Thanks Hankstar - put much better than I could. Respect Mon

Nine, while I respect ( generally ) what your saying this bit really annoyed me

"anyways, I, as a United States citizen can't change how the government is ran, and you guys seem to put down all Americans for what Bush has done, and how he has responded, and it's unfair."


HELLO, ANYONE THERE ????? !!!!!!!

Government of the people, by the people.

If my government was behaving the way yours is they wouldn't be there for very long, they'd be facing the International Warcrime court, which WE support, even if the US doesn't.

Yes, NZ has army troops in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Laos and do you know what we do there ?
Mine clearance so people can try to live their lives without being blow up by ( generally ) US made weaponry.
Strangely enough we don't see too many Americans doing this........
That's despite the fact that in Laos it's the Vietnam war we're still cleaning up from. Oh, thats right, you never bombed Laos did you.......

Try to remember that you are the American people and if you'd get up off your lard filled butts, turn off the TV, put down the gun your fondling in the hope that it will make you more manly ( or womanly if anyones so inclined ) and actually act to challenge your governments actions THEN IT WILL CHANGE.

We, the rest off the world, cannot change your government. Unlike you, even though you are a rogue state and a primary member of the axis of evil, (don't laugh Britain, thats you too) we don't believe in regime change. We don't send in special forces to destablise you, we don't invade with a coalition of the willing ( the above two plus a sheepish Australia )

All we do is try to educate.
Point out that killing is wrong.
Try to explain that all human life is equal, that each one of us is special and unique, just like every one else.........
The US states, In God we trust, I really don't remember where it says in the new testament " Thou shalt not kill Americans, BUT OPEN SEASON ON EVERYONE ELSE."

Wasn't your Christ a raghead ??????

In my point of view, this was as unfortunate as any suicide bombing in any middle-east country that caused bodies. Crazy people killing innocent people. Though it's completely understandable, that something that happens few times a year gets more attention than something that happens few times a week.

My condolences for these 32 victims and their families
I feel also sorry for all those 32 people who died in hunger during writing this message.
www.thehungersite.com

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Government of the people, by the people.

If my government was behaving the way yours is they wouldn't be there for very long

That's right, people can always overthrow a government. Just look at Ukraine and Thailand for some examples.

Ukraine is where they had the orange revolution, where people were standing outside during sub zere temperatures demanding the election as fraud and corrupted.

Thailand's military coup to get rid of their president.

People often say, that protesting doesn't work and that it won't change anything but if a half million people actually get up off their arses and actually do something governments would take note. Governments are all scared of mass protests, they are uncontrollable, they cant stop them and when one happens there is very little government can do. Unless you are in the UK where the British Government banned and outlawed any protests outside the Parliament building in a 2 mile radius. Here in the UK its just as bad, I've spoken to so many people about what they think of Tony Blair and his government and many have very strong views and disagree which a lot of things the government does but rather then getting of their arse and doing something they just talk words. It's sad but that's the way it is.

Hankstar's posts above really hit the nail on the head.

Was reading about this in the papers yesterday - saddest thing was that everyone now claims to have known there was a problem with the student, that he was emotionally unbalanced. His room mate said that they rarely even spoke, even when in the same room together.

Thats chilling. There are some events that are simply inevitable. You can't stand in front of a tidal wave and counsel it to stop travelling forward; you can't pass a law that will prevent it from capsizing ships. But you can look to the horizon and watch the weather.

I'm not sure however that this boy was really that strong. How is it that someone can be left to consume themselves in solitude like that? Like I said, its a cultural problem.

Quote from Racer Y :

Really? I bet I could land in London at 8:00 in the morning and by noon have made the connections and by sundown have not one but two guns.

And ammo? OK then Mr Underworld Contacts, where would you go to get them? I think you've more chance of landing in London at 8:00am and being strip-searched, marched onto a plane and sent back home by sundown.

Quote from Racer Y :

I had two instances where I needed to have a pistol while playing LFS. Both times I was up late playing, and somebody messed with the front door.

Right here is where the contrast is most obvious. I've also had a guy try my front door in the middle of the night, but I wasn't concerned that they might be carrying guns (because I'm lucky enough to live in the UK), so I never "needed to have a pistol". Incidentally: This was while I was living in Toxteth, Liverpool. Even there the chances of getting shot if you're not in a gang are utterly negligible.

Quote from Bladerunner :

Total bans are pointless, they only affect the law-abiding community that aren't likely to go blasting into schools in the first place!

Even the most law-abiding citizen can go completely nuts one day and get the urge to go on a killing spree. No one is 100% immune. I'm not. But if I would go insane, it's fortunate that there's no gun somewhere in my cupboard. Or for sale in the shop around the corner.

Quote :

And last point, guns DON'T kill people...People kill people.

Wrong. It's people with guns that kill people.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

The only thing more sad than the loss of life at Virginia Tech is the ignorance of people who are willing to give up their rights for supposed "safety".

What right are you referring to? The right to own a machine that can kill a fellow human at the whim of your index finger? Compare the murder statistics of the US with other countries, then decide if the safety is indeed "supposed".

Quote from wsinda :

.....
Wrong. It's people with guns that kill people.

AND people with knives, bombs, cars, ropes, poisons, aeroplanes, bare hands.... the list is endless!
I know, lets just ban EVERYTHING in case somebody kills somebody else with it!

Quote from Bladerunner :

AND people with knives, bombs, cars, ropes, poisons, aeroplanes, bare hands.... the list is endless!
I know, lets just ban EVERYTHING in case somebody kills somebody else with it!

Compare the statistics for the number of people who died after being shot to the number of people who died after being stabbed. Statistically you're much more likely to survive a knife attack.

Bugger... I was looking at these statistics just the other day and now I can't find them... Typical!

Quote from Bladerunner :

knives, bombs, cars, ropes, poisons, aeroplanes, bare hands....

Oh no no no, that's all veeerry impractical. Knives, bare hands and ropes often involve a struggle (which the murderer could lose), and they make it hard to do several killings in a row. Bombs, aeroplanes and poison require careful preparation to be effective, and could be fatal to the perp himself. So, for the novice serial killer the gun is the weapon of choice.

Quote from wsinda :

<snip>
The right to own a machine that can kill a fellow human at the whim of your index finger?
<snip>

That's right, because all guns are magic rayguns that always hit what the shooter wants regardless of the shooter's level of training... illepall

If you'd ever handled a gun you'd know what I'm talking about. Having handled many of them myself, I don't fear them like most people do.

Quote from Forbin :

If you'd ever handled a gun you'd know what I'm talking about. Having handled many of them myself, I don't fear them like most people do.

Because you've come to the conclusion that they're difficult to kill someone with?

Quote from Forbin :

That's right, because all guns are magic rayguns that always hit what the shooter wants regardless of the shooter's level of training... illepall

If you'd ever handled a gun you'd know what I'm talking about. Having handled many of them myself, I don't fear them like most people do.

LOL - having grown up with guns in the Essex countryside, I kind of understand what you're saying, but to make the argument that guns aren't to be feared because most people are lousy shots is.... Sorry there's no polite way to put this.... desperate. Desperately stupid.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Because you've come to the conclusion that they're difficult to kill someone with?

In some respects, yes, most people have trouble hitting what them aim at, at any kind of range, if they aim at all. The main thing I strongly disagree with, though, is the idea that it's a matter of simply pulling the trigger, or as wsinda put it, "...the whim of your index finger."

Either way I'd still rather have to deal with a bloke coming at me with a knife than a bloke pointing a gun at me. Even if he misses it's not like he can't have another go, whereas the bloke with the knife will have to get close enough for me to be able to deck him, assuming he can get that close while I'm running away as fast as my scrawny legs will carry me.

Quote from wsinda :

What right are you referring to? The right to own a machine that can kill a fellow human at the whim of your index finger? Compare the murder statistics of the US with other countries, then decide if the safety is indeed "supposed".

The right to bear arms, which is guaranteed in the United States Constitution.

You are one of the people I'm speaking about, which are willing to give up your right to defend yourself, thinking that the police and the government will protect you. Newsflash: They can't, and they won't.

The firearm is the great equalizer. A gun makes the most petite woman more powerful than even the largest, strongest rapist. Guns make law abiding citizens more powerful than even the biggest, meanest gang. Guns make the public at large more powerful than government. It's with guns that we Americans got our freedom, and it's guns that protect them. There's a reason why the right to bear arms is second only to the freedom of speech in this country.

I, for one, will NEVER allow myself to live in a police state, where the citizens are disarmed "for their own protection" while the police, government, and criminals all have access to firearms. History has shown again and again that disarming the populace causes crime rates to increase and allows the government to abuse its powers. I'd be more than happy to discuss at length the crime rates between the armed countries like the US and Switzerland versus "unarmed" countries like Great Britain and Australia, or what happened after Germany disarmed its populace prior to WWII.

I own and carry a gun daily. Not because I'm fearful, and not because it "makes me feel manly", but because it's my right and my obligation.

Quote from Mao Tse-Tung :

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

You and Mao, sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G...

What I don't understand is why people in general can't seem to comprehend why things like this happen. People look all over the place for reasons like gun laws, mysterious mental illnesses, violent media inspiration etc. What about the most simple and obvious explaination?

People like Cho Seung-hui get harassed, bullied and humiliated all their lives, they only know joy and pleasure from watching other people experience it, they have no friends, they are ultra shy and will probably never manage to get a girlfriend. When they've had enough of this "life" they decide to end it and if they are angry enough they will take others with them. Really, with all the crap I've seen people take in my life it's almost surprising there aren't more of these kind of incidents.

IMO there isn't even that much we can do to prevent them. There always will be weak and unhappy people and even when they are recognized as being dangerous, as was the case with Cho Seung-hui, the concept of individual freedom should and does still prevent us from locking them away before they have actually broken the law.

How he could stroll into a post office after becoming a murderer and then continue his killing spree is a question that needs to be answered though.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

Guns make the public at large more powerful than government. It's with guns that we Americans got our freedom, and it's guns that protect them.

I love this age-old american fairytale that maintains an armed populace can overthrow a tyrannical government. Good luck taking your army of overgrown children with AR-15s into war against your air force. Good luck even convincing people that their freedoms are being taken away - very few of you seem to be aware of it at the moment, or care much about it at all. For all your revolutionary rhetoric you're all just as soft as the rest of us.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

I, for one, will NEVER allow myself to live in a police state, where the citizens are disarmed "for their own protection" while the police, government, and criminals all have access to firearms.

Watch out - you're sounding like an ideal candidate to be labelled a "terrorist". The USA doesn't like people like you.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

History has shown again and again that disarming the populace causes crime rates to increase and allows the government to abuse its powers. I'd be more than happy to discuss at length the crime rates between the armed countries like the US and Switzerland versus "unarmed" countries like Great Britain and Australia,

Please do explain how crime rates in the USA are lower than those in the UK. I'd love to hear that one.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

I love this age-old american fairytale that maintains an armed populace can overthrow a tyrannical government.

Funny. It seemed to work pretty well the first time.

Quote :

Please do explain how crime rates in the USA are lower than those in the UK. I'd love to hear that one.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n ... icle.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
http://www.newsmax.com/archive ... es/2001/3/21/205139.shtml
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/10/203335
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0512f.asp

I could go on and on all day long. Great Britain's violent crime rate is on par with, or higher than that of the US (this includes rape, murder, armed robbery, burglary, etc).

Pay special attention to this part:
"[Between 1997 and 2003] crimes with [banned firearms] have more than doubled.... In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose — by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offenses were committed...."

and

"In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century.... A recent study of all the countries of western Europe has found that in 2001 Britain had the worst record for killings, violence and burglary, and its citizens had one of the highest risks in the industrialized world of becoming victims of crime...."

Now, tell me again how the gun ban in Britain has achieved a reduction in crime.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

You are one of the people I'm speaking about, which are willing to give up your right to defend yourself

I guess you're right. I live in a country where the right to use lethal violence has been taken away from the citizens. You're talking about self-defence, I'm talking about a civilised society.

I also gave up my "right" to serve in the army (= conscientious objector to military draft), because I believe that weapons solve nothing, and I didn't want to be part of the madness that is called war.

Quote :

thinking that the police and the government will protect you. Newsflash: They can't, and they won't.

Well, no use in keeping them, then. It'll be interesting to watch the U.S. society turn into anarchy.

Quote :

The firearm is the great equalizer. A gun makes the most petite woman more powerful than even the largest, strongest rapist.

The firearm is the great starter of a race towards more violence. The rapist also gets himself a gun. Next, the lady will be raped at gunpoint. Which is, I believe, significantly more traumatising than being raped by use of muscle force. Boy, that's an improvement.

Quote :

History has shown again and again that disarming the populace causes crime rates to increase and allows the government to abuse its powers.

You mean that U.S. politicians don't abuse their powers because they're afraid that disgruntled voters will come and shoot them? Geez.

Quote :

I'd be more than happy to discuss at length [...] what happened after Germany disarmed its populace prior to WWII.

Yeah, I know. The Germans then invaded my country, fighting only with their bare hands.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

Funny. It seemed to work pretty well the first time.

"The first time" was 250 years ago, with the support of another nation's armed forces (sorry, I forgot that you prefer to consider the French to be spineless cowards rather than the country who delivered your country to you). With the advent of modern warfare I'd like to see you do it again, especially without the help of the French military.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n ... icle.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
http://www.newsmax.com/archive ... es/2001/3/21/205139.shtml
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/10/203335
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0512f.asp

I could go on and on all day long. Great Britain's violent crime rate is on par with, or higher than that of the US (this includes rape, murder, armed robbery, burglary, etc).

Quote :

The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

Yeah we do have crime. We've got a very unfair social system so of course we've got crime. But what we don't have - that you have - is normal people shooting the **** out of eachother every time they get a little bit pissy. Over here, they go out, get drunk and leather eachother in the street until the rozzers turn up and baton them quiet. That's the advantage of not having guns in every home.

I like your news sources by the way. Four sources I've never heard of, and "fff.org" certainly seems to be an objective commentator.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

Pay special attention to this part:
"[Between 1997 and 2003] crimes with [banned firearms] have more than doubled.... In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose — by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offenses were committed...."

That's a nice statistical increase, but it's not a comparison with the USA. I remember when I was living in New Jersey (mid-'90s) New York City proudly announced that their annual number of unsolved murders had dropped below the magic 2000 marker. That's unsolved murders in a city of (at the time) 9 million. What a great result!

Quote from wsinda :

I guess you're right. I live in a country where the right to use lethal violence has been taken away from the citizens. You're talking about self-defence, I'm talking about a civilised society.

I didn't really want to mention that, but does anybody else in Europe find it interesting that public ownership of firearms only seems to be a cultural winner in third-world countries and the USA? Not that I'm saying this reflects on the state of cultural advancement in the USA, much...

Quote from wsinda :

I guess you're right. I live in a country where the right to use lethal violence has been taken away from the citizens. You're talking about self-defence, I'm talking about a civilised society.

I can carry my firearm and be quite civilized, thank you very much. However; I have no guarantee that everyone around me will be so polite. Is your society so civilized that you don't need to lock your doors at night? Is it so civilized that you could just do away with all of your laws and expect people to behave properly? I can only guarantee the civility of myself. I cannot guarantee what others will do and, therefore, I choose to protect myself and my family to the best of my ability.

Quote :

I also gave up my "right" to serve in the army (= conscientious objector to military draft), because I believe that weapons solve nothing, and I didn't want to be part of the madness that is called war.

You are right, war is madness. You are also right, that violence doesn't solve anything. However; given the choice between protecting myself with violence and not protecting myself at all, I'll choose the former.

Quote :

Well, no use in keeping them, then. It'll be interesting to watch the U.S. society turn into anarchy.

The police generally respond to calls for assistance. That means that, in most cases, a crime has already been committed. It's also been upheld by the court that the police have NO obligation to protect you. It is, quite simply, impossible for them to be everywhere all the time. And even if they were, you would then have a Big Brother, police state scenario. Given the choice between getting assaulted and calling the police afterwards, or brandishing my gun and avoiding assault, I'll choose the latter. A gun doesn't even have to be used to be effective.

Quote :

The firearm is the great starter of a race towards more violence. The rapist also gets himself a gun. Next, the lady will be raped at gunpoint. Which is, I believe, significantly more traumatising than being raped by use of muscle force. Boy, that's an improvement.

Which scenario is the lesser of two evils: two people with equal weaponry, or one person who is vastly bigger and stronger versus another who is smaller and weaker? I'm quite sure that my wife would much rather take her chances being armed than to just "accept her fate" and be bullied. And I'm also quite certain that a mugger would much rather live to try another day, rather than to try assaulting someone they know to be armed.

Quote :

Yeah, I know. The Germans then invaded my country, fighting only with their bare hands.

I think you know that I was speaking of the disarmament of the Jews prior to their move to the ghetto and nearly successful extermination. Not a laughing matter at all.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

"The first time" was 250 years ago, with the support of another nation's armed forces (sorry, I forgot that you prefer to consider the French to be spineless cowards rather than the country who delivered your country to you). With the advent of modern warfare I'd like to see you do it again, especially without the help of the French military.

The Iraqi "insurgents" seem to be doing just fine against our military with nothing more than automatic rifles and improvised devices.

Quote :

Yeah we do have crime. We've got a very unfair social system so of course we've got crime. But what we don't have - that you have - is normal people shooting the **** out of eachother every time they get a little bit pissy. Over here, they go out, get drunk and leather eachother in the street until the rozzers turn up and baton them quiet. That's the advantage of not having guns in every home.

You are sidestepping the issue that the murder rate and violent crime rates in England are nearly identical to, or in many cases higher than, those in the United States. You can make all the excuses that you want, but in the end the crime rate is what matters. Whether you are shot with a gun or stabbed with a knife, the fact is that you would still be dead. What is the goal of a gun ban if not to decrease crime? It's plainly evident that it HAS NOT WORKED! Not only do they have gun crime (but wait! they're banned! how can that be!?), but they have MORE violent crime than when gun ownership was legal!

Quote :

I like your news sources by the way. Four sources I've never heard of, and "fff.org" certainly seems to be an objective commentator.

Those are the first half dozen links I pulled off google. By any measure, they are a damn sight better than any sources you've cited thus far.

Quote :

That's a nice statistical increase, but it's not a comparison with the USA. I remember when I was living in New Jersey (mid-'90s) New York City proudly announced that their annual number of unsolved murders had dropped below the magic 2000 marker. That's unsolved murders in a city of (at the time) 9 million. What a great result!

Many of the sources that I linked above DO compare the US and GB directly. If you'd like to see even more data by an independent statistician, feel free to read most anything by John Lott. His last book "The Bias Against Guns" is chock full of cited sources and data that is readily available to anyone who cares to look. He offers up multiple comparisons between the US and countries like Great Britain, Australia, Japan, Switzerland, etc.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

The Iraqi "insurgents" seem to be doing just fine against our military with nothing more than automatic rifles and improvised devices.

The USA has, what, 120,000 troops over there? And they're ably controlling millions of people. The "insurgents" seem mostly concerned with killing representatives of rival factions rather than foreign aggressors. And this is in a country where the infrastructure was already completely destroyed by all-out war. I think in your country with your entire military force, things would be a bit different. But either way, I am looking forward to seeing it happen, which of course it never will.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

You are sidestepping the issue that the murder rate and violent crime rates in England are nearly identical to, or in many cases higher than, those in the United States.

I'm not sidestepping it at all. I haven't looked at any statistics - I am, frankly, a bit drunk and having a night off for a change, I have no interest in poring over statistics right now. You seem to be very keen to define an equivalency between murders and violent crime. I'm not denying that we have plenty of violent crime to go around, but I very much doubt that we have a murder rate that approaches yours - despite having much more severe poverty.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

You can make all the excuses that you want, but in the end the crime rate is what matters. Whether you are shot with a gun or stabbed with a knife, the fact is that you would still be dead.

Look up the numbers of deaths associated with gunshot wounds and compare them to knife wounds. You'll find there is a far greater possibility that you will die of a gunshot wound - statistically speaking - than of a knife wound.

One other point that I at least find intriguing even if you don't: I am perfectly happy to go about my daily life without owning a firearm or anything else for my own personal defense, and I have managed so far (I'm 32, and I'm not even remotely tough-looking) to go through life without once being at the mercy of anybody. You, on the other hand, deem it necessary to carry a gun every time you leave the house. I think that says enough about the difference between life in the USA and life in the UK. It also suggests to me that you are rather disturbingly preoccupied with violence.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

Is your society so civilized that you don't need to lock your doors at night?

No. In fact, my house has been burgled twice. But I'm confident that the thief wasn't carrying a gun, so I didn't have the additional risk of being shot to pieces in case I had detected him. Likewise, the thief could be confident that I would not fill his body with lead. There was loss of property, but there was no loss of life. That's a step towards a civilised society IMO.

Quote :

You are right, war is madness. You are also right, that violence doesn't solve anything. However; given the choice between protecting myself with violence and not protecting myself at all, I'll choose the former.

I think that by assuming that others will be violent, and by preparing yourself for violence, you are propagating and stimulating it. You become part of the problem.

Quote :

Which scenario is the lesser of two evils: two people with equal weaponry, or one person who is vastly bigger and stronger versus another who is smaller and weaker?

No matter what you do, the attacker always has the advantage of surprise. Then, which is the lesser of two evils: the risk of ending up bruised and hurt, or the risk of ending up dead?

Quote :

I think you know that I was speaking of the disarmament of the Jews prior to their move to the ghetto and nearly successful extermination.

No, I hadn't guessed. In that case, the example seems nonsensical to me. At the end of the Weimar republic, German society wasn't exactly unarmed. Right-wingers and left-wingers all had their "militia" of armed street gangs. You could even say that the violence made many people agree with the Nazi takeover.