Of course it's possible to get illegal ammunition, just like it's possible to get illegal guns to begin with. But that's not the real point, is it?
Not having a loaded gun under your pillow and having to find a source of illegal weapons prevents 99% of crimes of passion, accidental shootings of your relatives, drunken revenges, and people who are angry for failing a university class. It won't stop the robbers of course, but how many average Joes are a match for hardened criminals anyway?
Colorado has very little control over buying guns, and apparently just about any applicant can get a license to carry a concelaed weapon (about 80% of applicants, tens of thousands every year)... If that didn't help to prevent a shooting, how do you expect more guns to prevent it?
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]
Which kinds of role models do we actually give young people? The message we give young people is one of "survival of the fittest" rather than "love your neighbour". Look at our politicians and the lack of respect towards the opponent. Look at the economy and how big parts of the people are left behind in favour of the profit of a few. Look at our nations and how we "solve" problems with armies and violence.
[/QUOTE]
And of all developed nations, the USA is the absolute worst at all of these things, historically and today.
Which kinds of role models do we actually give young people? The message we give young people is one of "survival of the fittest" rather than "love your neighbour". Look at our politicians and the lack of respect towards the opponent. Look at the economy and how big parts of the people are left behind in favour of the profit of a few. Look at our nations and how we "solve" problems with armies and violence.
[/QUOTE]
And of all developed nations, the USA is the absolute worst at all of these things, historically and today.
Micrówave
Yeah, I bet those Indians who used to live in Canada before the French killed them and took their land think the same way.
Do you do anything other than stir the piss?
The Shedden massacre involved the killing of eight men, whose bodies were found in a farmer's field five kilometres north of Shedden, a hamlet in the Canadian province of Ontario, on April 8, 2006
They were SHOT. How does this happen in peaceful Canada, Bob? But you go on believing that only things like that happen in the US because of our lax gun laws.
Do you do anything other than stir the piss?
The Shedden massacre involved the killing of eight men, whose bodies were found in a farmer's field five kilometres north of Shedden, a hamlet in the Canadian province of Ontario, on April 8, 2006
They were SHOT. How does this happen in peaceful Canada, Bob? But you go on believing that only things like that happen in the US because of our lax gun laws.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
But you go on believing that only things like that happen in the US because of our lax gun laws.[/QUOTE]
When did I ever say these things only happen in the US? In this very thread I stated that it happens more per capita in the US than in any other developed nation, not that it happens exclusively in your country.
You only diminish your argument by putting words into others' mouths. Stick to the topic at hand and maybe people will listen to what you have to say.
But you go on believing that only things like that happen in the US because of our lax gun laws.[/QUOTE]
When did I ever say these things only happen in the US? In this very thread I stated that it happens more per capita in the US than in any other developed nation, not that it happens exclusively in your country.
You only diminish your argument by putting words into others' mouths. Stick to the topic at hand and maybe people will listen to what you have to say.