TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- *Updated* Shooting in Virginia school
Pages (7): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN sorry, wasnt it primarily fertilizer? and didnt they capture people at a later stage trying to buy large quantities of the stuff? i could be wrong, i dont pay attention to the US news everyday

Yes. And what element is *added to* fertilizer to promote plant growth?

And now...

What element makes up 80% of our atmosphere?

Yay.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 but events like this is like the fucking Groundhog Day movie in Iraq, only much much worse.

that just goes to show mass murderers will go to any legnths necessary if they know Democrats are willing to forsake it all.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Yes. And what element is *added to* fertilizer to promote plant growth? And now... What element makes up 80% of our atmosphere? Yay.

but it was a particular type of fertilizer. and i do think there are controls on it now.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN sorry, wasnt it primarily fertilizer? and didnt they capture people at a later stage trying to buy large quantities of the stuff? i could be wrong, i dont pay attention to the US news everyday

it was fertilizer and race gas. some diesel as well.

if he woulda smoked a little "Sour Diesel" instead that shit would have never happened.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but it was a particular type of fertilizer. and i do think there are controls on it now.

you can still buy ammonium nitrate here with little restrictions.

nothing has changed as far as i know.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Take away the guns and the only ones left with them are the ones committing the crimes... (Because Prohibition worked so damn well...)

Most gun-crimes are not perpetrated by hardened criminals and most are impulsive or accidental. To say that restrictions on access to guns wouldn't reduce this sort of gun violence is absurd. You won't be able to stop the planned, pre-meditated violence, perhaps, but you can still make it is difficult as possible for events like this one to happen. I'd like to see this guy go through with a "plan" like this if he had to go to the extreme lengths of finding suitable guns on the black market in the weeks before the shootings rather than just plucking a couple of legal ones from the top shelf of his cupboard that morning.

The logic that restrictions on guns will somehow put people in more danger of becoming the victims of gun violence is so tortured that it's making my head hurt. Find me one place in the world where gun-control has led to an increase in gun-related crime, an increase in gang activity or anything of the sort. Either Americans are inherently more violent than every other people in the word, or they are just the victims of lax gun-control laws preserved by a cabal of psychopaths with a Freudian obsession for gripping powerful, phallic-shaped instruments of destruction.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Either Americans are inherently more violent than every other people in the word, or they are just the victims of lax gun-control laws preserved by a cabal of psychopaths with a Freudian obsession for gripping powerful, phallic-shaped instruments of destruction.

it's prolly a little of both.

hey, isn't your characeture in your avatar parading a gun?

let me guess, irony?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Find me one place in the world where gun-control has led to an increase in gun-related crime, an increase in gang activity or anything of the sort.

the UK?

didn't the twisted Fir3start3r post some stats refering to that same question?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo hey, isn't your characeture in your avatar parading a gun? let me guess, irony?

Yes but he is a farmer and had to go to great lengths to apply for a special permit in order to acquire his gun. He has gophers that keep on destroying his crops, so he is one of the few people with a good reason to actually own a gun imho.

He also has arthritis so he smokes the occasional blunt (legally) to ease the pain.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the UK? didn't the twisted Fir3start3r post some stats refering to that same question?

The most important line in that article is:

quote:

Overall, gun crime fell last year�

I'm not sure what else I can add to that, really. The article seems to imply that gun-control laws have somehow emboldened criminals in the UK because the victims have no way to fight back, but that's fallacious for two reasons. Firstly, I think it's about 1% of victims of violent crime in the US who use a gun to defend themselves, so even where guns are common, instances of people using for the purpose of self-defence are pretty rare and shouldn't enter into the calculations of any would-be assailant. Secondly, barely anyone in the UK (outside of rural areas) owned guns before the restrictions were put into place. The gun culture there is nothing like the gun culture in the US.

Still, there's only one question worth asking in a thread like this: all other things being equal, will less guns likely mean less gun violence? If so, on what grounds can lax gun-laws be justified?

I just don't understand how people can fail to make a connection between the easy access to guns and the absurd numbers of these shootings that occur in the US compared to similar western democracies like Australia and the UK. If you have two nations, nation (a) has a legal model that provides easy access to guns, nation (b) doesn't, and nation (a) see's a far higher occurence of crimes such as these, then how intelligent do you have to be to see where the problem is?

Yes, if someone really wants something illegal, they can obtain it regardless (see: drugs, alcohol prohibition). But most of these killing spree's are 'not' premeditated, not in the sense that the killer's are criminals, with contacts with people who they'll spend large portions of time contacting to obtain guns. Most of them are moderately spur of the moment crimes, by sad, angry, depressed people. If they don't have easy access to guns, they'll either perform a lesser crime (knife stabbing etc) with far lesser consequances, or simply do themselves off and commit suicide.

Furthermore, guns don't have any real use beyond killing. Yes, playing around with guns in a recreational manner is fun, but is having the right to do that really worth the lives lost? The ineveitable comparison to drug prohibition isn't really valid, because the damage caused by drugs, where they legalized, would by far mostly be self-inflicted upon the user by their own choice, the same cannot be said for the shootings that are a consequance of a lack of gun control.

And the self defense card isn't really valid either, how many lives do you think are saved by someone defending themselves with a gun they would not have had if gun access was restricted, in comparison to lives lost by someone taking them with a gun they otherwise would not have had.

Personally, I'm just glad I live in a country where I was able to go to school without worrying that today would be the day the angry bullying-victim would snap and schoot the place up, and that I'll be able to send my future kids to school in the same situation.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The most important line in that article is:

if, in your opinion, the aggregate from one previous year holds importance then shouldn't this quote not only be considered more important, but answer your original question unmitigated?

quote:

�Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

i'm not trying to play a game of "gotcha" but to me the article wants to highlite the seemingly ambiguousness between the UK gun ban and it's gun crime statistics

quote:

all other things being equal, will less guns likely mean less gun violence?

if it's anything like the law of averages then yes, however in a country of 300,000,000 violent people then it becomes slightly utopian.

quote:

Originally posted by Taranis And the self defense card isn't really valid either, how many lives do you think are saved by someone defending themselves with a gun they would not have had if gun access was restricted, in comparison to lives lost by someone taking them with a gun they otherwise would not have had.

i would argue that there are orders of magnitude more lives saved by the presence of a firearm than those lost to them. in a country like mine anyway.

if in my country there are enough firearms to place one in the hands of every man, woman and child then i think those numbers saved by the presence of firearms looks pretty good.

Presence of guns increases safety hey?

quote:

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

quote:

In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)

quote:

Between 1994 and 1999, there were 220 school associated violent events resulting in 253 deaths - - 74.5% of these involved firearms. Handguns caused almost 60% of these deaths. (Journal of American Medical Association, December 2001)

quote:

Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)

quote:

American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)

quote:

According to a report by the Joshephson Institute of Ethics (2000 Report Card: Report #1), 60% of high school and 31% of middle school boys said they could get a gun if they wanted to (April, 2001)

Good work America, keep up the stellar effort..

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz Good work America, keep up the stellar effort..

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz Presence of guns increases safety hey?

as it pertains to matters of defence against the violent use of them, yes.

once again you have failed to grasp the context of the argument.

how many automobiles kill children while we are on the subject of random statistics?

and if you don't like us, you can always go f**k yourself

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo as it pertains to matters of defence against the violent use of them, yes. once again you have failed to grasp the context of the argument. how many automobiles kill children while we are on the subject of random statistics? and if you don't like us, you can always go f**k yourself

1. Last time I checked, taking the law into ones hands is illegal. I�m guessing there�s a reason for that, and a logical one at that.
2. Random statistics relating directly to firearms, compared to random topics about automobiles. Which makes more sense? While we�re at it, why not point out the fact that cancer also kills children�
3. Do not generalise me into someone who doesn�t like American�s for being American�s. I�ll leave that to the no brainer bigots.

Now that we have begun such a civilised conversation, I�ll fire out some more random statistics.

In 2004, the US recorded 16,750 suicides by firearms (American Association of Suicidology). This is out of a population of 301,000,000 or so.

Compare this to another country of similar industrialisation/wealth/whatever. Take Australia for instance, with a population of roughly 20,500,000.

If the rate of firearms suicides were to hold in Australia, they would record 1,141 deaths in 2004. This is compared to statistic recorded by the Australian Bureau of Statistic claiming that only 169 deaths occurred by firearms in a suicide during the year.

Keep the rebuttals coming, because there is no doubt that people kill people and not guns, but at least we can do something about it. Nevertheless, what other use does a semi-automatic assault rifle have than killing fellow human beings? For hunting, yeah? Just in case you charged by a pack of woolly mammoths.

But who knows, that King of England might invade at an minute�

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz Now that we have begun such a civilised conversation, I�ll fire out some more random statistics. In 2004, the US recorded 16,750 suicides by firearms (American Association of Suicidology). This is out of a population of 301,000,000 or so. Compare this to another country of similar industrialisation/wealth/whatever. Take Australia for instance, with a population of roughly 20,500,000. If the rate of firearms suicides were to hold in Australia, they would record 1,141 deaths in 2004. This is compared to statistic recorded by the Australian Bureau of Statistic claiming that only 169 deaths occurred by firearms in a suicide during the year. Keep the rebuttals coming, because there is no doubt that people kill people and not guns, but at least we can do something about it. Nevertheless, what other use does a semi-automatic assault rifle have than killing fellow human beings? For hunting, yeah? Just in case you charged by a pack of woolly mammoths. But who knows, that King of England might invade at an minute�

thread it then. just don't do it here. thanx.

Well, the topic does relate to a suicide (with the gunman being the 32nd fatality), so there might be some justification in posting it. But fair enough, point taken.

Actually...and this may be an old statistic...less than a quarter of the guns used by criminals are bought through legal means. The rest are either in "circulation" already or acquired illegally.

(This is referring to a previous Renegade post...sorry, I'm too lazy to even quote this morning )

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ffo98.pdf

*EDIT*

--Actually, here are a whole bunch of statistics...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Actually...and this may be an old statistic...less than a quarter of the guns used by criminals are bought through legal means. The rest are either in "circulation" already or acquired illegally.

gun laws only hurt the innocent gun owners..... not the criminals.....

I remember the gun drives that we had after the Port Author Massacre, tens of thousands of Australians handed in their guns to be destroyed for a fraction of the cost they bought them for, and our country is alot safer for it.

Yesterday night two Americans in the university i work at here in Ecuador said �can you help us get a Visa to Australia jake� jokingly referring to how fucked up the gun system is in the US

three days ago a 22 year old was executed on my street corner, one shot ot the back of the head, one shot through the back, they stole his car only to dump it on the other side of the city and take out the $50 stereo

i love my country.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN in any case, even the anti-nationalistic pkc loves his country for its stance on guns. but i do plan to travel to the US or vietnam so i can play with some of my favourite assault rifles

when i was in Cambodia you could pay to shoot with an AK47 at chickens, pay a little more and you could shoot a rocket launcher at a cow i was thinking of going but after visiting the Killing Fields i wasnt in the mood for guns

God bless America!

How many more lives have been taken in simular episodes? It's simple your laws are too relaxed you need stricter gun laws.

This 2nd Ammendment or whatever is irrelevant. Your not living in some frontier land shooting bears and hostile Indians anymore.

I knew I could count on the liberals in this forum to break out the 'Ban all Guns' banners and flags as soon as a shooting like this occurs. Let me break it down for you all in simple terms so even liberals can understand:

1. If we ban guns then owning a gun becomes a crime

2. Who commits crimes? - Law abiding citizens or criminals? We all know the answer to this.

3. Since by definition criminals do not follow laws, do you think a criminal gives two squirts of shit about a law that says they cannot have a gun?

4. Now you have a situation where law abiding citizens have no weapons and criminals who could care less about the law have them. Who thinks that this is good?

Instead of the knee-jerk reaction of "oh lets get rid of all the guns" why not instead use rational thought like "how would things have been different at Virginia Tech if just 2 or 3 students or teachers in each class were carrying guns?" My guess is he may have shot a few people by using the element of surprise but he would have certainly been gunned down by armed law abiding citizens prior to killing 30 people.

Lets face it, even you liberals have to admit that gun control is a miserable failure. Criminals can and will always be able to get guns no matter what country of the world they live in.

GunControl is BullShit.... enjoy especially you O'Call

You guys do realize the overwhelming majority of gun crimes committed in the US are by guns that are acquired illegally, right? In other words, it wouldn't make any difference if you changed the constitution or made them illegal. The only thing that would change is that any semblance of being able to track and register guns and their owners would be completely lost and we would have absolutely no clue as to who had guns. Sorry folks, but the "genie" is out. Blame the ancient Chinese for inventing gunpowder in the first place if you need someone. There are guns now and there always will be, especially in the US which has had a torrid history with them.

I find it ironic that many on these boards will bitch about the downfall of freedoms in the US, but have no problem saying that a part of our constitution should be changed because of the actions of a few. Not to get on a soapbox, but every freedom has a responsibility, and not all people decide to act responsibly. However, that does not mean the irresponsibility of a few should mean the freedom is erased for the many.

Should slander, libel or "hate speech" from a few mean the first amendment should be removed?

Should the acts of a few homicidal maniacs mean the second amendment should be removed?

Should drunk drivers mean alcohol should be prohibited again, or what about cars?

No. In each case you punish those who acted irresponsibly, while preserving the rights of the millions of individuals who choose to act responsibly.

This country, this world, is so fickle. We jump on the latest and greatest news story, totally losing perspective. Who cares that out of a country of 300 million these events are rare? Who cares that we're talking about stripping a part of the Bill of Rights? Who cares that we're again arguing for "safety" over freedom? We only care that right now some crazy person killed 30+ people and we don't care what we do, as long as we do something.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.