[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The feeling of safety is derived from the fact that the individual has the ability to defend himself, rather than to depend on the government to defend him. Thirty-two innocent people died yesterday. First, the government took away their right to defend themselves. Then, the government failed to defend them. Doesn't that seem like a problem?[/QUOTE]
Why do scenes like this happen with great frequency in America though? Yes, it has happened elsewhere, but why do American's need to defend themselves to feel safe? Australians, Canadians, Japanese, Brits, Swedes, Frenchmen, Germans do not have the right to defend themselves. It's because they don't need to defend themselves to feel safe. There's not an American alive who can defend, with a straight face, American homicide rates when guns are involved. If they do, they'd have to admit that Americans are the stupidest people on the planet, unable to solve situations with peaceful solutions, or the most violent nation on earth, in which case I'd say the government is really failing them more as over 200,000 people have died in gun crimes since 1980. If 200,000 Americans died from eating fish or falling into potholes or having pianos fall on their heads from office towers, there'd be laws in place about preparation of fish, potholes would be filled and pianos wouldn't be allowed to be dropped from buildings. But 200,000 gun deaths? An acceptable cost of doing business.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
As soon as this happend, I knew the ban gun people were going to be out in force, calling again for the ban of guns. Not minimizing the deaths in this case, as it is a horrible tragedy and, it sounds like, one that could have been prevented had the university not waited until 2 hours after the first shooting to send out an e-mail warning people.
There is a fundamental problem with the people who blame guns for this: Guns don't kill people. A gun sitting on a table, even one that's cocked, is not going to kill anyone. It's the person who picks up that gun and points it at another human being and pulls the trigger...that is a real killer. The gun is merely the device.
I was hoping someone would bring up the example of Japan, where gun laws are the strictest. Thanks Raker. Although, I must admit I find it interesting that you rail against the use of statistics, then promptly pull some out to support your argument. This is where I get to pick your argument apart.
First, let us step back and take a cold, hard, and cynical look at the facts of the case: A Korean student at Viginia Tech lost the plot, and, loaded up with weapons, killed 32 people before ending his own life. We can all agree that's what happend. Now, looking at this cynically...it's a case of someone snapping and deciding to become violent and kill as many people as possible.
Given this information, and the responses of the anti-gun people here, you would think that banning guns from the face of the earth will solve this problem. WRONG! The problem, as you can clearly see, is that the person snapped and decided to become violent. The fact that he used to a gun to do it is a moot point. He owned a gun, just like my father owns a gun. My father does not snap and use it to kill people. The problem isn't with the ownership of the gun...it's with the fact that the person in question decided to use the gun to commit an act of violence.
The Japan argument...this is classic. Yes, they have very low gun murder rates, since guns are forbidden. Does that stop people from being killed? No. It just means they use different methods; in Japan the prefered weapon for such an attack is a knife. Granted in most cases it's easier to survive being knifed than being shot, so the murder rate is lower, but again, keeping in mind that the problem is the person who decided to commit the crime, the problem isn't solved. Do the strict gun laws prevent the mass murder of people like what happened yesterday at VT? Nope. Do I need to remind you of the Sarin Gas Attack in 1995? Those people decided to kill as many people as possible. According to the theory used by the ban-guns people, this should never have happend, because they didn't have guns. Guess what, it happend, and 12 people died with almost 1000 experiencing temporary or permanent disfunctions of the eyes and respiratory system. Those people wanted to hurt people, and they found a way to do it, using Sarin gas.
What should be obvious by now is that it's not the weapon that is used that causes the problems of murder, even on a mass scale. It's the fact that someone snapped and decided to become violent. Whether they use guns, knives or sarin gas, people die. It's not the guns fault, nor the knives, nor the sarin gas. It's the person who uses those weapons as a conduit for their own psychosis.
Ban all the guns you want, and you won't solve the problem. As demonstrated in Japan, people will just use knives. You will never get to a point where you can ban everything that could be used as a weapon...even rocks can be used as weapons, and I don't think we can ban them. The problem lays with the people who use them as weapons. They are where efforts should be focused to prevent these things in the future.
Oh, and whoever sugguested the ROTC be carrying guns to preven this in the future....don't get me started. Turning this into a shooting match between 20
There is a fundamental problem with the people who blame guns for this: Guns don't kill people. A gun sitting on a table, even one that's cocked, is not going to kill anyone. It's the person who picks up that gun and points it at another human being and pulls the trigger...that is a real killer. The gun is merely the device.
I was hoping someone would bring up the example of Japan, where gun laws are the strictest. Thanks Raker. Although, I must admit I find it interesting that you rail against the use of statistics, then promptly pull some out to support your argument. This is where I get to pick your argument apart.
First, let us step back and take a cold, hard, and cynical look at the facts of the case: A Korean student at Viginia Tech lost the plot, and, loaded up with weapons, killed 32 people before ending his own life. We can all agree that's what happend. Now, looking at this cynically...it's a case of someone snapping and deciding to become violent and kill as many people as possible.
Given this information, and the responses of the anti-gun people here, you would think that banning guns from the face of the earth will solve this problem. WRONG! The problem, as you can clearly see, is that the person snapped and decided to become violent. The fact that he used to a gun to do it is a moot point. He owned a gun, just like my father owns a gun. My father does not snap and use it to kill people. The problem isn't with the ownership of the gun...it's with the fact that the person in question decided to use the gun to commit an act of violence.
The Japan argument...this is classic. Yes, they have very low gun murder rates, since guns are forbidden. Does that stop people from being killed? No. It just means they use different methods; in Japan the prefered weapon for such an attack is a knife. Granted in most cases it's easier to survive being knifed than being shot, so the murder rate is lower, but again, keeping in mind that the problem is the person who decided to commit the crime, the problem isn't solved. Do the strict gun laws prevent the mass murder of people like what happened yesterday at VT? Nope. Do I need to remind you of the Sarin Gas Attack in 1995? Those people decided to kill as many people as possible. According to the theory used by the ban-guns people, this should never have happend, because they didn't have guns. Guess what, it happend, and 12 people died with almost 1000 experiencing temporary or permanent disfunctions of the eyes and respiratory system. Those people wanted to hurt people, and they found a way to do it, using Sarin gas.
What should be obvious by now is that it's not the weapon that is used that causes the problems of murder, even on a mass scale. It's the fact that someone snapped and decided to become violent. Whether they use guns, knives or sarin gas, people die. It's not the guns fault, nor the knives, nor the sarin gas. It's the person who uses those weapons as a conduit for their own psychosis.
Ban all the guns you want, and you won't solve the problem. As demonstrated in Japan, people will just use knives. You will never get to a point where you can ban everything that could be used as a weapon...even rocks can be used as weapons, and I don't think we can ban them. The problem lays with the people who use them as weapons. They are where efforts should be focused to prevent these things in the future.
Oh, and whoever sugguested the ROTC be carrying guns to preven this in the future....don't get me started. Turning this into a shooting match between 20
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Boy Thomas Raker wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The feeling of safety is derived from the fact that the individual has the ability to defend himself, rather than to depend on the government to defend him. Thirty-two innocent people died yesterday. First, the government took away their right to defend themselves. Then, the government failed to defend them. Doesn't that seem like a problem?[/QUOTE]
Why do scenes like this happen with great frequency in America though? Yes, it has happened elsewhere, but why do American's need to defend themselves to feel safe? Australians, Canadians, Japanese, Brits, Swedes, Frenchmen, Germans do not have the right to defend themselves. It's because they don't need to defend themselves to feel safe. There's not an American alive who can defend, with a straight face, American homicide rates when guns are involved. If they do, they'd have to admit that Americans are the stupidest people on the planet, unable to solve situations with peaceful solutions, or the most violent nation on earth, in which case I'd say the government is really failing them more as over 200,000 people have died in gun crimes since 1980. If 200,000 Americans died from eating fish or falling into potholes or having pianos fall on their heads from office towers, there'd be laws in place about preparation of fish, potholes would be filled and pianos wouldn't be allowed to be dropped from buildings. But 200,000 gun deaths? An acceptable cost of doing business. [/QUOTE]
I would assume then that you have a problem with the 47,282,923 abortions performed in the US since 1973?
And, you want to put laws in place for Automobiles, since 1,085,875 people were killed between 1980 and 2005?
Or, is that part of doing business also???
Great frequency? When was Columbine, 1997? Get your facts straight before popping off.
32 People were killed by this maniac, the most in history. Yet you wish to take a historically horriffic event, and say that it happens, as you put it, "with great frequency in America" ?
This clown is on the same par with me as the Beslan killers in Russia. Only difference is, this guy seemingly acted alone.
Gun laws exist, but what can be done when people choose to break them? I'm sure that the majority of the 1,085,875 people killed in traffic accidents were killed be people who broke the law.
The mentality of posters like this boggles the mind.
I wonder how long it will take for people to blame George Bush.
Why do scenes like this happen with great frequency in America though? Yes, it has happened elsewhere, but why do American's need to defend themselves to feel safe? Australians, Canadians, Japanese, Brits, Swedes, Frenchmen, Germans do not have the right to defend themselves. It's because they don't need to defend themselves to feel safe. There's not an American alive who can defend, with a straight face, American homicide rates when guns are involved. If they do, they'd have to admit that Americans are the stupidest people on the planet, unable to solve situations with peaceful solutions, or the most violent nation on earth, in which case I'd say the government is really failing them more as over 200,000 people have died in gun crimes since 1980. If 200,000 Americans died from eating fish or falling into potholes or having pianos fall on their heads from office towers, there'd be laws in place about preparation of fish, potholes would be filled and pianos wouldn't be allowed to be dropped from buildings. But 200,000 gun deaths? An acceptable cost of doing business. [/QUOTE]
I would assume then that you have a problem with the 47,282,923 abortions performed in the US since 1973?
And, you want to put laws in place for Automobiles, since 1,085,875 people were killed between 1980 and 2005?
Or, is that part of doing business also???
Great frequency? When was Columbine, 1997? Get your facts straight before popping off.
32 People were killed by this maniac, the most in history. Yet you wish to take a historically horriffic event, and say that it happens, as you put it, "with great frequency in America" ?
This clown is on the same par with me as the Beslan killers in Russia. Only difference is, this guy seemingly acted alone.
Gun laws exist, but what can be done when people choose to break them? I'm sure that the majority of the 1,085,875 people killed in traffic accidents were killed be people who broke the law.
The mentality of posters like this boggles the mind.
I wonder how long it will take for people to blame George Bush.
And when was the last time 33 people were killed using a knife!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]pow wow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]And when was the last time 33 people were killed using a knife![/QUOTE]
Totally missing the point. But if you insist on going this way, then I'm happy to point out something you may not realize.
A) It's easier to survive a knife attack than a gunshot, so I admit the murder rate is lower.
B) You want to turn this into a numbers game? Fine.
So, if 2 people are knifed to death that's acceptable, but if 33 people die in a shootout that's unaccpetable?
OK...I get it. 33 is bad. 2 is fine. What a value judgement. Try telling that to the families of the 2 people who were knifed to death, that there lost loved ones are worth nothing because "At least they weren't shot to death in a mass shooting." Lunacy.
Totally missing the point. But if you insist on going this way, then I'm happy to point out something you may not realize.
A) It's easier to survive a knife attack than a gunshot, so I admit the murder rate is lower.
B) You want to turn this into a numbers game? Fine.
So, if 2 people are knifed to death that's acceptable, but if 33 people die in a shootout that's unaccpetable?
OK...I get it. 33 is bad. 2 is fine. What a value judgement. Try telling that to the families of the 2 people who were knifed to death, that there lost loved ones are worth nothing because "At least they weren't shot to death in a mass shooting." Lunacy.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]pow wow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]And when was the last time 33 people were killed using a knife![/QUOTE]
Well, Maggie already said that the death count might have been lower. Beside that, killing someone with a knife needs more courage. He might now have done it at all, although I doubt that.
The point that Maggie makes is the same as Music Man. The responsibility of using guns is not with the government, but with the people who own them. And the gun is not to blame, but the people who use them.
Though I think this is too easy. What is the use of owning a gun anyway? You don't need one, if someone else doesn't have one as well... so why not ban them completely? It does save lives!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
OK...I get it. 33 is bad. 2 is fine. What a value judgement. Try telling that to the families of the 2 people who were knifed to death, that there lost loved ones are worth nothing because "At least they weren't shot to death in a mass shooting." Lunacy. [/QUOTE]
Tell the other 31 families that this might not have happened with a stricter gun law. I'm sure they would have begged for it. Of course you can't stop a sick person to murder, but if you can reduce the death count... then why don't do it.
Well, Maggie already said that the death count might have been lower. Beside that, killing someone with a knife needs more courage. He might now have done it at all, although I doubt that.
The point that Maggie makes is the same as Music Man. The responsibility of using guns is not with the government, but with the people who own them. And the gun is not to blame, but the people who use them.
Though I think this is too easy. What is the use of owning a gun anyway? You don't need one, if someone else doesn't have one as well... so why not ban them completely? It does save lives!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
OK...I get it. 33 is bad. 2 is fine. What a value judgement. Try telling that to the families of the 2 people who were knifed to death, that there lost loved ones are worth nothing because "At least they weren't shot to death in a mass shooting." Lunacy. [/QUOTE]
Tell the other 31 families that this might not have happened with a stricter gun law. I'm sure they would have begged for it. Of course you can't stop a sick person to murder, but if you can reduce the death count... then why don't do it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]pow wow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]And when was the last time 33 people were killed using a knife![/QUOTE]
Totally missing the point. But if you insist on going this way, then I'm happy to point out something you may not realize.
A) It's easier to survive a knife attack than a gunshot, so I admit the murder rate is lower.
B) You want to turn this into a numbers game? Fine.
So, if 2 people are knifed to death that's acceptable, but if 33 people die in a shootout that's unaccpetable?
OK...I get it. 33 is bad. 2 is fine. What a value judgement. Try telling that to the families of the 2 people who were knifed to death, that there lost loved ones are worth nothing because "At least they weren't shot to death in a mass shooting." Lunacy. [/QUOTE]
But 31 more families is OK then!
Of course it's the person that is the killer not the gun, we agree. We're both agreed that these acts are usually committed previously 'normal' individuals who one day snap. If say a month before there had been a gun law passed and all arms handed in that individual would not have access to such a deadly force. He simply could not carry out the same degree as damage with a knife or any other weapon in such a spontaneous act.
Yes 2 deaths would be 2 too many, of course, but the magnitude of this attack shows things need to change.
Totally missing the point. But if you insist on going this way, then I'm happy to point out something you may not realize.
A) It's easier to survive a knife attack than a gunshot, so I admit the murder rate is lower.
B) You want to turn this into a numbers game? Fine.
So, if 2 people are knifed to death that's acceptable, but if 33 people die in a shootout that's unaccpetable?
OK...I get it. 33 is bad. 2 is fine. What a value judgement. Try telling that to the families of the 2 people who were knifed to death, that there lost loved ones are worth nothing because "At least they weren't shot to death in a mass shooting." Lunacy. [/QUOTE]
But 31 more families is OK then!
Of course it's the person that is the killer not the gun, we agree. We're both agreed that these acts are usually committed previously 'normal' individuals who one day snap. If say a month before there had been a gun law passed and all arms handed in that individual would not have access to such a deadly force. He simply could not carry out the same degree as damage with a knife or any other weapon in such a spontaneous act.
Yes 2 deaths would be 2 too many, of course, but the magnitude of this attack shows things need to change.
Actually CMU History Girl, I've never railed against statistics, I merely agreed with Music Man's assertion that you CAN use statistics to paint whatever picture you want. You know the old line "there's lies, damned lies and statistics." Your position is admirable, and expected from someone who is pro-guns. I'm not here to change people's positions, but I find that people who are pro-guns seldom tend to face facts rationally. When Dimebag Darrell was murdered (by a gun, in the US!!!!) people from outside the US on another bands board posted about the "what if the guy only had a knife scenario?", and the American posters replied that the guy could have used a car to run into the club and kill people, or had a bomb to blow people up, or had Sarin gas. But he didn't, and his weapon of mass destruction enabled hm to kill more people. You talk about value judgement, but if the guy had a knife there may have been no murders, let alone 2. You're assuming he would have murdered 2 people, which is not a certainty. So as I'm not too swift, CMU, could you or Music Man please explain why American's are more afraid of human beings that the countries I've listed? Your citizens are either less intelligent at conflict resolution, or more violent than the rest of the planet. And while you're at it, please explain how a country that permits its citizens to carry guns for safety dies at an exponentially higher rate than any other Western nation. It seems to me that the safest nation on earth is the likeliest to die from a gun. Ironic.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME] There is a fundamental problem with the people who blame guns for this: Guns don't kill people. A gun sitting on a table, even one that's cocked, is not going to kill anyone. It's the person who picks up that gun and points it at another human being and pulls the trigger...that is a real killer. The gun is merely the device.
Given this information, and the responses of the anti-gun people here, you would think that banning guns from the face of the earth will solve this problem. WRONG! The problem, as you can clearly see, is that the person snapped and decided to become violent. The fact that he used to a gun to do it is a moot point. He owned a gun, just like my father owns a gun. My father does not snap and use it to kill people. The problem isn't with the ownership of the gun...it's with the fact that the person in question decided to use the gun to commit an act of violence.
The Japan argument...this is classic. Yes, they have very low gun murder rates, since guns are forbidden. Does that stop people from being killed? No. It just means they use different methods; in Japan the prefered weapon for such an attack is a knife. Granted in most cases it's easier to survive being knifed than being shot, so the murder rate is lower, but again, keeping in mind that the problem is the person who decided to commit the crime, the problem isn't solved. Do the strict gun laws prevent the mass murder of people like what happened yesterday at VT? Nope. Do I need to remind you of the Sarin Gas Attack in 1995? Those people decided to kill as many people as possible. According to the theory used by the ban-guns people, this should never have happend, because they didn't have guns. Guess what, it happend, and 12 people died with almost 1000 experiencing temporary or permanent disfunctions of the eyes and respiratory system. Those people wanted to hurt people, and they found a way to do it, using Sarin gas.
What should be obvious by now is that it's not the weapon that is used that causes the problems of murder, even on a mass scale. It's the fact that someone snapped and decided to become violent. Whether they use guns, knives or sarin gas, people die. It's not the guns fault, nor the knives, nor the sarin gas. It's the person who uses those weapons as a conduit for their own psychosis.
Ban all the guns you want, and you won't solve the problem. As demonstrated in Japan, people will just use knives. You will never get to a point where you can ban everything that could be used as a weapon...even rocks can be used as weapons, and I don't think we can ban them. The problem lays with the people who use them as weapons. They are where efforts should be focused to prevent these things in the future.
Oh, and whoever sugguested the ROTC be carrying guns to preven this in the future....don't get me started. Turning this into a shooting match between 20 people who aren't sharp shooters is only going to lead to more deaths. [/QUOTE]
You're an intelligent woman and on many points you and I agree, but this to me is total nonsense. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." If this guy didn't have a gun - excuse me TWO guns - all of those people would not have died. Simple. If he had a knife, he would have been taken down. If he had a club, he would have been taken down. Could he have built a bomb or used gas? Sure enough. Timothy McVeigh did it, didn't he? We can't prevent every crime, but we can prevent many crimes from being repeated - and gun crimes are repeated daily. Not banning guns has not lessened crime. How can it be argued that banning them would keep things the same or make them worse? Why does your father own a gun? For hunting? I won't get into that, it’s simply disgusting. For protection? From whom? Other people with guns? This is such a ridiculous argument. Arm everyone so everyone is 'safe'? Then, as you s
Given this information, and the responses of the anti-gun people here, you would think that banning guns from the face of the earth will solve this problem. WRONG! The problem, as you can clearly see, is that the person snapped and decided to become violent. The fact that he used to a gun to do it is a moot point. He owned a gun, just like my father owns a gun. My father does not snap and use it to kill people. The problem isn't with the ownership of the gun...it's with the fact that the person in question decided to use the gun to commit an act of violence.
The Japan argument...this is classic. Yes, they have very low gun murder rates, since guns are forbidden. Does that stop people from being killed? No. It just means they use different methods; in Japan the prefered weapon for such an attack is a knife. Granted in most cases it's easier to survive being knifed than being shot, so the murder rate is lower, but again, keeping in mind that the problem is the person who decided to commit the crime, the problem isn't solved. Do the strict gun laws prevent the mass murder of people like what happened yesterday at VT? Nope. Do I need to remind you of the Sarin Gas Attack in 1995? Those people decided to kill as many people as possible. According to the theory used by the ban-guns people, this should never have happend, because they didn't have guns. Guess what, it happend, and 12 people died with almost 1000 experiencing temporary or permanent disfunctions of the eyes and respiratory system. Those people wanted to hurt people, and they found a way to do it, using Sarin gas.
What should be obvious by now is that it's not the weapon that is used that causes the problems of murder, even on a mass scale. It's the fact that someone snapped and decided to become violent. Whether they use guns, knives or sarin gas, people die. It's not the guns fault, nor the knives, nor the sarin gas. It's the person who uses those weapons as a conduit for their own psychosis.
Ban all the guns you want, and you won't solve the problem. As demonstrated in Japan, people will just use knives. You will never get to a point where you can ban everything that could be used as a weapon...even rocks can be used as weapons, and I don't think we can ban them. The problem lays with the people who use them as weapons. They are where efforts should be focused to prevent these things in the future.
Oh, and whoever sugguested the ROTC be carrying guns to preven this in the future....don't get me started. Turning this into a shooting match between 20 people who aren't sharp shooters is only going to lead to more deaths. [/QUOTE]
You're an intelligent woman and on many points you and I agree, but this to me is total nonsense. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." If this guy didn't have a gun - excuse me TWO guns - all of those people would not have died. Simple. If he had a knife, he would have been taken down. If he had a club, he would have been taken down. Could he have built a bomb or used gas? Sure enough. Timothy McVeigh did it, didn't he? We can't prevent every crime, but we can prevent many crimes from being repeated - and gun crimes are repeated daily. Not banning guns has not lessened crime. How can it be argued that banning them would keep things the same or make them worse? Why does your father own a gun? For hunting? I won't get into that, it’s simply disgusting. For protection? From whom? Other people with guns? This is such a ridiculous argument. Arm everyone so everyone is 'safe'? Then, as you s
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]pow wow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]And when was the last time 33 people were killed using a knife![/QUOTE]
Well, Maggie already said that the death count might have been lower. Beside that, killing someone with a knife needs more courage. He might now have done it at all, although I doubt that.
The point that Maggie makes is the same as Music Man. The responsibility of using guns is not with the government, but with the people who own them. And the gun is not to blame, but the people who use them.
Though I think this is too easy. What is the use of owning a gun anyway? You don't need one, if someone else doesn't have one as well... so why not ban them completely? It does save lives!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
OK...I get it. 33 is bad. 2 is fine. What a value judgement. Try telling that to the families of the 2 people who were knifed to death, that there lost loved ones are worth nothing because "At least they weren't shot to death in a mass shooting." Lunacy. [/QUOTE]
Tell the other 31 families that this might not have happened with a stricter gun law. I'm sure they would have begged for it. Of course you can't stop a sick person to murder, but if you can reduce the death count... then why don't do it.[/QUOTE]
Agree with you wholeheartedly Miracle.
I'm actually off to New York and Vegas the end of next week, never been to the US before. Must remeber to pack my toe nail clippers in case I end up in a tight spot. Sorry wrong page for being flippant.
It's a huge issue, one were attitudes, people and governments have to change.
Well, Maggie already said that the death count might have been lower. Beside that, killing someone with a knife needs more courage. He might now have done it at all, although I doubt that.
The point that Maggie makes is the same as Music Man. The responsibility of using guns is not with the government, but with the people who own them. And the gun is not to blame, but the people who use them.
Though I think this is too easy. What is the use of owning a gun anyway? You don't need one, if someone else doesn't have one as well... so why not ban them completely? It does save lives!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
OK...I get it. 33 is bad. 2 is fine. What a value judgement. Try telling that to the families of the 2 people who were knifed to death, that there lost loved ones are worth nothing because "At least they weren't shot to death in a mass shooting." Lunacy. [/QUOTE]
Tell the other 31 families that this might not have happened with a stricter gun law. I'm sure they would have begged for it. Of course you can't stop a sick person to murder, but if you can reduce the death count... then why don't do it.[/QUOTE]
Agree with you wholeheartedly Miracle.
I'm actually off to New York and Vegas the end of next week, never been to the US before. Must remeber to pack my toe nail clippers in case I end up in a tight spot. Sorry wrong page for being flippant.
It's a huge issue, one were attitudes, people and governments have to change.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME] I wonder how long it will take for people to blame George Bush. [/QUOTE]
Well... he did allow the ban on assault weapons to expire without requiring a renewal, so...
Well... he did allow the ban on assault weapons to expire without requiring a renewal, so...
I never said that 31 other families would be fine. What I pointed out was the idiocy in the statement that knifing would be fine. Murder is still murder, ladies and gentlemen. Whether it was one dead or 33 dead makes no difference. It's still murder. It's still one person taking the life of another person. We all agree this is wrong. It's doesn't become more wrong with higher numbers.
I also knew that someone would accuse me of being pro-gun. I wouldn't call myself pro-gun. I have never shot a gun in my life, and probably never will. What I am pointing out is that you won't solve the problem of people killing people simply by banning the things they use to kill people. Murder has been around since long before guns were. What about strangulation? Can you outlaw people's hands? What about rope?
This is my point. If a person wants to kill someone, they will find a way to get the job done, whether they use a gun or a knife or a rope is beside the point. When the murder is done, it is done. Tell the guy he can't use a gun? He'll find another weapon. This is why I'm against stricter gun control laws...not because of what they stand for, because I believe their stance is admirable. But I'm against it because I realize it will not solve the problem, and why waste your time doing something that won't fix the problem?
Ironically, gun control would not have helped in this case. The idea of the gun laws we have now is to prevent convicted criminals, felons, and people with a history of mental instability to have them. Well, that's fine, but 99.99999% of these shooters aren't felons, don't have criminal records, and don't have a history of mental instability. The guy who shot the Amish school kids? Purchased his gun legally. This guy? Purchased his gun legally.
As far as the US...Raker is falling into the classic trap. When you are in a different country, your view of other countries in the world is warped by what you are presented with. Something like this, or Columbine, or Hurricane Katrina makes news internationally because it is a disaster. Just like the Tsunami in Asia made news. Don't let you view of the US be warped by things like this, Raker. It only leads to stereotyping, which gets you no where.
I also knew that someone would accuse me of being pro-gun. I wouldn't call myself pro-gun. I have never shot a gun in my life, and probably never will. What I am pointing out is that you won't solve the problem of people killing people simply by banning the things they use to kill people. Murder has been around since long before guns were. What about strangulation? Can you outlaw people's hands? What about rope?
This is my point. If a person wants to kill someone, they will find a way to get the job done, whether they use a gun or a knife or a rope is beside the point. When the murder is done, it is done. Tell the guy he can't use a gun? He'll find another weapon. This is why I'm against stricter gun control laws...not because of what they stand for, because I believe their stance is admirable. But I'm against it because I realize it will not solve the problem, and why waste your time doing something that won't fix the problem?
Ironically, gun control would not have helped in this case. The idea of the gun laws we have now is to prevent convicted criminals, felons, and people with a history of mental instability to have them. Well, that's fine, but 99.99999% of these shooters aren't felons, don't have criminal records, and don't have a history of mental instability. The guy who shot the Amish school kids? Purchased his gun legally. This guy? Purchased his gun legally.
As far as the US...Raker is falling into the classic trap. When you are in a different country, your view of other countries in the world is warped by what you are presented with. Something like this, or Columbine, or Hurricane Katrina makes news internationally because it is a disaster. Just like the Tsunami in Asia made news. Don't let you view of the US be warped by things like this, Raker. It only leads to stereotyping, which gets you no where.
The anti-gun nuts are out.....it's such a joy to watch them make fools of themselves.
Again, if we're gonna ban guns because they cause death lets ban -
Automobiles - over a million dead in the last 25 years
Abortion - 47 million dead since 1973
Smoking - Millions upon millions, and counting...
Fast Food - McDeath
Knives - I'm sure that more than 32 people were killed by knife in April alone.
Forks - Didn't look it up, but I'm sure someone stabbed someone to death with a fork in the past year
Sporks - You could technically kill with a spork
Nylon Rope - Hanging deaths far outnumber 32
The Sunday New York Times - You could beat your wife to death with it
Again, if we're gonna ban guns because they cause death lets ban -
Automobiles - over a million dead in the last 25 years
Abortion - 47 million dead since 1973
Smoking - Millions upon millions, and counting...
Fast Food - McDeath
Knives - I'm sure that more than 32 people were killed by knife in April alone.
Forks - Didn't look it up, but I'm sure someone stabbed someone to death with a fork in the past year
Sporks - You could technically kill with a spork
Nylon Rope - Hanging deaths far outnumber 32
The Sunday New York Times - You could beat your wife to death with it
Even if owning a gun was illegal in the U.S., I don't think it would have stopped this psycho from obtaining one.
"I would assume then that you have a problem with the 47,282,923 abortions performed in the US since 1973?"
Nope, not at all, that's a ridiculous analogy. People in Canada, Australia, Japan, England, Spain, Sweden, France et al have abortions performed. It's a medical procedure performed under the care (hopefully) of licenced physician. Citizens of Canada, Australia, Japan, England, Spain, Sweden, France et al have a staggeringly, exponentially greater chance of not being gunned down in cold blood than if they lived in the US.
"And, you want to put laws in place for Automobiles, since 1,085,875 people were killed between 1980 and 2005?"
Nope, not at all, that's a ridiculous analogy. People in Canada, Australia, Japan, England, Spain, Sweden, France et al will all be involved in car accidents, because they're accidents. Citizens of Canada, Australia, Japan, England, Spain, Sweden, France et al have a staggeringly, exponentially greater chance of not being gunned down in cold blood than if they lived in the US.
"Great frequency? When was Columbine, 1997? Get your facts straight before popping off."
I'm talking about murder by guns, not mass murder.Citizens of Canada, Australia, Japan, England, Spain, Sweden, France et al have a staggeringly, exponentially greater chance of not being gunned down in cold blood than if they lived in the US.
"32 People were killed by this maniac, the most in history. Yet you wish to take a historically horriffic event, and say that it happens, as you put it, "with great frequency in America" ?"
Murder with handguns happen with great frequency in the US. Today in the US, with homicide rates where guns are involved is lower than in the past, approximately 25 people will be murdered by a handgun. Do you wish to diminish the value of these lives because they weren't murdered in a group?
"Gun laws exist, but what can be done when people choose to break them? I'm sure that the majority of the 1,085,875 people killed in traffic accidents were killed be people who broke the law."
Your first question is excellent, and difficult to answer. Your statement about people killed in car accidents adds nothing to the debate.
"The mentality of posters like this boggles the mind."
Why? I've made a point that Americans are the most gun happy nation on earth, and are dying at a rate that is staggeringly, exponentially, mind bogglingly more frequent than countries where people don't carry guns. You can justify your position all you want, and say that they're just numbers, but sometimes, numbers don't lie. 60-80 Canadians will be murdered by handguns this year, and we aren't allowed to carry them. So if you could please explain why American's need guns more than other civilized countries I'd love to hear your reasoning. You either fear your fellow citizens more, or just love to quote the constitution bit about bearing arms.
I wonder how long it will take for people to blame George Bush.
Nope, not at all, that's a ridiculous analogy. People in Canada, Australia, Japan, England, Spain, Sweden, France et al have abortions performed. It's a medical procedure performed under the care (hopefully) of licenced physician. Citizens of Canada, Australia, Japan, England, Spain, Sweden, France et al have a staggeringly, exponentially greater chance of not being gunned down in cold blood than if they lived in the US.
"And, you want to put laws in place for Automobiles, since 1,085,875 people were killed between 1980 and 2005?"
Nope, not at all, that's a ridiculous analogy. People in Canada, Australia, Japan, England, Spain, Sweden, France et al will all be involved in car accidents, because they're accidents. Citizens of Canada, Australia, Japan, England, Spain, Sweden, France et al have a staggeringly, exponentially greater chance of not being gunned down in cold blood than if they lived in the US.
"Great frequency? When was Columbine, 1997? Get your facts straight before popping off."
I'm talking about murder by guns, not mass murder.Citizens of Canada, Australia, Japan, England, Spain, Sweden, France et al have a staggeringly, exponentially greater chance of not being gunned down in cold blood than if they lived in the US.
"32 People were killed by this maniac, the most in history. Yet you wish to take a historically horriffic event, and say that it happens, as you put it, "with great frequency in America" ?"
Murder with handguns happen with great frequency in the US. Today in the US, with homicide rates where guns are involved is lower than in the past, approximately 25 people will be murdered by a handgun. Do you wish to diminish the value of these lives because they weren't murdered in a group?
"Gun laws exist, but what can be done when people choose to break them? I'm sure that the majority of the 1,085,875 people killed in traffic accidents were killed be people who broke the law."
Your first question is excellent, and difficult to answer. Your statement about people killed in car accidents adds nothing to the debate.
"The mentality of posters like this boggles the mind."
Why? I've made a point that Americans are the most gun happy nation on earth, and are dying at a rate that is staggeringly, exponentially, mind bogglingly more frequent than countries where people don't carry guns. You can justify your position all you want, and say that they're just numbers, but sometimes, numbers don't lie. 60-80 Canadians will be murdered by handguns this year, and we aren't allowed to carry them. So if you could please explain why American's need guns more than other civilized countries I'd love to hear your reasoning. You either fear your fellow citizens more, or just love to quote the constitution bit about bearing arms.
I wonder how long it will take for people to blame George Bush.