[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yes, they should make all guns illegal. That way no one would be able to get one.
If we could not blame the following for this shooting, that would be nice:
1. Gun Laws
2. Bush
3. Rutgers
4. Sanjaya
The idea about metal detectors is nice, but hardly realistic. Remember, people PAY MONEY to go to college. Who is going to want to go to one that requires a bulletproof vest?
I've often wondered in these school shootings: What is the ROTC program doing at those times? Bring back the early morning marches in full dress. That way if you see some guy waving a gun, it's easier to convince him to stop doing that with a batallion than University Police. It took the University Police two hours to investigate the first shooting? Campus should have been on lock-down at that exact moment.[/QUOTE]
i agree with you on everything you've written there,apart from your first line re guns.as the old saying goes ''where theres a will theres a way''
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Campus should have been on lock-down at that exact moment. [/QUOTE]
This is what I don't understand. Why didn't this occur? It's said an email wasn't sent out (to whom?) until two hours after the first shooting - which was when the second round began. And now they mention bomb threats the school received last week...
Shouldn't they have already been on high alert?
Maybe it's all hindsight, I don't know. It just seems like something could have been done to either prevent or minimize this tragedy.
This is what I don't understand. Why didn't this occur? It's said an email wasn't sent out (to whom?) until two hours after the first shooting - which was when the second round began. And now they mention bomb threats the school received last week...
Shouldn't they have already been on high alert?
Maybe it's all hindsight, I don't know. It just seems like something could have been done to either prevent or minimize this tragedy.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]joxerthecornishpirate wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yes, they should make all guns illegal. That way no one would be able to get one.[/QUOTE]
i agree with you on everything you've written there,apart from your first line re guns.as the old saying goes ''where theres a will theres a way''[/QUOTE]
That was for all the safety nuts out there.
Another tip: Ban the use of knives, shanks, shivs, and other contraband in all prisons. Tell prisoners it is wrong to hurt other prisoners. That way the violence in jails would go away.
Next: Ban fire
i agree with you on everything you've written there,apart from your first line re guns.as the old saying goes ''where theres a will theres a way''[/QUOTE]
That was for all the safety nuts out there.
Another tip: Ban the use of knives, shanks, shivs, and other contraband in all prisons. Tell prisoners it is wrong to hurt other prisoners. That way the violence in jails would go away.
Next: Ban fire
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It just seems like something could have been done to either prevent or minimize this tragedy. [/QUOTE]
Why does someone always say this afterwards? No offense, but maybe nothing could have been done. Sometimes people are just bad. Stop blaming society, his parents, his teachers, the kid who made fun of his hair, whatever.
Excuses are like a-holes.
Why does someone always say this afterwards? No offense, but maybe nothing could have been done. Sometimes people are just bad. Stop blaming society, his parents, his teachers, the kid who made fun of his hair, whatever.
Excuses are like a-holes.
I would actively and loudly question why, after the first shooting, that the school was not put on immediate 100% total lockdown.
You can make statistics do what you want to, Music Man, I totally agree. Madonna and Britney Spears supporters would argue that they are peers of the Beatles, and better than Queen because of sales. However, if you believe at all in statistics, you surely know the following to be true: Americans are exponentially more likely to die from a handgun than anywhere else in the world.
Consider Australia. The US has nearly 14 times Australia's population. It has 64 times Australia's total gun deaths, and 211 times its gun homicides. (According to US government statistics, approximately 9,000 people die every year from homicide with a handgun as weapon of choice.) In the other direction we have Japan with the world's toughest gun laws. Japan has just over seven times Australia's population, but in 1992, enjoying the world's lowest homicide rate, it had just 60 people murdered with guns--nearly 30% less than Australia's recent annual average of 85 people murdered with guns. If Australia had the America's gun homicide rate, they would have 1894--more than five a day. I'm Canadian, and we have 60 to 80 handgun deaths a year, which most Canadian's believe is 60 to 80 too many.
So, I believe that people believe what they want to Music Man, and no disrespect, but the constitutional right to bear arms seems to me succeeds in giving American's the constitutional right to be murdered at a rate that far exceeds any other nation in the world. America is a hawkish country, and believes that might is right. Looking at the numbers of people who are murdered with guns compared to other countries, I'd really think the assertion that the average man in the street should be armed needs to be questioned. If not, no surprise when the next horror occurs.
Condolences to the families of the victims first and foremost.
Consider Australia. The US has nearly 14 times Australia's population. It has 64 times Australia's total gun deaths, and 211 times its gun homicides. (According to US government statistics, approximately 9,000 people die every year from homicide with a handgun as weapon of choice.) In the other direction we have Japan with the world's toughest gun laws. Japan has just over seven times Australia's population, but in 1992, enjoying the world's lowest homicide rate, it had just 60 people murdered with guns--nearly 30% less than Australia's recent annual average of 85 people murdered with guns. If Australia had the America's gun homicide rate, they would have 1894--more than five a day. I'm Canadian, and we have 60 to 80 handgun deaths a year, which most Canadian's believe is 60 to 80 too many.
So, I believe that people believe what they want to Music Man, and no disrespect, but the constitutional right to bear arms seems to me succeeds in giving American's the constitutional right to be murdered at a rate that far exceeds any other nation in the world. America is a hawkish country, and believes that might is right. Looking at the numbers of people who are murdered with guns compared to other countries, I'd really think the assertion that the average man in the street should be armed needs to be questioned. If not, no surprise when the next horror occurs.
Condolences to the families of the victims first and foremost.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It just seems like something could have been done to either prevent or minimize this tragedy. [/QUOTE]
Why does someone always say this afterwards? No offense, but maybe nothing could have been done. Sometimes people are just bad. Stop blaming society, his parents, his teachers, the kid who made fun of his hair, whatever.
Excuses are like a-holes. [/QUOTE]
I blame the guy who did this, no one else. And the reason people say this afterward is because that's when we become privy to much of the info those in the know had. Like - as I said - the bomb threats the school received last week. That should have put them on alert, don't you think? And the shooting at 7:15AM... Aren't those two issues enough reason to say something should have/could have been done to minimize this? And didn't you yourself say the campus should have been locked down after the first shooting? Isn't that the same as saying afterward that 'something should have been done'?
Why does someone always say this afterwards? No offense, but maybe nothing could have been done. Sometimes people are just bad. Stop blaming society, his parents, his teachers, the kid who made fun of his hair, whatever.
Excuses are like a-holes. [/QUOTE]
I blame the guy who did this, no one else. And the reason people say this afterward is because that's when we become privy to much of the info those in the know had. Like - as I said - the bomb threats the school received last week. That should have put them on alert, don't you think? And the shooting at 7:15AM... Aren't those two issues enough reason to say something should have/could have been done to minimize this? And didn't you yourself say the campus should have been locked down after the first shooting? Isn't that the same as saying afterward that 'something should have been done'?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You can make statistics do what you want to, Music Man, I totally agree. Madonna and Britney Spears supporters would argue that they are peers of the Beatles, and better than Queen because of sales. However, if you believe at all in statistics, you surely know the following to be true: Americans are exponentially more likely to die from a handgun than anywhere else in the world.
Consider Australia. The US has nearly 14 times Australia's population. It has 64 times Australia's total gun deaths, and 211 times its gun homicides. (According to US government statistics, approximately 9,000 people die every year from homicide with a handgun as weapon of choice.) In the other direction we have Japan with the world's toughest gun laws. Japan has just over seven times Australia's population, but in 1992, enjoying the world's lowest homicide rate, it had just 60 people murdered with guns--nearly 30% less than Australia's recent annual average of 85 people murdered with guns. If Australia had the America's gun homicide rate, they would have 1894--more than five a day. I'm Canadian, and we have 60 to 80 handgun deaths a year, which most Canadian's believe is 60 to 80 too many.
So, I believe that people believe what they want to Music Man, and no disrespect, but the constitutional right to bear arms seems to me succeeds in giving American's the constitutional right to be murdered at a rate that far exceeds any other nation in the world. America is a hawkish country, and believes that might is right. Looking at the numbers of people who are murdered with guns compared to other countries, I'd really think the assertion that the average man in the street should be armed needs to be questioned. If not, no surprise when the next horror occurs.
Condolences to the families of the victims first and foremost.
[/QUOTE]
I completely see your point, but I am not really sure those statistics are applicable across the board that way. Especially in Japan, where social culture is far different from our own.
I suppose what I disagreed with is the assertion that anyone who supports gun rights is acting in an absolutely ludicrous manner. The assertion that gun control = safety is too often merely "assumed."
I once again am skeptical as to how people can take such adamant stances on this issue when the truth is vague and highly uncertain.
Consider Australia. The US has nearly 14 times Australia's population. It has 64 times Australia's total gun deaths, and 211 times its gun homicides. (According to US government statistics, approximately 9,000 people die every year from homicide with a handgun as weapon of choice.) In the other direction we have Japan with the world's toughest gun laws. Japan has just over seven times Australia's population, but in 1992, enjoying the world's lowest homicide rate, it had just 60 people murdered with guns--nearly 30% less than Australia's recent annual average of 85 people murdered with guns. If Australia had the America's gun homicide rate, they would have 1894--more than five a day. I'm Canadian, and we have 60 to 80 handgun deaths a year, which most Canadian's believe is 60 to 80 too many.
So, I believe that people believe what they want to Music Man, and no disrespect, but the constitutional right to bear arms seems to me succeeds in giving American's the constitutional right to be murdered at a rate that far exceeds any other nation in the world. America is a hawkish country, and believes that might is right. Looking at the numbers of people who are murdered with guns compared to other countries, I'd really think the assertion that the average man in the street should be armed needs to be questioned. If not, no surprise when the next horror occurs.
Condolences to the families of the victims first and foremost.
[/QUOTE]
I completely see your point, but I am not really sure those statistics are applicable across the board that way. Especially in Japan, where social culture is far different from our own.
I suppose what I disagreed with is the assertion that anyone who supports gun rights is acting in an absolutely ludicrous manner. The assertion that gun control = safety is too often merely "assumed."
I once again am skeptical as to how people can take such adamant stances on this issue when the truth is vague and highly uncertain.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I once again am skeptical as to how people can take such adamant stances on this issue when the truth is vague and highly uncertain. [/QUOTE]
You're stance is adamant, is it not? And if the truth is vague and highly uncertain but facts show that with the status quo so many murders are committed by gunshot, then shouldn't a new approach be examined? Why stand firm on the 'right' to bear arms? Why suggest if the victims were armed the tragedy might have been less? Why not say what cannot be denied - if the gunman were not a gunman but a club or knife-wielding madman, 32 people would not have died by his hand today.
I once again am skeptical as to how people can take such adamant stances on this issue when the truth is vague and highly uncertain. [/QUOTE]
You're stance is adamant, is it not? And if the truth is vague and highly uncertain but facts show that with the status quo so many murders are committed by gunshot, then shouldn't a new approach be examined? Why stand firm on the 'right' to bear arms? Why suggest if the victims were armed the tragedy might have been less? Why not say what cannot be denied - if the gunman were not a gunman but a club or knife-wielding madman, 32 people would not have died by his hand today.
Come on just open your eyes! I live in France, guns are forbidden and tragedies like this one never happen!!! We NEVER had 30 (or even 1) students killed in a campus! Isn't it the greatest proof?!
"The right to posess a gun is the right to defend yourself" Yes right... and if nobody had a gun, you woudn't even have to defend yourself!
Instead of saying "everybody should have a gun" why don't you put it the other way? Would he have been able to kill so much persons in just a few minuts if he hadn't be armed? No! Of course not! Because no other weapon is more dangerous and "efficient" than a gun and the fact that everbody has the right to carry one frightens me. I absolutely don't feel safe...on the contrary! Every psycho,every freak has the right to buy a weapon!
Just grow out of it! Men are crazy, don't allow them to have guns! They wrote the Constitution when they still had to defend themselves against Indians but I got news!!!! Old West is over...
"The right to posess a gun is the right to defend yourself" Yes right... and if nobody had a gun, you woudn't even have to defend yourself!
Instead of saying "everybody should have a gun" why don't you put it the other way? Would he have been able to kill so much persons in just a few minuts if he hadn't be armed? No! Of course not! Because no other weapon is more dangerous and "efficient" than a gun and the fact that everbody has the right to carry one frightens me. I absolutely don't feel safe...on the contrary! Every psycho,every freak has the right to buy a weapon!
Just grow out of it! Men are crazy, don't allow them to have guns! They wrote the Constitution when they still had to defend themselves against Indians but I got news!!!! Old West is over...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Kiki2 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Come on just open your eyes! I live in France, guns are forbidden and tragedies like this one never happen!!! We NEVER had 30 (or even 1) students killed in a campus! Isn't it the greatest proof?!
"The right to posess a gun is the right to defend yourself" Yes right... and if nobody had a gun, you woudn't even have to defend yourself!
Instead of saying "everybody should have a gun" why don't you put it the other way? Would he have been able to kill so much persons in just a few minuts if he hadn't be armed? No! Of course not! Because no other weapon is more dangerous and "efficient" than a gun and the fact that everbody has the right to carry one frightens me. I absolutely don't feel safe...on the contrary! Every psycho,every freak has the right to buy a weapon!
Just grow out of it! Men are crazy, don't allow them to have guns! They wrote the Constitution when they still had to defend themselves against Indians but I got news!!!! Old West is over...[/QUOTE]
guns are outlawed here in the UK but that didnt stop a nutter going into a school in dunblane and killing a bunch of kids or the current spate of shootings in south london or the tragedy in Hungerford.
just because it may not of happened in France YET doesnt mean it WONT.
theres an english saying 'those in glass houses should not throw stones'
"The right to posess a gun is the right to defend yourself" Yes right... and if nobody had a gun, you woudn't even have to defend yourself!
Instead of saying "everybody should have a gun" why don't you put it the other way? Would he have been able to kill so much persons in just a few minuts if he hadn't be armed? No! Of course not! Because no other weapon is more dangerous and "efficient" than a gun and the fact that everbody has the right to carry one frightens me. I absolutely don't feel safe...on the contrary! Every psycho,every freak has the right to buy a weapon!
Just grow out of it! Men are crazy, don't allow them to have guns! They wrote the Constitution when they still had to defend themselves against Indians but I got news!!!! Old West is over...[/QUOTE]
guns are outlawed here in the UK but that didnt stop a nutter going into a school in dunblane and killing a bunch of kids or the current spate of shootings in south london or the tragedy in Hungerford.
just because it may not of happened in France YET doesnt mean it WONT.
theres an english saying 'those in glass houses should not throw stones'
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I once again am skeptical as to how people can take such adamant stances on this issue when the truth is vague and highly uncertain. [/QUOTE]
You're stance is adamant, is it not? And if the truth is vague and highly uncertain but facts show that with the status quo so many murders are committed by gunshot, then shouldn't a new approach be examined? Why stand firm on the 'right' to bear arms? Why suggest if the victims were armed the tragedy might have been less? Why not say what cannot be denied - if the gunman were not a gunman but a club or knife-wielding madman, 32 people would not have died by his hand today.[/QUOTE]
I was moreso referring to a lack of understanding of the opposing stances. I certainly have formulated an opinion, and while it isn't "concretely adamant," it has yet to be exposed to a compelling argument to have it changed.
Also, on the same token as what you said, if concealed carrying of arms were completely legal, this tragedy also would not have taken the lives of 32 innocent people. Not only that, but the mortality of these people would be in their own hands, not the hands of the law.
Change is needed, but we have people who want it to change in two completely different directions. Now, I'm not entirely sure how to settle that, because compromise is not very effective in this particular issue, as we have seen, since current American gun control policy is more or less such a compromise between the two extremes.
As for my stance on rights, I have more or less completely separated it from this issue. I've yet to hear a compelling reason to consider merging the two ideas, but so far I stand by my opinion that absolute negative liberty is essential.
I once again am skeptical as to how people can take such adamant stances on this issue when the truth is vague and highly uncertain. [/QUOTE]
You're stance is adamant, is it not? And if the truth is vague and highly uncertain but facts show that with the status quo so many murders are committed by gunshot, then shouldn't a new approach be examined? Why stand firm on the 'right' to bear arms? Why suggest if the victims were armed the tragedy might have been less? Why not say what cannot be denied - if the gunman were not a gunman but a club or knife-wielding madman, 32 people would not have died by his hand today.[/QUOTE]
I was moreso referring to a lack of understanding of the opposing stances. I certainly have formulated an opinion, and while it isn't "concretely adamant," it has yet to be exposed to a compelling argument to have it changed.
Also, on the same token as what you said, if concealed carrying of arms were completely legal, this tragedy also would not have taken the lives of 32 innocent people. Not only that, but the mortality of these people would be in their own hands, not the hands of the law.
Change is needed, but we have people who want it to change in two completely different directions. Now, I'm not entirely sure how to settle that, because compromise is not very effective in this particular issue, as we have seen, since current American gun control policy is more or less such a compromise between the two extremes.
As for my stance on rights, I have more or less completely separated it from this issue. I've yet to hear a compelling reason to consider merging the two ideas, but so far I stand by my opinion that absolute negative liberty is essential.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Kiki2 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Come on just open your eyes! I live in France, guns are forbidden and tragedies like this one never happen!!! We NEVER had 30 (or even 1) students killed in a campus! Isn't it the greatest proof?!
"The right to posess a gun is the right to defend yourself" Yes right... and if nobody had a gun, you woudn't even have to defend yourself!
Instead of saying "everybody should have a gun" why don't you put it the other way? Would he have been able to kill so much persons in just a few minuts if he hadn't be armed? No! Of course not! Because no other weapon is more dangerous and "efficient" than a gun and the fact that everbody has the right to carry one frightens me. I absolutely don't feel safe...on the contrary! Every psycho,every freak has the right to buy a weapon!
Just grow out of it! Men are crazy, don't allow them to have guns! They wrote the Constitution when they still had to defend themselves against Indians but I got news!!!! Old West is over...[/QUOTE]
With all due respect, this post is slightly naive...
Outlawing guns will not mean that no one will have a gun. Drugs are outlawed in the United States, and so is prostitution. To say that drugs and prostitution exist in the United States is an understatement, at best.
As long as guns exist, there will always be a threat of gun violence. You're absolutely right when you say a gun is a very efficient way to kill somebody - so much so that the only feasible defense against one is another gun.
"The right to posess a gun is the right to defend yourself" Yes right... and if nobody had a gun, you woudn't even have to defend yourself!
Instead of saying "everybody should have a gun" why don't you put it the other way? Would he have been able to kill so much persons in just a few minuts if he hadn't be armed? No! Of course not! Because no other weapon is more dangerous and "efficient" than a gun and the fact that everbody has the right to carry one frightens me. I absolutely don't feel safe...on the contrary! Every psycho,every freak has the right to buy a weapon!
Just grow out of it! Men are crazy, don't allow them to have guns! They wrote the Constitution when they still had to defend themselves against Indians but I got news!!!! Old West is over...[/QUOTE]
With all due respect, this post is slightly naive...
Outlawing guns will not mean that no one will have a gun. Drugs are outlawed in the United States, and so is prostitution. To say that drugs and prostitution exist in the United States is an understatement, at best.
As long as guns exist, there will always be a threat of gun violence. You're absolutely right when you say a gun is a very efficient way to kill somebody - so much so that the only feasible defense against one is another gun.
Considering that the intelligence level on this board is arguably at an all-time low, I really respect your open mindedness Music Man. Again, as someone from a country where you have to go through hoops to get a firearm, the thought of needing a gun for protection (I live in a city of 2 million) is beyond absurd. But I empathise with Americans who feel they need it, so despite my being 'anti' guns, I don't think people who support gun rights is acting in a ludicrous manner. However, if I were an American, I'd ask if protecting our constitutional rights is prudent. I certainly don't hate Americans or America, but I think that there is a culture of violence that is accepted in the US, and even tolerated that would never be anywhere else in the world.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Change is needed, but we have people who want it to change in two completely different directions. Now, I'm not entirely sure how to settle that, because compromise is not very effective in this particular issue, as we have seen, since current American gun control policy is more or less such a compromise between the two extremes.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what to make of this, but it seems you and I actually agree... on this, at least. :)
[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what to make of this, but it seems you and I actually agree... on this, at least. :)