College & High School Shootings: What Now

[mkemse]

After yet another senseless school shooting at NIU University in DeKalb Illinois On Thursday Feb 14, what do you suggest be done to prevent these incidients from continuing, either at the College Level or high school level even the Campus Police Chief at NIU even said last night "On and open Campus of 25,000+ students it is virutaly imposssible to prevents things like this from happening since it is a open campus"
Would appriciate any comments anyone may have, and personaly my thoughts and prayers go out to the families who lost loved one in this terrible sesnseless tradgedy

[ThisYouWillDo]

I understand there have been 4 separate shooting incidents this week in colleges/universities in USA. This is appalling news and I also send my sympathies and condolences to those affected

My views on gun-control have been well-aired elsewhere. These events do not encourage me to alter them.

TYWD

[Warbaby1943]

reinstate corporal punishments at all levels

[Logic1]

Make it way harder to get access to guns is one way for sure, but that seem to be a hard limit to lots of americans it seems.
So sadly I guess that you simply need to spend more money on mental healtcare and/or accept the fact that it happens?

yes that is VERY cynical but without easy access to weapons then it simply wouldnt happen or atleast way more seldom.

my deepest condolences to those affected is there for sure in any case.

[spammik]

My heart goes out to all of the people involved.......I am at a loss of understanding any act of violence.....

[mkemse]

Make it way harder to get access to guns is one way for sure, but that seem to be a hard limit to lots of americans it seems.
So sadly I guess that you simply need to spend more money on mental healtcare and/or accept the fact that it happens?

yes that is VERY cynical but without easy access to weapons then it simply wouldnt happen or atleast way more seldom.

my deepest condolences to those affected is there for sure in any case.


I gree with you on spemnding more Money On Mental Health Clincs, but the 2009 Fereral Budget has Our Currebt Presdient cutting money for Social Secvice Agencies and social Securityand Nedicare by 500 Billion Dollars, what do we do then??

[mkemse]

The did annnouce this morinig, that 6th sutdent died making it 7 totla 6 and the gunman with 3 still in critical condition his type senseless violence has to stop or parents will stop snedingthier kids to school andstart home schooling them

[mkemse]

reinstate corporal punishments at all levels

I agree but I do not think that will deter anything, peoeple who committhesetype of crimes do notknow what they aredoing andif so will; probably care elelss aboutwhat happens to them, plus in most cases the shooter kils himself in the end, that means no death pentalty to the shooter

[ThisYouWillDo]

Corporal punishment does nothing except brutalise both the person administering it and the person receiving it. As a deterrent it's useless. As retribution, it's ineffective, and as a means of making amends, irrelevant.

As I've said before, it doesn't even make the victims feel better. (Or if it does, the judicial system shouldn't be catering for that kind of perversion.)

TYWD

[Thorne]

My views on gun-control have been well-aired elsewhere. These events do not encourage me to alter them.

Yes, you and I have been over this before, but I'm a little more inclined to see things your way at the moment. These kinds of things are just horrible!

What confuses and concerns me about them is that there is very little in common among the shooters. Some were bullied and ridiculed, some were just shy, some were trying to settle romantic scores. Nothing concrete that you can come out and say, "Look out for this behavior in students!"

[Thorne]

Corporal punishment does nothing except brutalise both the person administering it and the person receiving it. As a deterrent it's useless. As retribution, it's ineffective, and as a means of making amends, irrelevant.

Well, I think you would have to admit that, to date, there has never been an executed murderer who has killed again.

[mkemse]

Well, I think you would have to admit that, to date, there has never been an executed murderer who has killed again.


my concenr on thi whole issue is most shooting ens with the shooter commiting suicide or being take by the polie but what do collegles and schools that are all open campus do to protect their students better, i have neevr hear of a shooter going to trial because they are usialy killed at the scene to begin with

[Thorne]

my concenr on thi whole issue is most shooting ens with the shooter commiting suicide or being take by the polie but what do collegles and schools that are all open campus do to protect their students better, i have neevr hear of a shooter going to trial because they are usialy killed at the scene to begin with

One advantage of the killers taking themselves out is that they save the state the cost of a trial and incarceration and appeals and more appeals and more appeals.

Of course, the disadvantage is that you don't get to speak with and study the killer to find out what went wrong to cause him to do such a thing. Over the years law enforcement has managed to improve their understanding of serial killers and the kinds of things that make them tick. They need to do the same for these "spree" killers, those who just seem to snap for some reason and try to take out as many people as they can. And it does seem that many of them seem to have no sense of self preservation. They go into it knowing that they are going to die, one way or another.

As for protecting the campuses and the students, there is no absolutely sure way to do that, beyond locking THEM up for the duration, basically turning our schools into a form of prison. That, IMO, is no solution. In fact, it would probably make the problem worse.

Anyone who wants absolute safety in this world is in for a serious disappointment. There is no such thing. We risk our lives every day we are breathing. We can minimize the dangers, but there comes a point, just as in medicine, where the cure is worse than the disease. All you can do is learn to live with the threats and do your best to avoid them.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Well, I think you would have to admit that, to date, there has never been an executed murderer who has killed again.

I have to give you that one, Thorne. I'm guilty of blurring the distinction between corporal and capital punishment.

No-one executed for murder has killed again afterwards: even the ones who were innocent and, it might be argued, had a "free strike". A crude but highly effective means of punishment. Maybe that's why our forefathers used the death penalty on highway robbers, adulterers and sheep stealers too. One shouldn't disregard the wisdom of the ages lightly.

Knives are becoming a problem at our schools, and a few of them have installed metal detectors at all entrances. Maybe that would work in USA universities. But, thinking about it a little more, if I were intent on carrying out a mass killing, I wouldn't let anyone stop me at a metal detector - I'd run past then open up, probably taking out the guard as my first victim.

TYWD

[mkemse]

One advantage of the killers taking themselves out is that they save the state the cost of a trial and incarceration and appeals and more appeals and more appeals.

Of course, the disadvantage is that you don't get to speak with and study the killer to find out what went wrong to cause him to do such a thing. Over the years law enforcement has managed to improve their understanding of serial killers and the kinds of things that make them tick. They need to do the same for these "spree" killers, those who just seem to snap for some reason and try to take out as many people as they can. And it does seem that many of them seem to have no sense of self preservation. They go into it knowing that they are going to die, one way or another.

As for protecting the campuses and the students, there is no absolutely sure way to do that, beyond locking THEM up for the duration, basically turning our schools into a form of prison. That, IMO, is no solution. In fact, it would probably make the problem worse.

Anyone who wants absolute safety in this world is in for a serious disappointment. There is no such thing. We risk our lives every day we are breathing. We can minimize the dangers, but there comes a point, just as in medicine, where the cure is worse than the disease. All you can do is learn to live with the threats and do your best to avoid them.


The Chief Of Police For NIU Security said in a pRess Conference last night and again today "As long a we have open campus there is no way to 100% guarantee security, it simply is not a reality, it can not be done"

[Whippett]

Coming from a country with strict gun control as well - I have to say that I've never understood the American love affair with guns. Guns don't kill - but any lunatic can get a gun - and that is the problem - lunatics with guns! Sometimes I think that the line between responsible and irresponsible ownership in terms of guns is lost in the political argument. And gun ownership should be a responsibility - and should not be a universal right.

I'm also with TYWD on the death penalty - it serves no purpose except revenge. Heck, if the death penalty were a deterrent there would likely be far fewer mass murders in the US. The media should certainly stop sensationalizing mas murder as well - all that does is bring out one more unhinged copy-cat killing.

[Thorne]

I'm also with TYWD on the death penalty - it serves no purpose except revenge.

I disagree. While it's true that the death penalty is not necessarily a deterrent, I think it can, when applied properly, help to protect society and innocent civilians. I do not, however, propose applying the death penalty indiscriminately. A parent who kills his children, while heinous, is probably not a threat to anyone else. The Susan Smith case, here in South Carolina, comes to mind. While she most definitely killed her kids, many of the people who advocated giving her the death penalty wanted it only because she had misled them into thinking the kids had been kidnapped. She made them feel sorry for her and when they learned the truth they wanted her head. As it turned out she was given a life sentence, which I do think was appropriate in her case.
But a person like Jeffrey Dalmer or Richard Speck, who killed innocent people at random, with no ulterior motive, certainly deserve the death penalty. They are a threat to anyone they cross paths with and, if they should ever escape from prison (not unheard of, let's face it) they would undoubtedly kill again.
I also believe that anyone who kills a police officer should be executed, a mandatory sentence without possibility of commutation. There are a few other types of crimes, along a similar vein, but I certainly wouldn't want to use the death penalty as a catch-all punishment.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Why is it worse to kill a policeman than an estate agent or a lawyer?

[mkemse]

Why is it worse to kill a policeman than an estate agent or a lawyer?

A Police Officer Is Considered a Munticple Governement Employess which carriers a stiffer sentence both are wrong, if you kill a letter carrier that is also a Federal Offense since they work for the Government

[Thorne]

Why is it worse to kill a policeman than an estate agent or a lawyer?

Only because a police officer is the outward representative of the law. They are there (theoretically, at least) to help protect the rest of us from the criminals. Those who would kill the police are a bigger threat to the rest of society than almost any other criminal.

And killing lawyers can almost be considered a public service anyway. (Just kidding, all you lawyers out there. Don't sue me for bad jokes.)

[ThisYouWillDo]

So, to commit premeditated murder by killing an ordinary citizen is less reprehensible than accidentally and inadvertently killing a policeman in the heat of the moment? How does it feel to be a second class citizen?

In the UK, the police are regarded as public servants. They call me "Sir" not "Buddy" and I call them "Constable" not "Sir".

And if we both faced a lunatic with a gun, he would be expected (morally, only, of course) to take the bullet instead of me.

If it really is because killing a representative of the justice system must be punished more severely, pour encourager les autres, wouldn't it be simpler just to make resisting arrest a capital offence and be done with it?

[Thorne]

So, to commit premeditated murder by killing an ordinary citizen is less reprehensible than accidentally and inadvertently killing a policeman in the heat of the moment? How does it feel to be a second class citizen?

In the UK, the police are regarded as public servants. They call me "Sir" not "Buddy" and I call them "Constable" not "Sir".

And if we both faced a lunatic with a gun, he would be expected (morally, only, of course) to take the bullet instead of me.

If it really is because killing a representative of the justice system must be punished more severely, pour encourager les autres, wouldn't it be simpler just to make resisting arrest a capital offence and be done with it?

As usual, your aversion to the death penalty has you selecting extreme examples. I never said that killing anyone was more or less reprehensible than killing anyone else. To my mind the question revolves around the threat to society. A man who kills his wife, whether premeditated or not, is not likely to kill other people randomly. Certainly, he should be imprisoned for life, no parole. But he is not a threat to society.
While I have a hard time thinking of how one could "inadvertently or accidentally" kill a police officer while committing a felony, naturally circumstances must be taken into account. But remember: in the US at least, when you commit a felony you are responsible for ALL outcomes of that crime. If you cause the death of ANYONE, whether by design or by accident, it is still felony murder. If you deliberately shoot a police officer you are, by my definition, a serious threat to society, and deserving of the death penalty. Not "pour encourager les autres", but for the protection of the rest of society.
Here, too, the police are public servants. I have never had one call me "buddy". They have always referred to me as "Sir" or as "Mr. Thorne" once they have learned my name. But by the same token, I give them my full respect, because of the job they do, and I refer to them as either "Officer" or "Sir".

[Ozme52]

Better eliminate all cars and motor vehicles too.

In 2002, for example, gun deaths numbered 28+ thousand.
Motorvehicle deaths numbered 43+ thousand...

:rolleyes: with drivers of automatics being the worst culprits. :rolleyes:

[ThisYouWillDo]

Ok - I have the wrong impression about American cops - I get it from the way your film makers portray them.

I don't see why my argument was extreme. Why is the killing of an unarmed woman who disturbs you during the commission of a crime, in the heat of the moment less bad than killing an armed cop who does the same thing? To my mind, if either is worse than the other (which I do not believe) then it is the killing of the unarmed woman which deserves harsher punishment.

If a man is a threat to society, because he is likely to kill anyone and everyone who gets in his way, he must be taken out of society: I would prefer that to be permanently gaoled.

If a man only kills policemen, he would appear to be obsessive and in need of psychiatric treatment rather than execution.

And what if a policeman's wife kills him during a domestic dispute?

Finally, as lawyers are as important a part of the legal system as police officers are, why should their murders not be treated in exactly the same way.

Osme: Please tell me, are cars designed to kill, or do they have another purpose? What about guns? Maybe you can hold them by the barrel and use them as hammers?

It would be interesting to compare the number of car deaths per car owner with gun deaths per gun owner too.

Also, how many gun victims were shot by automatics? :rolleyes:

BTW, you might be amused to know that in all the years' driving experience I have had - too many to want to think about - I had never had an accident until I got an automatic a few years ago. I have had two minor accidents since: I rear ended someone, and I took out a traffic sign. So I'm on your side in that regard :D)

TYWD

[TomOfSweden]

This discussion again. It's bound to be heated so I'm going to make some popcorn and lean back.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I have tried to be restrained, Tom

[mkemse]

Ok - I have the wrong impression about American cops - I get it from the way your film makers portray them.

I don't see why my argument was extreme. Why is the killing of an unarmed woman who disturbs you during the commission of a crime, in the heat of the moment less bad than killing an armed cop who does the same thing? To my mind, if either is worse than the other (which I do not believe) then it is the killing of the unarmed woman which deserves harsher punishment.

If a man is a threat to society, because he is likely to kill anyone and everyone who gets in his way, he must be taken out of society: I would prefer that to be permanently gaoled.

If a man only kills policemen, he would appear to be obsessive and in need of psychiatric treatment rather than execution.

And what if a policeman's wife kills him during a domestic dispute?

Finally, as lawyers are as important a part of the legal system as police officers are, why should their murders not be treated in exactly the same way.

Osme: Please tell me, are cars designed to kill, or do they have another purpose? What about guns? Maybe you can hold them by the barrel and use them as hammers?

It would be interesting to compare the number of car deaths per car owner with gun deaths per gun owner too.

Also, how many gun victims were shot by automatics? :rolleyes:

BTW, you might be amused to know that in all the years' driving experience I have had - too many to want to think about - I had never had an accident until I got an automatic a few years ago. I have had two minor accidents since: I rear ended someone, and I took out a traffic sign. So I'm on your side in that regard :D)

TYWD

our film maker and movie studios sebsationlizeeverything, but in reality the Gunman at NIU had a Master in Pyscology, and more in portent passed EVERY bck ground check required inthis country to puchase a gun, he had a 2 day wait to check on his mental stability he passed, everytning he did to obtain his guns was legal, they talked to the gun dealer who sold them and the dealer said and has paper work yo back it up, he wentt hrough all the legal steps required by law, back groundcheck, mental health histiry ect and the gun man came up clean on all tests, what next??

[ThisYouWillDo]

To me, it's obvious: if what he did was legal then the laws are wrong. Change them.

[mkemse]

To me, it's obvious: if what he did was legal then the laws are wrong. Change them.

We have tried for years to change gun laws in the United States the big probelm we have is the NRA the National Rifle Association has so much power as lobbiests here that no major changes ever make it through congress, they are killed or burned in congress and get nowhere amknig chages is not the issue getting them passed and having a President sign them is the issue 99% of gun law chahges never go anywhere, they get introduced into congress and then just die there or get vetoed with not enough votes to overide a veto

[Ozme52]

This discussion again. It's bound to be heated so I'm going to make some popcorn and lean back.


I knew in my heart you would bow out of the automatic v. stick-shift argument. No heart Tom? :icon176:


:rolleyes:


Osme: Please tell me, are cars designed to kill, or do they have another purpose?

Actually... laffin... the original purpose and design of wheeled vehicles is to deliver a warrior and arms to the fight (or hunt) and to provide an advantage in speed and power. Mobility.

Much later, a secondary purpose and design was introduced to carry goods to and from market.

Personal transportation was a far distant third... primarily reserved for the gentry and upper classes (who also were often the only ones permitted to own weapons.)


:D

[Ozme52]

To me, it's obvious: if what he did was legal then the laws are wrong. Change them.


We have tried for years to change gun laws in the United States the big probelm we have is the NRA the National Rifle Association has so much power as lobbiests here that no major changes ever make it through congress, they are killed or burned in congress and get nowhere amknig chages is not the issue getting them passed and having a President sign them is the issue 99% of gun law chahges never go anywhere, they get introduced into congress and then just die there or get vetoed with not enough votes to overide a veto


We? Speak for yourself. Let's be real clear. Gun lobby or no... if the clear majority of people were for gun control it would pass. These laws are introduced riht after such incidents and get as far as they do because the liberal press is in favor of them. So the legislators get a lot of publicity for doing so. But the people? I doubt it.

For some it's about liberty. For some it's about the right to protect ourselves as, world-wide, criminals don't have a problem getting guns if they want them, and for some, it's about (perhaps naively) the ability to protect ourselves from an overbearing government. That's what this 'country' did 250 years ago.

The latter is something that is virtually 'bred' into my bones even though I am a first generation 'born in the USA american' on both sides of my family. All too many of us were slaughtered in Nazi death camps. The words 'never again' though never specifically uttered by my father were taught to me in crystal clear language.

A lot of my otherwise liberal acquaintances actually take note of what happened during the era of Viet Nam war protesting... what the US government did to impose "order" on their right to free speech... including a number of deaths... (admittedly few... but none-the-less...) and those liberal friends of mine aren't all that adamently for gun control.

[mkemse]

We? Speak for yourself. Let's be real clear. Gun lobby or no... if the clear majority of people were for gun control it would pass. These laws are introduced riht after such incidents and get as far as they do because the liberal press is in favor of them. So the legislators get a lot of publicity for doing so. But the people? I doubt it.

For some it's about liberty. For some it's about the right to protect ourselves as, world-wide, criminals don't have a problem getting guns if they want them, and for some, it's about (perhaps naively) the ability to protect ourselves from an overbearing government. That's what this 'country' did 250 years ago.

The latter is something that is virtually 'bred' into my bones even though I am a first generation 'born in the USA american' on both sides of my family. All too many of us were slaughtered in Nazi death camps. The words 'never again' though never specifically uttered by my father were taught to me in crystal clear language.

A lot of my otherwise liberal acquaintances actually take note of what happened during the era of Viet Nam war protesting... what the US government did to impose "order" on their right to free speech... including a number of deaths... (admittedly few... but none-the-less...) and those liberal friends of mine aren't all that adamently for gun control.

My "ME" refers to the countless efforts made in congress to pass tighter gun control laws, what Americans need to do is elect Congressmen and Women n And Representtives that will not be beholden to THE NRA, only congress can pass these laws, they are made up of people at WE as citizien elec, if you want your Senator or Represenative to vote against the NRA elected and get into officethose who will fight the NRA lobbiests is what my intent was in say that, we as american decide through election who serves in Wasigngton, wehave a MAJOR Election comingi n November elect those that will support stronger gun laws, all we can do as citizens is elect our officials we do not makethe laws themselves we simply elect thsoe who can and can ass them and pass them all by a wide enough margin that that they are NOT veto proof

[Thorne]

Ok - I have the wrong impression about American cops - I get it from the way your film makers portray them.
Yeah, I guess that would be equivalent to my getting my impressions of English bobbies from watching Benny Hill. Not necessarily the best source.


Why is the killing of an unarmed woman who disturbs you during the commission of a crime, in the heat of the moment less bad than killing an armed cop who does the same thing?
Obviously, if the criminal kills the unarmed woman then he is, at least by my definition, a threat to society. He has and will kill indiscriminately. Even if he doesn't try to kill the cops when they approach him, he is a threat. But when he deliberately attacks an armed policeman he is either suicidal (in which case, take shoot the bastard and don't spare the bullets) or he's an even bigger threat to society (same result.) Obviously, anyone who is not afraid to attack an armed police officer isn't going to worry about killing anyone else.


If a man is a threat to society, because he is likely to kill anyone and everyone who gets in his way, he must be taken out of society: I would prefer that to be permanently gaoled.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US I'm not sure there is any such thing as permanently jailed. Far too many violent criminals manage to either escape or snow a parole board into letting them out.


And what if a policeman's wife kills him during a domestic dispute?
Again, each case has to be judged independently. In this case she's probably not killing him because he's a policeman, but because he's a bad husband, or for some other domestic reason. Chances are she's no threat to anyone else.


Finally, as lawyers are as important a part of the legal system as police officers are, why should their murders not be treated in exactly the same way.
It might come to that. If we reach a stage where criminals are killing the lawyers and judges who are prosecuting them, then obviously they are as much of a danger as if they were killing policemen.

It's obvious that you have a higher regard for the "sanctity" of human life than I do. I just feel like there are some people in this world who have proven by their own actions that they do not deserve to live with the rest of us. Jails don't always work with these kinds of people, and history has shown that penal colonies don't work well either. For the safety of law abiding citizens I think the death penalty is SOMETIMES the only solution.

[Ozme52]

My "ME" refers to the countless efforts made in congress to pass tighter gun control laws, what Americans need to do is elect Congressmen and Women n And Representtives that will not be beholden to THE NRA, only congress can pass these laws, they are made up of people at WE as citizien elec, if you want your Senator or Represenative to vote against the NRA elected and get into officethose who will fight the NRA lobbiests is what my intent was in say that, we as american decide through election who serves in Wasigngton, wehave a MAJOR Election comingi n November elect those that will support stronger gun laws, all we can do as citizens is elect our officials we do not makethe laws themselves we simply elect thsoe who can and can ass them and pass them all by a wide enough margin that that they are NOT veto proof


You mean your "We"...? jeeze, at least try to quote yourself accurately.

And your hyperbole no longer impresses me. If you can only repeat yourself and have no desire to argue against the points others make... why are you even starting the threads?

[Ozme52]

Why is the killing of an unarmed woman who disturbs you during the commission of a crime, in the heat of the moment less bad than killing an armed cop who does the same thing? To my mind, if either is worse than the other (which I do not believe) then it is the killing of the unarmed woman which deserves harsher punishment.

You're absolutely right TY. There is no difference per se. Both acts are equally reprehensible.

But this country debates the death penalty... and places where they are loathe to try criminals with the death penalty 'on the table' for political reasons, have shown their true desire by approving the death penalty for the killing of law officers.

I'm not saying yea or nay, regarding the death penalty... but that's the way it is... kill a cop, you die. Kill someone else...

It's just an excuse... if you're willing to kill a cop, we don't want to give you a chance to do it again.

It goes to the very core of that issue.

[mkemse]

You mean your "We"...? jeeze, at least try to quote yourself accurately.

And your hyperbole no longer impresses me. If you can only repeat yourself and have no desire to argue against the points others make... why are you even starting the threads?

I apollgize for not being as artucukate with yours as you are, I am human sorry I did not exporess it right, thereality is the people ofthis country electe and voteinto officethose who write and pass our laws, you do as a citizen, if you do not like who represents youi n Washington see if you can getthem replaced with someonewho has your views and beliefs, if they do not get elected you have to live with who won

like they used to say when kids are young and living at home "You may not like the rues butwhie lyou livehere you will obey them"
elect people you want in office to mandate rules and laws you want fi you can elect and get into office who you support you keep trying, not all laws that everyone wants will always be passed

[ThisYouWillDo]

Osme: apologies for the misspelling - it's a natural tendency for us Brits to change all Amrican Z's to S's when we Anglicise words.

Laffin even harder than you about the car statistics. I asked if cars (the vehicles to which you had actually referred) were designed to kill, not war charriots (I'd ban those too if they were still around) or any other wheeled vehicle in general. I mean, it would be a meaningless comparison to set armoured vehicles against guns to see which was worse in the context of this thread, wouldn't it?

As for your assertion that wheels were first invented for military purposes rather than transport and recreation, I'm sceptical. First came rollers - they were only useful for moving really heavy objects such as building blocks. Then came sledges; you could move smaller things more freely and quickly, but not really useful for charging an opposing army with.

Then came sledges on rollers. Much faster, but still not much good for military purposes. And after that, grooved rollers - "nearly-wheels". Relatively fast and manoeuverable, but crap for chariots. Eventually, someone worked out how to make a wheel. A heavy object, made of solid wood, and cumbersome. No-one knows what it was used for, but it was too heavy for a lightweight chariot. Maybe the first armoured personnel carrrier? Probably a cart.


Ozme: if the clear majority of people were for gun control it would pass.

With all due respect, that's bollocks. No - I take that back (the bollocks part: I still have respect for you): if the clear majority of people who actually voted on that issue were for gun control, it would pass. But have you ever had a vote on that single issue where the entire electorate took part? I suspect not. If only 3 people in America voted, 1 for and 2 against, it would pass. If only 1 person voted, it would pass. Those are the clear majorities needed.

Or just one NRA psychopath more than all "pro gun-control" voters would prevent it.

Apologies again. That was perjorative language.

It's nothing to do with freedom: you can be free without guns: I am. It's nothing to do with the War of Independence. That argument was won 250 years ago and the overbearing British are no longer a threat to you. And don't try to tell me that, if your government took it into its head to raise taxes on tea without letting you vote on it, you would all rise up agaisnt it, waving your hunting kalashnikovs and hunting bazookas and hunting grenade throwers. There's no taste for revolution in USA these days.

But of course, your government isn't going to do that, so there's no need to have the guns that they would have prevented you from using against them anyway.




Thorne: Yeah, I guess that would be equivalent to my getting my impressions of English bobbies from watching Benny Hill. Not necessarily the best source.

Benny Hill got it just about right ... except for the dolly birds running around in just their knickers.

As for your other points, they are as I expected, and I acknowledge their strength. But I reject them, of course.


Thorne: It's obvious that you have a higher regard for the "sanctity" of human life than I do.

'nuff said.




Ozme: And your hyperbole no longer impresses me. If you can only repeat yourself and have no desire to argue against the points others make... why are you even starting the threads?

A little harsh, no? I think this is a very important thread. And I thank mkemse for starting it. He is, after all, perfectly free to do so in your country. The fact that he is finding it necessary to repeat himself could very well be due to the fact that he has had no constructive suggestions from the "pro-gun" lobby about what to do regarding the poor students of America who are being shot like fish in a barrel. Is their right to life ... is the right of any one of them ... worth less than the right of a bunch of Kentucky hicks or Louisiana rednecks to shoot the wings off flies?

Perhaps they have nothing constructive to say in this regard?

[mkemse]

Osme: apologies for the misspelling - it's a natural tendency for us Brits to change all Amrican Z's to S's when we Anglicise words.

Laffin even harder than you about the car statistics. I asked if cars (the vehicles to which you had actually referred) were designed to kill, not war charriots (I'd ban those too if they were still around) or any other wheeled vehicle in general. I mean, it would be a meaningless comparison to set armoured vehicles against guns to see which was worse in the context of this thread, wouldn't it?

As for your assertion that wheels were first invented for military purposes rather than transport and recreation, I'm sceptical. First came rollers - they were only useful for moving really heavy objects such as building blocks. Then came sledges; you could move smaller things more freely and quickly, but not really useful for charging an opposing army with.

Then came sledges on rollers. Much faster, but still not much good for military purposes. And after that, grooved rollers - "nearly-wheels". Relatively fast and manoeuverable, but crap for chariots. Eventually, someone worked out how to make a wheel. A heavy object, made of solid wood, and cumbersome. No-one knows what it was used for, but it was too heavy for a lightweight chariot. Maybe the first armoured personnel carrrier? Probably a cart.



With all due respect, that's bollocks. No - I take that back (the bollocks part: I still have respect for you): if the clear majority of people who actually voted on that issue were for gun control, it would pass. But have you ever had a vote on that single issue where the entire electorate took part? I suspect not. If only 3 people in America voted, 1 for and 2 against, it would pass. If only 1 person voted, it would pass. Those are the clear majorities needed.

Or just one NRA psychopath more than all "pro gun-control" voters would prevent it.

Apologies again. That was perjorative language.

It's nothing to do with freedom: you can be free without guns: I am. It's nothing to do with the War of Independence. That argument was won 250 years ago and the overbearing British are no longer a threat to you. And don't try to tell me that, if your government took it into its head to raise taxes on tea without letting you vote on it, you would all rise up agaisnt it, waving your hunting kalashnikovs and hunting bazookas and hunting grenade throwers. There's no taste for revolution in USA these days.

But of course, your government isn't going to do that, so there's no need to have the guns that they would have prevented you from using against them anyway.





Benny Hill got it just about right ... except for the dolly birds running around in just their knickers.

As for your other points, they are as I expected, and I acknowledge their strength. But I reject them, of course.



'nuff said.





A little harsh, no? I think this is a very important thread. And I thank mkemse for starting it. He is, after all, perfectly free to do so in your country. The fact that he is finding it necessary to repeat himself could very well be due to the fact that he has had no constructive suggestions from the "pro-gun" lobby about what to do regarding the poor students of America who are being shot like fish in a barrel. Is their right to life ... is the right of any one of them ... worth less than the right of a bunch of Kentucky hicks or Louisiana rednecks to shoot the wings off flies?

Perhaps they have nothing constructive to say in this regard?

I have no problem what so ever with gun ownership, if person wants a rifle to hunt with, that is his or her choice, if they want a gun to protect their house and family i have no issue withthat either

What my objection is that virtualy anyone can obtain a semi automatic assault rifle or similar in a hand gun fro ms gun shop, the type of hand gun used in the recent college shooting Dekalb Illinois,it was a semi automatic rapis fire hand gun bought at a local gun shop
I see no reason for the average citizen NON gun collector to own a rapid fire gun that hold say 80 rounds the only purpose of an assault rifle is to kill, they are used my the military for that puprose, and collectors use them for display and most of them are not live guns they simply collect them
I do not believe for 1 second a person needs an assult rifle to deer hunt, duck hunt, bird hunt ect, not to mention i have never see an deer, bird, rabbit or any animal fire back , so whey an assault rifle, why is not a standard rifle alone not good enough to hunt with?? and why an assault rifle to protect you family and house a standard rifle wouls servce the purpose just fine
Woud I ever own gun, no i have no reason to owe one wouldi ever consider it if the need arose absolutely, not as of now I simply have no need ot own one

[Ozme52]

Laffin even harder than you about the car statistics. I asked if cars (the vehicles to which you had actually referred) were designed to kill, not war charriots (I'd ban those too if they were still around) or any other wheeled vehicle in general. I mean, it would be a meaningless comparison to set armoured vehicles against guns to see which was worse in the context of this thread, wouldn't it?
Laffin with ya... BUT...:rolleyes:



Main Entry: 1char·i·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈcher-ē-ət, ˈcha-rē-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Old French, from charrier to transport, from char vehicle, from Latin carrus — more at car
Date: 14th century
1 : a light four-wheeled pleasure or state carriage
2 : a two-wheeled horse-drawn battle car of ancient times used also in processions and races



As for your assertion that wheels were first invented for military purposes rather than transport and recreation, I actually said wheeled vehicles... specifically thinking of chariots, which in ancient texts such as the Iliad, are translated (by some) into English as cars. Yeah, I know it wasn't the context you meant the question but I couldn't resist.

Even the first definition of 'car' is the archaic use, today we use the word chariot... but it was originally a car.

So, the rest you say regarding wheels... probably true... but I think I snookered you on "cars". LOL,


With all due respect, that's bollocks. No - I take that back (the bollocks part: I still have respect for you): if the clear majority of people who actually voted on that issue were for gun control, it would pass. But have you ever had a vote on that single issue where the entire electorate took part? I suspect not. If only 3 people in America voted, 1 for and 2 against, it would pass. If only 1 person voted, it would pass. Those are the clear majorities needed.
I almost wish it were so. It would be good to know what most people think instead of what a few spokespersons claim.

On the other hand, I'm not all that convinced that people wouldn't just parrot what they hear from the current celebrities of the day. After-all, that's why the NRA used Charlton Heston... hell, if Moses says it, it's gotta be true.

So maybe it's a good thing the mob doesn't rule.

But my point was and still is... just because someone loudly proclaims that it's only the gun lobby that impedes the passage of this... well there are huge numbers of non-NRA folk who don't believe we should have gun control.



Or just one NRA psychopath more than all "pro gun-control" voters would prevent it.

Apologies again. That was perjorative language.

It's nothing to do with freedom: you can be free without guns: I am. It's nothing to do with the War of Independence. That argument was won 250 years ago and the overbearing British are no longer a threat to you. And don't try to tell me that, if your government took it into its head to raise taxes on tea without letting you vote on it, you would all rise up agaisnt it, waving your hunting kalashnikovs and hunting bazookas and hunting grenade throwers. There's no taste for revolution in USA these days.

But of course, your government isn't going to do that, so there's no need to have the guns that they would have prevented you from using against them anyway.
It's not about the assault rifles per se... but the 'worry' that the right to bear arms will be eroded. Take away assault rifles and then handguns and then largebore hunting rifles (no elephants in the U.S. ya know) and then any hunting rifle because we raise enough meat on farms and ranches for everyone... and... and... and eventually why do you even need a 'varmint rifle'.

I know it seems a ridiculous arguement... but tell that to my grandpa... but you can't... they took away his guns and then sent him and the family away.

[Ozme52]

A little harsh, no?

Definitely.



I think this is a very important thread. And I thank mkemse for starting it. He is, after all, perfectly free to do so in your country. The fact that he is finding it necessary to repeat himself could very well be due to the fact that he has had no constructive suggestions from the "pro-gun" lobby about what to do regarding the poor students of America who are being shot like fish in a barrel. Is their right to life ... is the right of any one of them ... worth less than the right of a bunch of Kentucky hicks or Louisiana rednecks to shoot the wings off flies?

Perhaps they have nothing constructive to say in this regard?

Why must the answer be gun control. Warbaby offerred up corporal punishment. I could suggest better psychiatric services.

The fact the man used a gun is irrelevant. He was unbalanced, stopped taking his medication.
So what if he used a gun. He could have used a knife or a club, a bat or an axe. He even could have used a car.

In fact... a few years ago someone wigged out and purposely drove his car onto a elementary school campus and killed some children there. He was a psych job... but no one (and I have to admit, I was thinking about this case when I started in about cars, no one suggested we ban cars. It was an automatic. (laffin) But it was also a luxury car. Why would anyone need a luxury car? A car is for transportation.

But if I were to be adamant about this position, you'd say I was flogging the proverbial dead horse. Yet is it really so different than saying gun ownership should be limited, or categorized by the kind of gun? Before you say "intent" I'll remind you of the statistics. More people die to accidental vehicle incidents than purposeful gun incidents. Maybe we should do something about that first? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Citing these kinds of incidents as a need for gun control is about caring more about the issue than the incident.

[mkemse]

Definitely.




Why must the answer be gun control. Warbaby offerred up corporal punishment. I could suggest better psychiatric services.

The fact the man used a gun is irrelevant. He was unbalanced, stopped taking his medication.
So what if he used a gun. He could have used a knife or a club, a bat or an axe. He even could have used a car.

In fact... a few years ago someone wigged out and purposely drove his car onto a elementary school campus and killed some children there. He was a psych job... but no one (and I have to admit, I was thinking about this case when I started in about cars, no one suggested we ban cars. It was an automatic. (laffin) But it was also a luxury car. Why would anyone need a luxury car? A car is for transportation.

But if I were to be adamant about this position, you'd say I was flogging the proverbial dead horse. Yet is it really so different than saying gun ownership should be limited, or categorized by the kind of gun? Before you say "intent" I'll remind you of the statistics. More people die to accidental vehicle incidents than purposeful gun incidents. Maybe we should do something about that first? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Citing these kinds of incidents as a need for gun control is about caring more about the issue than the incident.


But he also PASSED all the paperwork needed to get a gun, his stopping his medication etc is not relivent here, because he went through all the proper steps on paper work, his back ground checked came back all clear , there no a legal reason not to sell him the guns he bought which were from a licensed gun dealer, it was a legal legitimate sale based n his paper work and his clear background check, even the dealer was stunned to hear about what happened (so he said anyway)

[ThisYouWillDo]

Better eliminate all cars and motor vehicles too.

In 2002, for example, gun deaths numbered 28+ thousand.
Motorvehicle deaths numbered 43+ thousand...

:rolleyes: with drivers of automatics being the worst culprits. :rolleyes:

I don't know why you suddenly started talking about ancient modes of transport, but I have been referring to this post which clearly relates to 21st century statistics.

I find it hard to believe that the USA still collects statistics on deaths caused by chariots (especially as they have never been used there, not even motorised ones - except, perhaps, in Hollywood), and because of that, I feel somehow you've snookered yourself. Perhaps you were too engrossed in reading The Illiad to realise that my questions about the statistics you quoted were put in the (quite natural) belief that you were talking about cars or automobiles as those words are generally understood in the modern era.

But no matter.


Ozme: I almost wish it were so. It would be good to know what most people think instead of what a few spokespersons claim.

On the other hand, I'm not all that convinced that people wouldn't just parrot what they hear from the current celebrities of the day. After-all, that's why the NRA used Charlton Heston... hell, if Moses says it, it's gotta be true.

So maybe it's a good thing the mob doesn't rule.

But my point was and still is... just because someone loudly proclaims that it's only the gun lobby that impedes the passage of this... well there are huge numbers of non-NRA folk who don't believe we should have gun control.

No argument, and complete agreement with what you say about spokesmen attempting to represent the "will of the majority", whichever point of view they want to promote.


Ozme: It's not about the assault rifles per se... but the 'worry' that the right to bear arms will be eroded. Take away assault rifles and then handguns and then largebore hunting rifles (no elephants in the U.S. ya know) and then any hunting rifle because we raise enough meat on farms and ranches for everyone... and... and... and eventually why do you even need a 'varmint rifle'.

The right to bear arms is an anachronism. As I said, the 13 colonies obtained their freedom two and a half centuries ago, and then occupied or purchased much of the rest of the continent. The American people are under no threat except from their own government, and that represents no threat at all. And I contend that, if your government ever did want to oppress the American people, it would do so despite the fact that so many are armed. In fact, it would probably encourage hot-headed armed extremists to create unrest so that it could step in and impose "law and order" to protect everyone else.

What is a "varmint rifle"?


Ozme: I know it seems a ridiculous arguement... but tell that to my grandpa... but you can't... they took away his guns and then sent him and the family away.

I infer that your family suffered at the hands of an oppressive (European?) regime, for which I am sorry. As you have mentioned it here, I assume you anticipate a response. And it will be brief. It seems your family possessed firearms, but that did not help them when the oppressors took the guns away and deported them. So, yes, the argument does seem ridiculous.


Ozme: Definitely.

Unnecessarily so. Aren't you better than that?


Why must the answer be gun control. Warbaby offerred up corporal punishment. I could suggest better psychiatric services.

The fact the man used a gun is irrelevant. He was unbalanced, stopped taking his medication.
So what if he used a gun. He could have used a knife or a club, a bat or an axe. He even could have used a car.

In fact... a few years ago someone wigged out and purposely drove his car onto a elementary school campus and killed some children there. He was a psych job... but no one (and I have to admit, I was thinking about this case when I started in about cars, no one suggested we ban cars. It was an automatic. (laffin) But it was also a luxury car. Why would anyone need a luxury car? A car is for transportation.

But if I were to be adamant about this position, you'd say I was flogging the proverbial dead horse. Yet is it really so different than saying gun ownership should be limited, or categorized by the kind of gun? Before you say "intent" I'll remind you of the statistics. More people die to accidental vehicle incidents than purposeful gun incidents. Maybe we should do something about that first?

Citing these kinds of incidents as a need for gun control is about caring more about the issue than the incident.

Corporal punishment is as barbaric as capital punishment. As I said before, it demeans the person meting out the beatings as well as the poor sod who receives it. In any case, what form of corporal punishment is suitable for someone who kills a classfull of students? 1,000 lashes?

I agree with you that psychiatric services are a must. That implies that the death penalty will not be imposed, and I heartily applaud that.

Furthermore, if a person is spotted as a risk, those services can be utilised before any catastrophe occurs, and maybe avert it. So is part of the answer some kind of psycholgical profiling?

And is that already happening when it comes to buying guns?



mkemse: But he also PASSED all the paperwork needed to get a gun, his stopping his medication etc is not relivent here, because he went through all the proper steps on paper work, his back ground checked came back all clear ...

I don't know what those checks entailed, but it does indicate that all forms of checking are susceptible to failure at key times. Therefore, even with psychological profiling as a preventative, gun-controls remain desirable.


You cite an example of a lunatic using a car to kill children instead of a gun and ask, if guns should be banned because of these university killings, why cars shouldn't also banned as a consequence of this act. I tried to answer that question earlier, when you responded with the statistics I have pasted at the top of this post. Cars are, as you say designed as modes of transport, not as weapons. Guns, on the other hand have no purpose other than killing. Although that does include hunting (and like many other liberals, I would allow that, even though, in this day and age, hunting in America is a recreation rather than an essential for life - so maybe I wouldn't allow it after all).

And, supposing that happened; what would the consequences be compared to bannnng guns? No food or materials could be moved faster than a horsee could pull them. The economy would be ruined at a stroke.

No-one would die as a result of car accidents, but the number of people trampled by horses is likely to rise.

Now, if guns were banned, what would happen? Apart from a few job losses, nothing!

You cannot reasonably put that question, Ozme.

TYWD

[mkemse]

I don't know why you suddenly started talking about ancient modes of transport, but I have been referring to this post which clearly relates to 21st century statistics.

I find it hard to believe that the USA still collects statistics on deaths caused by chariots (especially as they have never been used there, not even motorised ones - except, perhaps, in Hollywood), and because of that, I feel somehow you've snookered yourself. Perhaps you were too engrossed in reading The Illiad to realise that my questions about the statistics you quoted were put in the (quite natural) belief that you were talking about cars or automobiles as those words are generally understood in the modern era.

But no matter.



No argument, and complete agreement with what you say about spokesmen attempting to represent the "will of the majority", whichever point of view they want to promote.



The right to bear arms is an anachronism. As I said, the 13 colonies obtained their freedom two and a half centuries ago, and then occupied or purchased much of the rest of the continent. The American people are under no threat except from their own government, and that represents no threat at all. And I contend that, if your government ever did want to oppress the American people, it would do so despite the fact that so many are armed. In fact, it would probably encourage hot-headed armed extremists to create unrest so that it could step in and impose "law and order" to protect everyone else.

What is a "varmint rifle"?



I infer that your family suffered at the hands of an oppressive (European?) regime, for which I am sorry. As you have mentioned it here, I assume you anticipate a response. And it will be brief. It seems your family possessed firearms, but that did not help them when the oppressors took the guns away and deported them. So, yes, the argument does seem ridiculous.



Unnecessarily so. Aren't you better than that?



Corporal punishment is as barbaric as capital punishment. As I said before, it demeans the person meting out the beatings as well as the poor sod who receives it. In any case, what form of corporal punishment is suitable for someone who kills a classfull of students? 1,000 lashes?

I agree with you that psychiatric services are a must. That implies that the death penalty will not be imposed, and I heartily applaud that.

Furthermore, if a person is spotted as a risk, those services can be utilised before any catastrophe occurs, and maybe avert it. So is part of the answer some kind of psycholgical profiling?

And is that already happening when it comes to buying guns?




I don't know what those checks entailed, but it does indicate that all forms of checking are susceptible to failure at key times. Therefore, even with psychological profiling as a preventative, gun-controls remain desirable.


You cite an example of a lunatic using a car to kill children instead of a gun and ask, if guns should be banned because of these university killings, why cars shouldn't also banned as a consequence of this act. I tried to answer that question earlier, when you responded with the statistics I have pasted at the top of this post. Cars are, as you say designed as modes of transport, not as weapons. Guns, on the other hand have no purpose other than killing. Although that does include hunting (and like many other liberals, I would allow that, even though, in this day and age, hunting in America is a recreation rather than an essential for life - so maybe I wouldn't allow it after all).

And, supposing that happened; what would the consequences be compared to bannnng guns? No food or materials could be moved faster than a horsee could pull them. The economy would be ruined at a stroke.

No-one would die as a result of car accidents, but the number of people trampled by horses is likely to rise.

Now, if guns were banned, what would happen? Apart from a few job losses, nothing!

You cannot reasonably put that question, Ozme.

TYWD


First unless it was not directed at me I never ever suggested guns be banned only assult rifles to the gennral public they have no use with the general public becauee those type weapons are designed for military use not general public use, what use would you have personal to own a full automatic assault rifle, and do not just say the right to bear arm,s assault rifle in the hands of private citizens is as dangerous as it gets
My only objection to gun owership private gun owner ship is assaulr rifle and assault hand guns, if someone wants to own a hand gun, a regular hand gun i have no issue with it if someone wants to own a rifle for hunting or to protect their family let them have one

if someone wantsa to own a full automatic assault rifle or a simialr in a hand gun, yes i have a HUGE issue with that why does anyoneneed a rifle for private usethat fire 80 roundsa second to hunt?? a stanard rifle and or hand gun for hunting or protecting ones family is all they need, you can ban assualt riflesand similar hand gund with ut aking away anyonesright to bear arms

[ThisYouWillDo]

My message was for general consumption, but was in response to Ozme's posts.

However, I think it explains why I think all guns are unnecessary - at least for ordinary citizens.

[TomOfSweden]

I knew in my heart you would bow out of the automatic v. stick-shift argument. No heart Tom? :icon176:



I don't think has to do with heart. For me it's simply down to reading statistics and manipulating government policies to minimise violent crime and murder. As long as it's done within a democratic framework, I don't really care how it is achieved.

It's a more complicated issue than just banning guns. But it's painfully obvious that USA's policy it has had sucks monkey balls as far as violent crime and murder is concerned. If I'd be American, (or rather US citizen, WTF do you guys call yourself?)

I'd personally demand political changes to be made to fix the problem, but who cares what I think here in Sweden :)

There are many roots of the problem and I do think they have been identified. The solutions go something like this:

* Decrease poverty.
* Decrease alienation of the poor.
* Lessen the availability of guns.

I'm convinced of that acting on any of those will lessen the problem. The two first are related, but giving convicted criminals the right to vote would be a good first step. Having affordable and good state sponsored schools on all levels is another one of those fairly cheap ways to raise the poor out of hopelessness. Removing the guns is of course by far the cheapest solution, but not the least complicated and is a very very long term solution.

But USA is very rich which no doubt is the result of having such little aid to the poor. Being poor in USA only sucks slightly less than being poor in the jungles of Africa. They have plenty of reasons to work hard as hell. And they do and USA is rich, so there is obviously a positive pay off.

The important thing to reconcile is that USA has the high-school shootings they do and the high prevalence of murder because that is what the voters have chosen. US voters want this society. They obviously think the heightened chance of getting their kids mowed down in school is a price worth paying for their wealth and right to bear arms. They might not have reasoned just like this on their way to the voting booths, but this is the choice they made.

...and then we've got crazy people. Crazy people without guns are just as crazy as crazy people with guns, the difference is that they can't shoot anybody. But mental care is an extremely expensive solution to this problem.

It's a complex issue with many solutions, and all the solutions costs money and freedoms. The question is simply if you think the price is worth paying?

[ThisYouWillDo]

Personally, I think USA would benefit from taking a long hard look at how European countries deal with issues such as these, so it should care what Swedes say. Maybe, then, it could see itself more clearly in a brighter light. It is not alone in the world, and it has no monopoly on what is right.

I think Tom's suggestions are probably the best on offer so far. Certainly poverty is an issue, because I am sure that most armed crime is committed by the poor and hopeless. Education, too, is important, and I would suggest that smaller schools would go a long way to helping, too. Where students number a few hundred rather than several hundred or even thousands, they become impersonal and potentially hostile places where all forms of bullying and petty crime can flourish unchecked: smaller schools can identify such behaviour quicker and stamp it out easier. Also, it is easier to identify with a smaller school and build ties of loyalty. This is character forming. I would suggest also that smaller schools would be able to produce better levels of education, so fewer people, even poor people, would feel quite so helpless and hopeless.

But none of that stops the "crazies". And they must either be prevented from assassinating their school chums, or they must suffer punishment for doing so afterwards. If prevention is seen as better than cure, isn't the first step to make it nigh on impossible to get hold of guns?

Sure, it means that a "freedom" is sacrificed: the freedom to do what? And does that amount to a hill of beans?

TYWD

[Ozme52]

I don't know why you suddenly started talking about ancient modes of transport, but I have been referring to this post which clearly relates to 21st century statistics.

I find it hard to believe that the USA still collects statistics on deaths caused by chariots (especially as they have never been used there, not even motorised ones - except, perhaps, in Hollywood), and because of that, I feel somehow you've snookered yourself. Perhaps you were too engrossed in reading The Illiad to realise that my questions about the statistics you quoted were put in the (quite natural) belief that you were talking about cars or automobiles as those words are generally understood in the modern era.

But no matter.

Hey. I introduced the statistics. YOU asked about the original intent of cars. I pointed out the first cars were war chariots (by definition) I didn't bring any chariot statistics, I just answered your question as to the original intent of cars.

So don't act like I started the chariot conversation. I was making a point that there are things in our lives far more dangerous than guns. You wanted to bring the intention of the thing into play... so I pointed out cars were once pure weapons.

BTW, You should read the Iliad too. (Or again.) It has a lot of good theological perspective too.





The right to bear arms is an anachronism.

So you think... but you have to grow up in the US to understand the emotions behind the issues. I'm sure there are anachronisms you enjoy in your country that many people treasure... and far be it for me to say it's out of date... a royal family for example.


What is a "varmint rifle"?


Main Entry: var·mint
Pronunciation: \ˈvär-mənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of vermin
Date: circa 1539
1: an animal considered a pest; specifically : one classed as vermin and unprotected by game law
2: a contemptible person : rascal; broadly : person, fellow


A gun for eliminating pests as defined in the first definition.


I infer that your family suffered at the hands of an oppressive (European?) regime, for which I am sorry. As you have mentioned it here, I assume you anticipate a response. And it will be brief. It seems your family possessed firearms, but that did not help them when the oppressors took the guns away and deported them. So, yes, the argument does seem ridiculous.

The issue is that they gave up their guns... and later gave up their liberty and their lives. Perhaps if they'd still had their guns... their oppressors wouldn't have been so successful.


Unnecessarily so. Aren't you better than that?

Usually. I guess what I really should do is walk away because EVERY thread he starts he wants to use solely as a political stump. He even started one today and has stated the bounds of the conversation. His right I guess... but he'd be getting his ass reamed on a regular basis if he were doing it in a political forum instead of this supposedly sexual forum. We're much more polite.

I guess I forgot where I was...



Corporal punishment is as barbaric as capital punishment. As I said before, it demeans the person meting out the beatings as well as the poor sod who receives it. In any case, what form of corporal punishment is suitable for someone who kills a classfull of students? 1,000 lashes?

Geeze, Why do you always go to the extreme!! Who said lashing? Warbaby is in favor of a good spanking for misbehaving children. Maybe they'd have a better understanding of bad behavior begets harsh consequences. Because children who NEVER face some form of penultimate punishment from their parents just wear their parents down until they give up.

And then they go through life thinking they can do whatever they please without consequence.



I agree with you that psychiatric services are a must. That implies that the death penalty will not be imposed, and I heartily applaud that. NO!! The question was what could be done to prevent the incident. That is what both Warbaby and I were answering. You obviously think we're talking about how to deal with it after the fact...

I hate having to defend myself against things I didn't say.



You cite an example of a lunatic using a car to kill children instead of a gun and ask, if guns should be banned because of these university killings, why cars shouldn't also banned as a consequence of this act. I tried to answer that question earlier, when you responded with the statistics I have pasted at the top of this post. Cars are, as you say designed as modes of transport, not as weapons. Guns, on the other hand have no purpose other than killing. Although that does include hunting (and like many other liberals, I would allow that, even though, in this day and age, hunting in America is a recreation rather than an essential for life - so maybe I wouldn't allow it after all).

And, supposing that happened; what would the consequences be compared to bannnng guns? No food or materials could be moved faster than a horsee could pull them. The economy would be ruined at a stroke.

No-one would die as a result of car accidents, but the number of people trampled by horses is likely to rise.



My gun/car comment was to point out that, in my opinion, the gun is not the problem. People are. But that argument is always discounted by gun control enthusiasts in their zeal to take away my rights.

If half the effort and money that goes into the gun control lobby (which rarely gets defamed the way you like to defame the gun rights lobby) maybe there'd be more progress in the field of detecting psychotic behavior. (See!! I can make inane comments with the best of them.)


Now, if guns were banned, what would happen? Apart from a few job losses, nothing!

You cannot reasonably put that question, Ozme.

TYWD

As I pointed out earlier, you don't understand the issue. What would happen? You would turn, literally, a hundred million law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight. They wouldn't turn in their guns.

[Ozme52]

I have no problem what so ever with gun ownership, if person wants a rifle to hunt with, that is his or her choice, if they want a gun to protect their house and family i have no issue withthat either

What my objection is that virtualy anyone can obtain a semi automatic assault rifle or similar in a hand gun fro ms gun shop, the type of hand gun used in the recent college shooting Dekalb Illinois,it was a semi automatic rapis fire hand gun bought at a local gun shop
I see no reason for the average citizen NON gun collector to own a rapid fire gun that hold say 80 rounds the only purpose of an assault rifle is to kill, they are used my the military for that puprose, and collectors use them for display and most of them are not live guns they simply collect them
I do not believe for 1 second a person needs an assult rifle to deer hunt, duck hunt, bird hunt ect, not to mention i have never see an deer, bird, rabbit or any animal fire back , so whey an assault rifle, why is not a standard rifle alone not good enough to hunt with?? and why an assault rifle to protect you family and house a standard rifle wouls servce the purpose just fine
Woud I ever own gun, no i have no reason to owe one wouldi ever consider it if the need arose absolutely, not as of now I simply have no need ot own one

Many wheelguns (revolvers) can be fired far more rapidly than semi-automatic pistols.

To my knowledge, there are no semi-automatic pistols that hold 80 rounds.

And you're vascillating. So no one who is a NON-collector should be banned from owning such guns.

Better define that. How does one get 'collector' status?

What about shotguns? Multiple projectiles which scatter into a wide area... pretty indiscriminant.

What about scoped (sniper) rifles? They fall well within the bounds you approve of. Single shot, small magazine.

You're clearly one of those who think pecking away at my rights bit by bit is the way to go... and that's why I object to any sort of gun control. Because those of your type don't stop. Give them an inch, they want a mile.

[Ozme52]

I don't think has to do with heart. For me it's simply down to reading statistics and manipulating government policies to minimise violent crime and murder. As long as it's done within a democratic framework, I don't really care how it is achieved.
um... that was said tongue in cheek. automatic v. stick shift (transmission humor) I wasn't poking at ya.

It's a more complicated issue than just banning guns. But it's painfully obvious that USA's policy it has had sucks monkey balls as far as violent crime and murder is concerned. If I'd be American, (or rather US citizen, WTF do you guys call yourself?)
We call ourselves Americans but it seems to tick off the rest of the western hemisphere....

I'd personally demand political changes to be made to fix the problem, but who cares what I think here in Sweden :)

There are many roots of the problem and I do think they have been identified. The solutions go something like this:

* Decrease poverty.
* Decrease alienation of the poor.
* Lessen the availability of guns.

I'm convinced of that acting on any of those will lessen the problem. The two first are related, but giving convicted criminals the right to vote would be a good first step. Having affordable and good state sponsored schools on all levels is another one of those fairly cheap ways to raise the poor out of hopelessness. Removing the guns is of course by far the cheapest solution, but not the least complicated and is a very very long term solution.

But USA is very rich which no doubt is the result of having such little aid to the poor. Being poor in USA only sucks slightly less than being poor in the jungles of Africa. They have plenty of reasons to work hard as hell. And they do and USA is rich, so there is obviously a positive pay off.

The important thing to reconcile is that USA has the high-school shootings they do and the high prevalence of murder because that is what the voters have chosen. US voters want this society. They obviously think the heightened chance of getting their kids mowed down in school is a price worth paying for their wealth and right to bear arms. They might not have reasoned just like this on their way to the voting booths, but this is the choice they made.

...and then we've got crazy people. Crazy people without guns are just as crazy as crazy people with guns, the difference is that they can't shoot anybody. But mental care is an extremely expensive solution to this problem.

It's a complex issue with many solutions, and all the solutions costs money and freedoms. The question is simply if you think the price is worth paying?

You've opened up a lot of issues. Some I agree, the ones that address problems without impinging on my rights, I can go along with those. I can even see us paying for them... and it would be cheap if we eliminated waste in our government (but that's another debate,) and some I don't.

But the question 'is it worth a few freedoms...' No, it's not worth the price. Take those away (and I'm not talking about gun rights... but the one thereafter and the one thereafter and the one thereafter...) and eventually the only thing I have to fear is doing anything without prior permission.

You don't think so? It's not just about the American Revolution. Our entire history is about rights. And it's much harder to gain a right than lose it. So every time I see one eroded away it really bothers me.

My father told me I have no idea of the things I'm not allowed to do that he took for granted. As I get older, I see it too, things that were my right to decide about my own conduct as a young adult that I risk arrest and/or fine for doing today.

I can't say for other countries... but it might be an interesting question to pose to your own parents.

[J-Go]

You know one would think that only in America do whacked out people shoot people. I suppose in other parts of the world they just knife them club them or blow them up. At the end of the day the method is not much of an argument…these people are still dead. The point is we live on a violent planet, beings kill and get killed and have since life hit the planet. So really a conversation as to what to do about this only leads to well....this. A bunch of opinions and although well meaning and sincere from the standpoint of “mostly sane” people as we have here on the forum, is unlikely to change a damn thing.
We are here for the experience of living, part of that experience is death and war and all sorts of nasty wicked evil shit. Of course the press in any country loves it. When was the last time anyone saw this media headline "25,000 students lived their lives to the best of there abilities today and hurt absolutely no one!" film at 11:00!!
I’m terribly sorry for the families of these people, I can’t even imagine, but am I outraged…honestly no. It’s terrible, tragic, and all that but it’s also the experience of life…sometimes it just sucks and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. Fortunately the overwhelming majority of people on this planet manage to keep it together and live a life in pursuit of happiness and love for themselves and their neighbors…thanks to all of you for that.

[Ozme52]

Personally, I think USA would benefit from taking a long hard look at how European countries deal with issues such as these, so it should care what Swedes say. Maybe, then, it could see itself more clearly in a brighter light. It is not alone in the world, and it has no monopoly on what is right.

Damn but that's condescending of you.

How lovely it must be to be so insular to think you would even have the right to have this conversation if (pick one)

Communism,
Nazi Germany,
The Triple Alliance, or
Napolean Bonaparte had been more successful. (I get hazy thereafter.)

We are what we are specifically because of how history unfolded. A large part of your current freedoms are about, is because of how your international neighbors conduct themselves... and in the last century, to a great degree, the US.

I'm not here to knock anyone (as you seem so fond of doing) but if the US acted like Sweden during WWII, would you be speaking German? Russian? Hell man, would the Swedes be speaking those languages?

See TY. I can be condescending too!



I think Tom's suggestions are probably the best on offer so far. Certainly poverty is an issue, because I am sure that most armed crime is committed by the poor and hopeless. Education, too, is important, and I would suggest that smaller schools would go a long way to helping, too. Where students number a few hundred rather than several hundred or even thousands, they become impersonal and potentially hostile places where all forms of bullying and petty crime can flourish unchecked: smaller schools can identify such behaviour quicker and stamp it out easier. Also, it is easier to identify with a smaller school and build ties of loyalty. This is character forming. I would suggest also that smaller schools would be able to produce better levels of education, so fewer people, even poor people, would feel quite so helpless and hopeless.

But none of that stops the "crazies". And they must either be prevented from assassinating their school chums, or they must suffer punishment for doing so afterwards. If prevention is seen as better than cure, isn't the first step to make it nigh on impossible to get hold of guns?No! The tools of choice for the young has traditionally been knives and clubs and pipes and chains and have done plenty of damage and harm... Eliminate guns and other weapons will be used. Bombs maybe. You seem to think the controlling the tool eliminates the problem. Or at least you delight in saying so when it comes to guns.



Sure, it means that a "freedom" is sacrificed: the freedom to do what? And does that amount to a hill of beans?

TYWD

Fine. We can discuss a lot of things and get heated or not... But as you are so dismissive of my sensibilities... that I hold my freedoms dear, it's no longer worth discussing.

[mkemse]

You know one would think that only in America do whacked out people shoot people. I suppose in other parts of the world they just knife them club them or blow them up. At the end of the day the method is not much of an argument…these people are still dead. The point is we live on a violent planet, beings kill and get killed and have since life hit the planet. So really a conversation as to what to do about this only leads to well....this. A bunch of opinions and although well meaning and sincere from the standpoint of “mostly sane” people as we have here on the forum, is unlikely to change a damn thing.
We are here for the experience of living, part of that experience is death and war and all sorts of nasty wicked evil shit. Of course the press in any country loves it. When was the last time anyone saw this media headline "25,000 students lived their lives to the best of there abilities today and hurt absolutely no one!" film at 11:00!!
I’m terribly sorry for the families of these people, I can’t even imagine, but am I outraged…honestly no. It’s terrible, tragic, and all that but it’s also the experience of life…sometimes it just sucks and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. Fortunately the overwhelming majority of people on this planet manage to keep it together and live a life in pursuit of happiness and love for themselves and their neighbors…thanks to all of you for that.

I do notthink that as an American Citizen only unless it is a major shooting Americans do not hear too often about massacres like that in othercountries, I have no doubtthis problem is world wide ramdon murders like school assualts onbly we rarely hear about it from other countries that's all

[ThisYouWillDo]

This discussion again. It's bound to be heated so I'm going to make some popcorn and lean back.

...


Ozme: So don't act like I started the chariot conversation. I was making a point that there are things in our lives far more dangerous than guns. You wanted to bring the intention of the thing into play... so I pointed out cars were once pure weapons.

You bloody-well did start the chariot conversation, by deliberately misinterpreting my use of the word "car", as you yourself admitted when you said: "I actually said wheeled vehicles... specifically thinking of chariots, which in ancient texts such as the Iliad, are translated (by some) into English as cars. Yeah, I know it wasn't the context you meant the question but I couldn't resist" (emphasis supplied).


I'm not here to knock anyone (as you seem so fond of doing) but if the US acted like Sweden during WWII, would you be speaking German? Russian? Hell man, would the Swedes be speaking those languages?


As a matter of fact, Swedes are a linguistically gifted people and almost all of them speak English better than you or I do. In addition, many also speak German, and, of course can be understood in Norwegian and Danish too. They are not to be blamed for their neutrality during the War any more than Switzerland, Spain, Portugal or Ireland are. <Sigh> I suppose I'm knocking you again, but, as you've brought it up, I feel bound to point out that during WW2, right up to the moment USA was dragged into the war, we in Britain were shitting bricks that you'd join in on the other side! And it was a close call too: Pearl Harbour was, for the Allies, a blessing, because it meant that Germany would declare war on USA in support of the Japanese, and USA would no longer have a choice about which side it was going to fight on. (Oh yes: FD Roosevelt regarded the British Empire as an obstacle to US trade and knew that a Eurpoean war would cripple it, so that America could then move in on the former colonies like carrion crows and take over as primary trading partner.) So, if things had turned out differently, and the only way FDR could see to ruin the British Empire was to fight on the other side, we might very well have been speaking German.

But what we already speak is akin to Frisian because Britons are Germans - Anglo Saxons - and that's where our desire to dominate the world must have come from. And America is also predominently of Anglo Saxon descent ... So now you know where America gets it from. (From your previous postings, Ozme, I guess you're not of Anglo Saxon origin, for which, no doubt, you give much thanks.)


How lovely it must be to be so insular to think you would even have the right to have this conversation if (pick one)

Communism,
Nazi Germany,
The Triple Alliance, or
Napolean Bonaparte had been more successful. (I get hazy thereafter.)

I don't think gun-control was ever an issue regarding any of the above. Certainly, I don't owe my freedom to speak my mind to the right to keep a semi-automatic under my bed and a handgun under my pillow.


But all that is way off point

Gun control isn't. I have no compunction about saying that possession of weapons ought to be subject to tight controls, even if it does affect a freedom you cherish, because I believe that no-one can possibly own a gun without contemplating killing someone, and I think killing is wrong. If I think your reasons against gun-control are stupid, I shall say so, knowing perfectly well that you can, and probably will, defend your position just as vigorously. I have had this debate in other threads and as a result, I have modified my views to the extent that, while I think the gun lobby is still wrong, I understand the opposing views are sincerely held - which is something I couldn't comprehend before. Sincerely held ... but wrong.

If you feel there is no further point in arguing the question, I'm sorry that we'll lose your input. It's been fun.

But, before you go, I would mention that I would ban any offensive weapon - gun, knife or club - and punish people who break that law severely if I could. However, guns are much worse than any other weapon because they can cause so much more carnage in seconds than the others could in a much greater time span, and so they deserve to be made a special case.

J-go: yes we have our lunatics - we have had people shoot kids in school playgrounds in the past. As a result, we did something about it: we tightened our already strict gun controls to make it almost impossible to get hold of a gun legally. Possession of an illegal firearm will, of course, land you in gaol.

There are plenty of illegal firearms around, admittedly. Some are held by teenage "rebels" and most of the rest seem to be held by drug dealers from Jamaica. Fortunately, gunfights and gun deaths are relatively few, and seem to be confined to the circles in which those people move. Generally speaking, they are not the kind of people who would go mad in a university or college.

TYWD

[J-Go]

Well you both have, I think, made my point. You have proven you could do quite well on the Harvard or Cambridge debate club; you have a solid grasp on WWII history and the constitution and at least one language. ThisYouWillDo you and I share a suspicion of FDR’s motives…probably for different reasons. Our history teachers tell us here in the States, he was trying to bail our country out of economic collapse and, of course the Great Depression was a nasty time for us here in the states…(FYI we do refer to ourselves as Americans but that’s not my point). Personally, all his good intensions aside, FDR ended up being the father of American social ism, of which the cost to this country makes the Great Depression look like a bargain. But hey there is a whole new thread!
My point is this, it’s a nice debate and everyone has gotten delightfully indignant and all but THEY ARE ALL STILL DEAD. And tomorrow more people will die somewhere else…so it goes. We can ban every gun on the planet and it won’t change a thing.

[mkemse]

Well you both have, I think, made my point. You have proven you could do quite well on the Harvard or Cambridge debate club; you have a solid grasp on WWII history and the constitution and at least one language. ThisYouWillDo you and I share a suspicion of FDR’s motives…probably for different reasons. Our history teachers tell us here in the States he was trying to bail our country out of economic collapse and, of course the Great Depression was a nasty time for us here in the states…(FYI we do refer to ourselves as Americans but that’s not my point). Personally, all his good intensions aside, FDR ended up being the father of American social ism, of which the cost to this country makes the Great Depression look like a bargain. But hey there is a whole new thread!
My point is this, it’s a nice debate and everyone has gotten delightfully indignant and all but THEY ARE ALL STILL DEAD. And tomorrow more people will die somewhere else…so it goes. We can ban every gun on the planet and it won’t change a thing.

The point is missed entirely, I never intended this post to be about bannnig guns, my point has always been JUST semi automatci and full automitic assualit rife and semi automatic and fully automatic hand guns, i would love ANYONE in this forum to show m wher it say ALL GUNDS BE BANNED it was orginaly designed to ask simply with all the recent college and high school shooting,what do people thing shoulsd be done,
Rifle ownership for hunting yes, handgun ownership for protection yes if you so choose FULL AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLE AND HANDGUNS FOR GNENERAL PUBLIX USE, NO AND WHY WOULD YOU NEED THESE 2 TYPE OF GUN FOR EVERYDAY USE, YOU DO NOT NEED A FULL AUTOMATIC GUN OR RIFLE TO HUNT

thank you

[J-Go]

Oh shit mkemse you have never been hunting with me! I can't hit the side of a barn...I need several rounds all at once to even have a chance! *grin*

[mkemse]

Oh shit mkemse you have never been hunting with me! I can't hit the side of a barn...I need several rounds all at once to even have a chance! *grin*

And your point is??

why would you need a fully automatic assault rife to hunt??

[Thorne]

during WW2, right up to the moment USA was dragged into the war, we in Britain were shitting bricks that you'd join in on the other side! And it was a close call too: Pearl Harbour was, for the Allies, a blessing, because it meant that Germany would declare war on USA in support of the Japanese, and USA would no longer have a choice about which side it was going to fight on. (Oh yes: FD Roosevelt regarded the British Empire as an obstacle to US trade and knew that a Eurpoean war would cripple it, so that America could then move in on the former colonies like carrion crows and take over as primary trading partner.) So, if things had turned out differently, and the only way FDR could see to ruin the British Empire was to fight on the other side, we might very well have been speaking German.

I'm a student of WWII and I've never heard anything like this before. FDR was helping out England long before Pearl Harbor, and against the wishes of Congress and possibly the majority of American people, who wanted to remain out of the war. FDR came up with the idea of Lend/Lease which allowed him to send weapons and supplies to England and later Russia, even though we were not yet in the war. I doubt that there was ever much of a chance of the US joining with Hitler. The Jewish owned banks would not have allowed it, for one thing. And let's not forget, there were Americans fighting WITH the British well before Pearl Harbor, notably in the Eagle Squadron. In fact, there was an American "observer" on Catalina Z of Coastal Command, which located the Bismarck after she'd slipped away from the British cruisers which had been tailing her. ("Pursuit" by Ludovic Kennedy)
As for the Empire being an obstacle to trade, I must admit I'm not very well informed on economic activities of the era, so I can't really comment on that. But this is definitely the first time I've ever heard anything which suggested the possibility of the US joining Germany.

[Thorne]

Oh shit mkemse you have never been hunting with me! I can't hit the side of a barn...I need several rounds all at once to even have a chance! *grin*

Try a bazooka, or better yet, a 60mm mortar. Won't have much left for food or trophies, but it's hard to miss. And it makes a quite satisfying BANG to boot!

[mkemse]

Try a bazooka, or better yet, a 60mm mortar. Won't have much left for food or trophies, but it's hard to miss. And it makes a quite satisfying BANG to boot!

Thanks for you reply maybe RPG would work also LOL!!

[TomOfSweden]

We call ourselves Americans but it seems to tick off the rest of the western hemisphere....


Um...yeah... But pissing people off seems to be some kind of popular national past time for USA so I guess it makes sense.




You've opened up a lot of issues. Some I agree, the ones that address problems without impinging on my rights, I can go along with those. I can even see us paying for them... and it would be cheap if we eliminated waste in our government (but that's another debate,) and some I don't.

But the question 'is it worth a few freedoms...' No, it's not worth the price. Take those away (and I'm not talking about gun rights... but the one thereafter and the one thereafter and the one thereafter...) and eventually the only thing I have to fear is doing anything without prior permission.

You don't think so? It's not just about the American Revolution. Our entire history is about rights. And it's much harder to gain a right than lose it. So every time I see one eroded away it really bothers me.

My father told me I have no idea of the things I'm not allowed to do that he took for granted. As I get older, I see it too, things that were my right to decide about my own conduct as a young adult that I risk arrest and/or fine for doing today.

I can't say for other countries... but it might be an interesting question to pose to your own parents.

This is impossible to argue against. I believe in democracy. This is what you want, and US citizens like voting for, so this is the society you've got. I don't think there's a clear wrong or right here. There are strong arguments for either side. I wouldn't personally agree with your argumentation, but that is my highly subjective opinion. I don't think I'm obviously more right than you.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I'm a student of WWII and I've never heard anything like this before. FDR was helping out England long before Pearl Harbor, and against the wishes of Congress and possibly the majority of American people, who wanted to remain out of the war. FDR came up with the idea of Lend/Lease which allowed him to send weapons and supplies to England and later Russia, even though we were not yet in the war. I doubt that there was ever much of a chance of the US joining with Hitler. The Jewish owned banks would not have allowed it, for one thing. And let's not forget, there were Americans fighting WITH the British well before Pearl Harbor, notably in the Eagle Squadron. In fact, there was an American "observer" on Catalina Z of Coastal Command, which located the Bismarck after she'd slipped away from the British cruisers which had been tailing her. ("Pursuit" by Ludovic Kennedy)
As for the Empire being an obstacle to trade, I must admit I'm not very well informed on economic activities of the era, so I can't really comment on that. But this is definitely the first time I've ever heard anything which suggested the possibility of the US joining Germany.


Shall we put this on another thread?

[Thorne]

Shall we put this on another thread?

Works for me. It does stray from the original topic.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Well you both have, I think, made my point. You have proven you could do quite well on the Harvard or Cambridge debate club; you have a solid grasp on WWII history and the constitution and at least one language. ThisYouWillDo you and I share a suspicion of FDR’s motives…probably for different reasons. Our history teachers tell us here in the States, he was trying to bail our country out of economic collapse and, of course the Great Depression was a nasty time for us here in the states…(FYI we do refer to ourselves as Americans but that’s not my point). Personally, all his good intensions aside, FDR ended up being the father of American social ism, of which the cost to this country makes the Great Depression look like a bargain. But hey there is a whole new thread!
My point is this, it’s a nice debate and everyone has gotten delightfully indignant and all but THEY ARE ALL STILL DEAD. And tomorrow more people will die somewhere else…so it goes. We can ban every gun on the planet and it won’t change a thing.

If he was a socia1ist, I like the guy after all!

(No guns on the planet: no-one gets shot.)

[mkemse]

If he was a socia1ist, I like the guy after all!

(No guns on the planet: no-one gets shot.)


No sure where or how the subject went from what to do about shootings at schols to banning guns on the planet??

[ThisYouWillDo]

My contention is that, to prevent future college massacres, the first step should be to ban all guns. "All guns on the planet" was just an extension of that suggestion - a good one to my mind.

[mkemse]

My contention is that, to prevent future college massacres, the first step should be to ban all guns. "All guns on the planet" was just an extension of that suggestion - a good one to my mind.

The only proble with that is that in the United State our Federal Consitution gurantee us theright obeararms, assualtrifle didnot exist in 1776 so that is what they debatehere is no, our contistution doesnot prohibit assualt rifefrombeing owed but since they didnot exist then one one would have had any way to knowthey would have
if you ban guns entriely what do plice do for protection, or the miltary use for war??

[spammik]

I don't think has to do with heart. For me it's simply down to reading statistics and manipulating government policies to minimise violent crime and murder. As long as it's done within a democratic framework, I don't really care how it is achieved.

It's a more complicated issue than just banning guns. But it's painfully obvious that USA's policy it has had sucks monkey balls as far as violent crime and murder is concerned. If I'd be American, (or rather US citizen, WTF do you guys call yourself?)

I'd personally demand political changes to be made to fix the problem, but who cares what I think here in Sweden :)

There are many roots of the problem and I do think they have been identified. The solutions go something like this:

* Decrease poverty.
* Decrease alienation of the poor.
* Lessen the availability of guns.

I'm convinced of that acting on any of those will lessen the problem. The two first are related, but giving convicted criminals the right to vote would be a good first step. Having affordable and good state sponsored schools on all levels is another one of those fairly cheap ways to raise the poor out of hopelessness. Removing the guns is of course by far the cheapest solution, but not the least complicated and is a very very long term solution.

But USA is very rich which no doubt is the result of having such little aid to the poor. Being poor in USA only sucks slightly less than being poor in the jungles of Africa. They have plenty of reasons to work hard as hell. And they do and USA is rich, so there is obviously a positive pay off.

The important thing to reconcile is that USA has the high-school shootings they do and the high prevalence of murder because that is what the voters have chosen. US voters want this society. They obviously think the heightened chance of getting their kids mowed down in school is a price worth paying for their wealth and right to bear arms. They might not have reasoned just like this on their way to the voting booths, but this is the choice they made.

...and then we've got crazy people. Crazy people without guns are just as crazy as crazy people with guns, the difference is that they can't shoot anybody. But mental care is an extremely expensive solution to this problem.

It's a complex issue with many solutions, and all the solutions costs money and freedoms. The question is simply if you think the price is worth paying?
I don't think has to do with heart. For me it's simply down to reading statistics and manipulating government policies to minimise violent crime and murder. As long as it's done within a democratic framework, I don't really care how it is achieved.

It's a more complicated issue than just banning guns. But it's painfully obvious that USA's policy it has had sucks monkey balls as far as violent crime and murder is concerned. If I'd be American, (or rather US citizen, WTF do you guys call yourself?)

I'd personally demand political changes to be made to fix the problem, but who cares what I think here in Sweden

There are many roots of the problem and I do think they have been identified. The solutions go something like this:

* Decrease poverty.
* Decrease alienation of the poor.
* Lessen the availability of guns.

I'm convinced of that acting on any of those will lessen the problem. The two first are related, but giving convicted criminals the right to vote would be a good first step. Having affordable and good state sponsored schools on all levels is another one of those fairly cheap ways to raise the poor out of hopelessness. Removing the guns is of course by far the cheapest solution, but not the least complicated and is a very very long term solution.

Yes we do need to do something about poverty and I see that happening every day in many parts of the country. The US may be viewed as rich however my family and extended family are not rich. We lived in many parts of the US as my father worked for General Motors. Yes there are rich people in the US however there are many many more that are not rich. We work hard, raise our kids, pray and work at improving the world around us. None of my brothers and sisters own guns and we have not voted for the violence or condon it. Yes I vote and hope that the person I voted for will stand behind his/her promises,yes maybe a bit unrealistic, made.
But USA is very rich which no doubt is the result of having such little aid to the poor. Being poor in USA only sucks slightly less than being poor in the jungles of Africa. They have plenty of reasons to work hard as hell. And they do and USA is rich, so there is obviously a positive pay off.

The important thing to reconcile is that USA has the high-school shootings they do and the high prevalence of murder because that is what the voters have chosen. US voters want this society. They obviously think the heightened chance of getting their kids mowed down in school is a price worth paying for their wealth and right to bear arms. They might not have reasoned just like this on their way to the voting booths, but this is the choice they made.

...and then we've got crazy people. Crazy people without guns are just as crazy as crazy people with guns, the difference is that they can't shoot anybody. But mental care is an extremely expensive solution to this problem.

It's a complex issue with many solutions, and all the solutions costs money and freedoms. The question is simply if you think the price is worth paying?

There is violence in the world around us, did they are vote for it? I don't think so. We all have free will and just because I voted one way doesn't mean that it caused someone else to get a gun and shoot people. Look at the middle east, africa, china, south america....I could go on. Yes mental health is way to expensive, I think that issue is just not one in the US. We as human beings must work at ending poverty, violence and making guns less available where ever we are in this world. Yes some countries are better at it and some not if we open our eyes and minds maybe we can learn from each other.........

[J-Go]

And your point is??

why would you need a fully automatic assault rife to hunt??

Sarcastic self depriving joke as to my marksman skills…no point just a laugh.

[mkemse]

Sarcastic self depriving joke as to my marksman skills…no point just a laugh.

i was NOT meantto be sacastic if was intneded to be a serious reply, i do not need a a full automaitc assault rife to hunt rabbit or deer i regular rifle should do the job just fine

outside of miitary use I still have not read or seen ant sensible arguments for private citizens to own and or use full automatic assualt rifle, and gun collecotrs sotre the as a collectable they do not use them they are"dead" non uable for displau only

[TomOfSweden]

i was NOT meantto be sacastic if was intneded to be a serious reply, i do not need a a full automaitc assault rife to hunt rabbit or deer i regular rifle should do the job just fine

outside of miitary use I still have not read or seen ant sensible arguments for private citizens to own and or use full automatic assualt rifle, and gun collecotrs sotre the as a collectable they do not use them they are"dead" non uable for displau only

How about the "it's coming right for us" excuse?

[mkemse]

How about the "it's coming right for us" excuse?

no excuse needed the reality is in this country i see no reason for private citiznes to own and use full automatic rifles unless someone can convince ne that they need one to protectthemselves or their families wirh one and that one of those will work better then a standard rfle or gun, and isee no reason to use a full automatic assaultrilfe to hunt deer or rabbits
Id i may ask, with no intention of being rude, what is the gun violence like in your country??

do you hear weekly about a college or highschol there where a snipe or gunman went nuts randmly shooting peole, it happens almost weekly here look back at our histiry of gun andschoo violence in the Unites States in the last 10 years

[TomOfSweden]

no excuse needed the reality is in this country i see no reason for private citiznes to own and use full automatic rifles unless someone can convince ne that they need one to protectthemselves or their families wirh one and that one of those will work better then a standard rfle or gun, and isee no reason to use a full automatic assaultrilfe to hunt deer or rabbits
Id i may ask, with no intention of being rude, what is the gun violence like in your country??

do you hear weekly about a college or highschol there where a snipe or gunman went nuts randmly shooting peole, it happens almost weekly here look back at our histiry of gun andschoo violence in the Unites States in the last 10 years

People getting shot is headline news. It still happens. Getting shot to death is even rarer. I can't recall the last time I read about that this side of the millennium. It probably has happened. I just can't remember it.

When people get shot on purpose here, (ie not an accident) it's either someone gone crazy or it's International maffia organisations settling disagreements with each other. Hunting weapons are available if you've got a licence.

But compared to USA Sweden is poor and it's hard to start companies due to the taxes. Choices choices. We're lying in the murder free bed we've made and you're lying in the bed you've made.

[TomOfSweden]

Yes we do need to do something about poverty and I see that happening every day in many parts of the country. The US may be viewed as rich however my family and extended family are not rich. We lived in many parts of the US as my father worked for General Motors. Yes there are rich people in the US however there are many many more that are not rich. We work hard, raise our kids, pray and work at improving the world around us. None of my brothers and sisters own guns and we have not voted for the violence or condon it. Yes I vote and hope that the person I voted for will stand behind his/her promises,yes maybe a bit unrealistic, made.

Actually the median US citizen is a lot richer than the median European. So USA is richer than us. But our poorest are in turn a lot richer than USA's poorest. If a countries wealth is measured by the health status of it's poorest, USA is a third world country. It's all in how you measure. And the richest in USA are the richest on the planet. Sweden does have some fantastically rich people for our countries tiny population but if we compare numbers, Sweden is the third world country. Yes, even if you count USA's foreign debt.

You vote for the bed you want to lie in. We have to put up with a slower economic growth for increased safety and peace of mind. If you don't like USA, I'm sure you'd be welcome in Sweden. USA is a much easier country to start companies in, so if you're an entrepreneur I'd stay in USA if I where you.

[Logic1]

And your point is??

why would you need a fully automatic assault rife to hunt??

He was making a joke mate ;)


on a serious note. With every liberty comes a responsibility.
As an example here. If you own a gun (which is your liberty) the responsibility part is that you have to be sane and return/sell it if you become ill (and OFCOURSE not being allowed to own one if you are mentally ill) and use it with responsibility.
This shouldnt be so hard a discussion imho.
I can most definitely see owning a gun for myself and Sweden actually has quite a substantial amount of guns per capita, but gun violence is quite low compareably.
I can however not see owning an assaultrifle made "just" semi automatic cause there is really not need for one for anybody (unless you are military or police) but handguns and rifles and bows sure thing why not.

liberties and responsibilities goes hand in hand.
:wave:

[ThisYouWillDo]

Yes some countries are better at it and some not if we open our eyes and minds maybe we can learn from each other.........[/I]

Well said, that lady!

[ThisYouWillDo]

if you ban guns entriely what do plice do for protection, or the miltary use for war??

Do guns protect policemen, or just enable them to shoot?

[TomOfSweden]

Do guns protect policemen, or just enable them to shoot?

I'm for the states monopoly of violence. I want policemen and soldiers to have weapons and the people not to. It is not only a method to prevent popular revolt. It is also a guarantee that the state has the capacity to put down revolts if necessary. I understand this is an offensive notion to US citizens. But I can't see any problems with it.

I think that the democratic tradition in Sweden is too strong to break by just a military coup. If the army would try here, I'm sure it would fail for a million reasons. A dictator can only rule if people will obey and I can't see that happening. Democratic ideals are once they've gained root, extremely hard to expel from popular consciousness.

Fascists tried to seize power in Spain in 1981, only 6 years after democratic reforms. It failed. 6 short years of democracy was all it took for the idea to spread like a virus in the Spanish consciousness. The reason why Germany fell back into totalitarianism and the reason why every democratic government that has reverted back is always down to economic factors. People have to be very well educated in order to take part of the general debate. Getting an education costs money, which poor people don't have. Uneducated people are always taken advantage on, and dictatorship I guess is the most extreme example of taking advantage on those who lack information.

Democracy in Sweden is not under threat. We don't need guns to protect it. Neither is it in USA. I think it is childish to say that US citizens need it to protect their freedoms and rights. It's of course the other way around. The more equally the power is between the state and the people, the less of a mandate the state has to protect it's citizens.

There are many hollow arguments and platitudes constantly flying around each of these gun debates. I find them quite tiring, and these discussions tend to get boring because of it.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I'm for the states monopoly of violence. I want policemen and soldiers to have weapons and the people not to. It is not only a method to prevent popular revolt. It is also a guarantee that the state has the capacity to put down revolts if necessary. I understand this is an offensive notion to US citizens. But I can't see any problems with it.

I think that the democratic tradition in Sweden is too strong to break by just a military coup. If the army would try here, I'm sure it would fail for a million reasons. A dictator can only rule if people will obey and I can't see that happening. Democratic ideals are once they've gained root, extremely hard to expel from popular consciousness.

Fascists tried to seize power in Spain in 1981, only 6 years after democratic reforms. It failed. 6 short years of democracy was all it took for the idea to spread like a virus in the Spanish consciousness. The reason why Germany fell back into totalitarianism and the reason why every democratic government that has reverted back is always down to economic factors. People have to be very well educated in order to take part of the general debate. Getting an education costs money, which poor people don't have. Uneducated people are always taken advantage on, and dictatorship I guess is the most extreme example of taking advantage on those who lack information.

Democracy in Sweden is not under threat. We don't need guns to protect it. Neither is it in USA. I think it is childish to say that US citizens need it to protect their freedoms and rights. It's of course the other way around. The more equally the power is between the state and the people, the less of a mandate the state has to protect it's citizens.

There are many hollow arguments and platitudes constantly flying around each of these gun debates. I find them quite tiring, and these discussions tend to get boring because of it.

I'm in virtually complete agreement with that. However, I prefer my policemen routinely to be unarmed: I even find truncheons and pepper sprays to be a little bit objectionable, but as they cause only temporary hurt, I can live with that. I also expect the police to arm themselves in situations where they need to.

That the military should be armed is a no-brainer.

As to the state's monopoly of violence, better the state than anyone else, but that, too must be restricted; to enforce law and order alone, and not to use it for punishment, for example.

I don't think you can accuse me of chucking platitudes around, and I certainly don't find the discussion boring. I don't think I have taken part in any serious discussion on gun-control in decades before joining this site, so I have not been over-exposed to too many hollow arguments either (or put forward too many of my own, I hope).

[TomOfSweden]

I don't think you can accuse me of chucking platitudes around, and I certainly don't find the discussion boring. I don't think I have taken part in any serious discussion on gun-control in decades before joining this site, so I have not been over-exposed to too many hollow arguments either (or put forward too many of my own, I hope).

It wasn't aimed at you even if it was your post I was replying to.

And obviously the use of violence by the state has to be extremely tightly regulated. There must be specific, measurable and verifiable rules regarding the states use of violence. I think we can be sure that they'll use exactly the amount of violence that we let them. If they can, they'll do it. Violence is a very quick and effective way to solve conflicts. It's just that it's usually only a very short term solution to the conflict. So it should only be used as a last resort.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I understood that; I was justifying my own continuing interest.