College & High School Shootings: What Now

[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.

[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.