Quote from wsinda :

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.

How can you be so confident that the thief was not armed? Despite all of the anti-gun legislation in Great Britain, there are still plenty of gun crimes. The only people who you can guarantee are not armed are the lawful ones. And law abiding citizens are the ones you don't need to worry about in the first place.

Quote :

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.

I don't see myself as being part of the problem so long as I'm passive and do not initiate anything. Your reasoning is like saying that because I have car insurance I'm causing automobile accidents. Being prepared for something is not the same as perpetuating it.

Quote :

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?

What's to say you won't end up dead anyway? If you want to take the chance that a violent criminal will just take what he came for and not hurt you, that's your choice. Me? I prefer to prepare myself for the worst case scenario, then live happily ever after if it doesn't come to pass.

Quote :

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.

You are right, to a point. The Weimar government passed legislation against owning weapons, and that legislation affected everyone, not just Jews. This was done to prevent violence (which it did not accomplish) and prevent extremist takeover (again, not accomplished). Once the Nazis took power, the law was amended specifically to prevent Jews from owning firearms.

Now, this is not to say that had they been armed, they would have been able to resist Nazi oppression. Few Jews owned firearms, even before the legislation was enacted in 1928. However, it's quite obvious that unarmed civilians have very little chance against an armed military, while armed civilians at least have a fighting chance.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

How can you be so confident that the thief was not armed? Despite all of the anti-gun legislation in Great Britain, there are still plenty of gun crimes. The only people who you can guarantee are not armed are the lawful ones. And law abiding citizens are the ones you don't need to worry about in the first place.

You are an alarmist... Looking at your diatribe here, your day seems to be filled with shadows that scare you witless. I prefer not to live like that. If by some freak accident I do end up in front of a bullet speeding towards my head, in that last moment I'll at least know I haven't lived in a state of fear and suspicion.

That's a life worth living and I'll take the end whenever it comes.

Oh, and by the way its law abiding citizens who end up going postal. Have you not even begun to understand that its the alienation, the solitude, the loneliness, and the general fear of both strangers and the strange that is at the root of killing sprees like this one?

Funny things, these fearful Americans ... I recently heard a story about a car an Australian rented while he was in the US. Nothing too remarkable about it (it was an American car after all ) until he opened the boot (trunk) to put his luggage in. Inside was one of those straps new cars have which can open the lid if you get trapped inside. Next to it was a little sign with diagrams. Diagram one told you to pull the strap. Diagram two showed a person climbing out of the open boot (very helpful, thanks). Diagram three (which made me LMAO) clearly showed the person running away from the car, with speed lines and everything. Now, if this were your car you'd just get out (though how you'd accidentally lock yourself in your boot in the first palce defies imagination) and go about your business. But whoever made this car seems to assume that if you're in the boot you've been kidnapped! Do any other car makers in the world assume that anyone who is locked in the boot has been kidnapped, or is the biggest, toughest, most militarily bad-ass nation in the world basically frightened of everyone? But, heaven forbid, if you actually have been kidnapped do you really need a diagram telling you to run away from the car? Are Americans just scared of everyone/everything or do they just have an insatiable need to state the obvious?

Quote from nihil :

You are an alarmist... Looking at your diatribe here, your day seems to be filled with shadows that scare you witless. I prefer not to live like that. If by some freak accident I do end up in front of a bullet speeding towards my head, in that last moment I'll at least know I haven't lived in a state of fear and suspicion.

I'm not an alarmist, nor do I live in fear. I choose to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. That doesn't mean I live my life in fear of some omnipresent danger anymore than wearing a seatbelt means I'm constantly in fear of being hit by another car.

Quote :

Oh, and by the way its law abiding citizens who end up going postal. Have you not even begun to understand that its the alienation, the solitude, the loneliness, and the general fear of both strangers and the strange that is at the root of killing sprees like this one?

I guess the words "law abiding citizen" are confusing to you. Once you break the law and start killing people, you are no longer law abiding, now are you?

You are at least right about one thing, it's lonliness, alienation, and contempt that spur these killing sprees. It was true in the case of Columbine, it's true in the case of Virginia Tech, and it will be true the next time someone goes on a rampage. We need to adress the problem by treating each other with respect and kindness, and making mental health care available to everyone. Taking away guns from people who use them responsibly is not the answer to this problem.

Cue-ball, i understand some of your points, but the fact is, you live in one messed up country..
I really love most things about USA, always dreamed of going there, the scenery, those cool neighboorhoods of yours impress me, and stuff like that, but the thing that is frightening to me is, that i could get shot by some paranoid lady looking at her car in front of her house for example, maybe taking a picture of it, with a friend, pretending it's my car, stuff like that, but the paranoid lady would probably shoot me thinking that i am a thief..
You think that this is not the case? think againg.. in normal society, the lady would call the police, or something like that.. and no one would be hurt..

Also this terrible accident at Virginia tech... something like that wouldn't happen in some other country that easy, the guy was a disturbed person, there are milions of people just like him, but they don't go shooting people because of their unhapy life, but he did it, because he got those guns very easy probably, and i don't think that something like that would come to his mind in some other country beceause of the difficulties of obtaining a weapon, and he would probably just hang himself, or something like that...

boris, this wouldn't have been such a huge deal if stuff like this happened all the time, but it doesnt.. there aren't that many shootings like this really.. ever

but also, i just wanted to point out today is the anniversary of the shootings at Columbine HS (1999), and also the infamous oklahoma city bombing (1995)

pretty bad week in history

especially after finding out a friend of mine went to jail this on tuesday.. (for matters i won't say)

Quote from XCNuse :

boris, this wouldn't have been such a huge deal if stuff like this happened all the time, but it doesnt.. there aren't that many shootings like this really.. ever

Groups of people, most often larger than that of VT, are killed almost daily. That seems like "all the time" to me.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

Once you break the law and start killing people, you are no longer law abiding, now are you?

LOL... No, but its the special characteristic of 'going postal' that the person involved has usually been a law-abiding citizen right up until the moment that something snaps, and randomly erasing people from daily life seems like a 'reasonable' option.

It was just a response to your statement that "law abiding citizens are the ones you don't need to worry about in the first place." A lifestyle based on a preoccupation with the results of crime eventually brings everyone under suspicion.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

How can you be so confident that the thief was not armed?

It's a culture thing, I suppose. An American may find it hard to believe, but in the Netherlands someone walking around with a gun is either a cop or a big crook. The average criminal doesn't carry a gun. (Though this may be changing under the influence of American movies and TV. :shrug

Quote :

I don't see myself as being part of the problem so long as I'm passive and do not initiate anything. Your reasoning is like saying that because I have car insurance I'm causing automobile accidents.

No, my reasoning is like saying that you're causing automobile accidents because you bought a SUV and mounted a big iron bar at the front, in order to defend yourself against other SUVs. It's the "do it to them before they do it to you" mentality that perpetuates the problem.

Quote :

What's to say you won't end up dead anyway? If you want to take the chance that a violent criminal will just take what he came for and not hurt you, that's your choice.

A criminal will take what he's after, and some will use violence if needed. But they won't be more violent than they deem necessary. They may be crooks, but they can think. Only the psychopath will maim or kill just because he feels like it.

Quote :

Me? I prefer to prepare myself for the worst case scenario, then live happily ever after if it doesn't come to pass.

My point is that your behaviour (and that of many of your countrymen) is increasing the chance that this worst case scenario will happen.

Quote :

The Weimar government passed legislation against owning weapons, and that legislation affected everyone, not just Jews. This was done to prevent violence (which it did not accomplish) and prevent extremist takeover (again, not accomplished).

Germany was moving towards civil war by then. Gun-control laws require some cohesion in society. They are doomed to fail when there are factions who hate each other's guts (see also: Northern Ireland, Bosnia).

Quote :

However, it's quite obvious that unarmed civilians have very little chance against an armed military, while armed civilians at least have a fighting chance.

The German Jews weren't facing the military, they were facing an entire hostile population. And IIRC Mohandas Ghandi and his followers did succeed in making India independent, even though the British Army was fighting them.

Quote from luftrofl :

Groups of people, most often larger than that of VT, are killed almost daily. That seems like "all the time" to me.

uh... not here in the US they aren't, that is what i'm saying

yes elsewhere, but not here

Quote from XCNuse :

uh... not here in the US they aren't, that is what i'm saying

maybe not in one place at the same time, but how many are killed on the roads alone in the US on a daily basis?

that is true, but it can also be like that anywhere
that is different than mass killings by a murderer

but i do see your point

Quote from Bob Geldof (I Don't Like Mondays) :

And school's out early and soon we'll be learning
And the lesson today is how to die.
And then the bullhorn crackles,
And the captain tackles,
With the problems and the hows and whys.
And he can see no reasons
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to die, die, ooh...ooh?

Sums it up in a nutshell...and that was written almost 30 years ago

the only reason to the situation in the US (not the only state but most important) is the fear. a state that indirectly impose fear to the people has to come with something for the scared people to rely on and feel safe, right? well they found the perfect solution! ofers safety and brings a profit too! guns. and a mass that is scared doesent have any solution but to cope with it. in almoast all the countries weapons exist and you can buy them (rather easaly...get a permit, be at least 18 and if ur mentaly stabil your set) but you dont see people shooting eachother about on the streets, do you? but in america turns out that's a daily basis thing, and its perfectly normal when ur scared. i rather dont get to deep into this, at first i didnt even want to make this post so it wouldn't start a disscution because its no use....so plz take it as it is my opinion that doesent need comments...

btw, not sure if any1 knows but 1 romanian lost his life in this massacre too. he was a teacher and he was killed while he was trying to protect his students witch he succeded to do. he stand by the door blocking it while all the studens got out by the window. he got shoot through the door.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

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.

How do you carry your gun? In a holster? What kind of holster?

How fast can you draw? Can you draw faster than a bullet? I doubt it. So your gun will be worth a fetid dingos kidneys when someone holds you at gun point and demands your wallet.

What about if they shoot you in the back? What use is your gun then?

You americans seem to think that criminals are like those in John Wayne westerns. At sunrise you stand on the street facing each other with your fingers the regulatory 2" from the gun and.... DRAW!

Wouldn't it make more sense to wear a bulletproof west? But noo that wouldn't be butch.

Where do you think all the "illegal" guns come from? Some come across the border but most come from burglaries. So because most americans have guns (plural) most burglars get guns as loot. They can't sell them legally so they sell them illegally. The people that were burglarised now go buy more guns for "safety" and thus your law abiding citisens are feeding the illegal gun market.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Cue-ball, i understand some of your points, but the fact is, you live in one messed up country..

Some things about the US are quite messed up, I agree. But the right to bear arms is not one of them. I would venture to say that 90% of the problems we have in this country are due to either intolerance or poverty. Luckily, the large majority of people live happy lives with no real issues. And, despite the problems, despite the idiot who is currently in charge, we still live in the best country in the world and enjoy more freedoms that anywhere else.

Quote :

I really love most things about USA, always dreamed of going there, the scenery, those cool neighboorhoods of yours impress me, and stuff like that, but the thing that is frightening to me is, that i could get shot by some paranoid lady looking at her car in front of her house for example, maybe taking a picture of it, with a friend, pretending it's my car, stuff like that, but the paranoid lady would probably shoot me thinking that i am a thief..
You think that this is not the case? think againg.. in normal society, the lady would call the police, or something like that.. and no one would be hurt..

I think you have been watching too many episodes of CSI or something. The right to bear arms does not give you the right to indiscriminately endanger those around you. I'm not sure if it's movies, or TV, or what, but people from other countries seem to think that we all walk around shooting each other for no reason. It's just not so. If I were checking out someone's car and they decided to shoot me, they would be going to prison for murder. Simple as that.

Quote from nihil :

LOL... No, but its the special characteristic of 'going postal' that the person involved has usually been a law-abiding citizen right up until the moment that something snaps, and randomly erasing people from daily life seems like a 'reasonable' option.

You can't punish a person for what they are thinking, or for what they *might* do. You can only punish someone for doing or attempting to do something illegal.

And if someone snaps and decides they want to kill a bunch of people, there are plenty of ways to do it that don't rely on a gun. In Iraq, Israel, Palestine, and many other countries, suicide bombings are a part of daily life. Dozens or even hundreds dead without a single bullet fired. On September 11th, terrorists pulled off the most destructive, and highest death toll, terrorist attack ever on US soil. They didn't use a single gun. In 1995 several people were killed and hundreds more injured when toxic gases were released in a subway station in Tokyo. In 2001, Timothy McVeigh was able to kill 168 people and injure hundreds more when he bombed a building in Oklahoma City. And what did he use? Manure!

The fact is that anyone who is determined to hurt people will find a way. Making guns illegal doesn't stop these things from happening. The only thing that outlawing guns accomplishes is to disarm the people who are already law abiding. Criminals have no problem with stealing, raping, and murdering. Why should they give a shit about a possession of firearm charge?

Quote from March Hare :

How do you carry your gun? In a holster? What kind of holster?

How fast can you draw? Can you draw faster than a bullet? I doubt it. So your gun will be worth a fetid dingos kidneys when someone holds you at gun point and demands your wallet.

What about if they shoot you in the back? What use is your gun then?

By your logic then, police also should not have guns either, since they are obviously completely useless. I think perhaps you need to rethink your argument.

Quote :

You americans seem to think that criminals are like those in John Wayne westerns. At sunrise you stand on the street facing each other with your fingers the regulatory 2" from the gun and.... DRAW!

No. We Americans know that most criminals are cowardly. We know that they like living and breathing, and that the one thing they are most afraid of is a bullet. It's been shown that jail sentences, three-strikes rules, mandatory minimum sentences, etc. do virtually nothing to deter crime. The one thing that has proven, again and again, to drastically reduce crime is when normal citizens exercise their right to carry. This has been shown many times in many studies. I would be happy to cite sources if you'd like.

Quote :

Where do you think all the "illegal" guns come from? Some come across the border but most come from burglaries. So because most americans have guns (plural) most burglars get guns as loot. They can't sell them legally so they sell them illegally. The people that were burglarised now go buy more guns for "safety" and thus your law abiding citisens are feeding the illegal gun market.

As I've said before in this thread, guns are available whether or not the public at large is legally allowed to have them. Guns are illegal in Great Britain. Other than antiques, private citizens are not allowed to own firearms. And, Great Britain is surrounded by water, with no porous borders for the smuggling of arms. Even despite these huge obstacles, guns are in the hands of criminals and gun crimes are committed. Please explain.

I ran across this article on digg this morning, and thought that it might be an interesting read for some of you.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n ... icle.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

I think it's about time to get back on track with the topic at hand...

It's a shame none of the other students or professors were armed. The casualties would have been minimized. If the shooter knew that other people would have weapons he may not have even tried in the first place.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

You can't punish a person for what they are thinking, or for what they *might* do.

You have missed my point. As I said earlier, I am generally anti-prohibition, whether the item in question be drugs, guns, or high powered motorcycles, whatever... My concern is more that pro-gun Americans like yourelf seem to see gun-ownership as a right in and of itself, that the gun is what guarantees a free and peaceful society. This is garbage. And a society that believes as much is destined to reduce life to ever more simple and ever more authoritarian 'ideals'.

When the right to bear arms was first proposed, it was within the framework of an organised militia force. This implies a certain degree of training, not just of the individual, but of groups of individuals... In short it implies a social bond. It is this that I believe is missing from the American pro-gun argument.

Societies change. And the laws have to change with them.

EDIT:

Quote from Cue-Ball :

I ran across this article on digg this morning, and thought that it might be an interesting read for some of you.



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n ... icle.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Hmmm... Not exactly an objective source, is it? But whatever... What's missing from the article is an analysis of the social make-up of the town. For instance, I can imagine that over 25 years, this law has meant that the town has attracted a fairly similar crowd, with similar political beliefs. Crime goes down, because the bulk of the population want it to.

Would be interesting to look at the incest rates....

Quote from nihil :

You have missed my point. As I said earlier, I am generally anti-prohibition, whether the item in question be drugs, guns, or high powered motorcycles, whatever... My concern is more that pro-gun Americans like yourelf seem to see gun-ownership as a right in and of itself, that the gun is what guarantees a free and peaceful society. This is garbage. And a society that believes as much is destined to reduce life to ever more simple and ever more authoritarian 'ideals'.

When the right to bear arms was first proposed, it was within the framework of an organised militia force. This implies a certain degree of training, not just of the individual, but of groups of individuals... In short it implies a social bond. It is this that I believe is missing from the American pro-gun argument.

Societies change. And the laws have to change with them.

We believe it to be a right because our constitution tells us that it *is* a right.

The United States constitution is quite clear. While it mentions a militia, it also states very directly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed.

Quote from Mykl :

We believe it to be a right because our constitution tells us that it *is* a right.

The United States constitution is quite clear. While it mentions a militia, it also states very directly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed.

Why do we even HAVE the power to amend the constitution? It's always right and has always been right. Slavery, women's suffrage, etc. you name it and it's always been in there!

Quote from Mykl :

We believe it to be a right because our constitution tells us that it *is* a right.

The United States constitution is quite clear. While it mentions a militia, it also states very directly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed.

The issue is not the right to carry arms. We can all agree that you do have that right. The point was that the God given right to carry weapons does not "guarantee a free and peaceful society", although evidently some Americans seem to think this is the case. Furthermore, the extent into which some people (and not just Americans) are willing to go to assert their right to have specific rights is somewhat scary.