67 replies to this topic

[-kawada-]

That reads like the musing of some wanna-be vigilante.

[Red Frog]

Bill o said:

Funny, when Katrina hit, and armed bands of thugs terrorized innocent people in New Orleans who did not have guns, we heard nothing from the ban firearms crowd.

If ever there was an event that clarified why Americans are entitled to protect themselves, it was Hurricane Katrina.

What the hell?  Have the conservatives started to co-opt Katrina just like they did 9/11?  No one was talking about gun control because they were talking about Bush and the government's lack of response, the horrendous situation, and the plight of the families affected.  Seemed more important at the time.

Quote

But a crazy person bent on killing will find a way to get those weapons. No law in the world can guarantee public safety.

  

That doesn't mean you don't try.

Quote

But the Second Amendment is there for a reason. In times of disaster, no government will be able to protect you. So you have a right to protect yourself.

Certainly not this one.

[bizaleth]

Using Bill O'Reilly to support your issue is ridiculous. As has been proven by many people, the man in an idiot. and has no clue what he is talking about.

He claims this has brought out the liberal gun law people. Well, this has brought out the gun advocates as well. Every time I hear some moron say (or imply, as O'Reilly does) that if one of those students or a professor had a gun lives could have been saved. And many of the people who say this bring up the shooting in the shopping mall in Utah and the off-duty police officer who helped apprehend and kill the guy who was shooting people in the mall.

Some seem to forget that this guy was just that--an off-duty police officer. He was trained for this. Also, the off-duty officer said that when the police showed up, he began yelling that he was an off-duty officer because he knew that police would see shot fired in a public place and him with a gun--they would have no clue whether he was the shooter, a bystander, etc.

So, to all those idiots who think that if one of those students had a gun, like O'reilly alludes to, imagine this: it is mass chaos because someone, officers don't know who, just that someone is shooting into classrooms. People are screaming, jumping out windows, evacuations of other buildings leads to more people running around, police are making people put their hands on their heads because they don't know who or where the shooter is, if there is more than one, etc. Add to this chaos a student or professor with a concealed weapon shooting at the lone gunman. The officers responding to the scene will not know that the student with the concealed weapon is not the gunman. They won't know if the student with the concealed weapon is trying to help the other gunman or the students. Seems to me, some vigilante with a gun trying to help will just add to the confusion and potentially adding to a larger loss of life.

People who think that arming citizens, like O'Reilly does, are so incredibly misguided it scares the living shit out of me.

[Red Frog]

Oh good, and the ads on this page are for "3D Action Hunting", some game where you slaughter animals.

[inspectorjason]

bizaleth said:

Using Bill O'Reilly to support your issue is ridiculous. As has been proven by many people, the man in an idiot. and has no clue what he is talking about.

I don't agree with everything in the Bill O'Reilly column, but I thought that it would be fun to see everyone here deconstruct it (and it is quite fun so far).  

O'Reilly does make a nice point about the people saying that America will "destroy itself from the inside out".   I was reading columns in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and such all day yesterday that had people saying things to that effect.   Such reactionism doesn't do anyone any good.  

I actually don't subscribe to the idea that, if everyone is armed, then everyone will be safe.   I do think that it should be a matter of personal choice and accountability, though.   Back in 1982, the city of Kennesaw, GA mandated that households have at least one gun.   The homicide rates and burglary rates plummeted and, to this day, Kennesaw still has the lowest violent crime rate by far of anywhere in the metro Atlanta area.   Despite the successes of the Kennesaw law, I don't like the idea of gun ownership being mandated by the government, whether it be forcing people to have guns or banning guns.   I don't plan to buy a gun if I purchase a house in Kennesaw.   It's food for thought, though.

Red Frog said:

Oh good, and the ads on this page are for "3D Action Hunting", some game where you slaughter animals.

1.  Those are only computer animals.
2.  If the animals are coming straight at you, you have to shoot them to protect yourself.

[Red Frog]

inspectorjason said:

1.  Those are only computer animals.
2.  If the animals are coming straight at you, you have to shoot them to protect yourself.

I don't have anything against violent computer games (far from it) and I'm not one of those idiots that can't see there's a difference between shooting someone in real life and Grand Theft Auto...I just thought it was funny given the discussion of hunting that suddenly this add for shooting animals came up.

[Sweet Fanny Addams]

Bill O Reilly??
Not a lot of credibility there, Jason, with respect.

[inspectorjason]

Red Frog said:

I don't have anything against violent computer games (far from it) and I'm not one of those idiots that can't see there's a difference between shooting someone in real life and Grand Theft Auto...I just thought it was funny given the discussion of hunting that suddenly this add for shooting animals came up.

The ad was pretty amusing.   I wasn't really taking the piss with my reply post, but I saw it as a good chance to get an obscure South Park reference in.  

I'm actually quite fond of those video games in arcades that have the Uzi submachine guns, handguns, or whatever else on top of the console where the object of the game is to shoot as many people as you can.   It's fun to fictionally blow people away.   There's an enormous difference between that sort of thing and real life shootings, though.   I remember been hugely disgusted with the media after the Columbine shootings because they were constantly blaming video games and movies (The Matrix, etc.) for inspiring the kids to go on the killing spree.   That though process doesn't make much sense to me.

[inspectorjason]

Sweet Fanny Addams said:

Bill O Reilly??
Not a lot of credibility there, Jason, with respect.

Bah.  From now on, whenever someone criticizes me for posting a Bill O'Reilly column, I'm going to respond by posting additional columns from Ann Coulter, Mike Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and the like.  

I will also be playing all of Ted Nugent's albums at full blast while I do so.  None of you will be able to hear the music over the computer, so you'll have to take my word for it, but you can rest assured that I'll be playing it.


Seriously, Bill O'Reilly is off base sometimes and you have to take everything with a grain of salt, but it does make for interesting reads.

[lizish]

inspectorjason said:

Bah.  From now on, whenever someone criticizes me for posting a Bill O'Reilly column, I'm going to respond by posting additional columns from Ann Coulter, Mike Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and the like.  

If that indeed turns out to be the case, this forum should be renamed 'The Grand Douche-off'

[Lois]

There isn't really any need to bear arms, in a civilised society. However, how effective would disarmament be - could it ever be successful?

As awful as it was, the open availability of arms probably had little to do with what happened and tighter controls or even removing the right wouldn't stop a maniac from doing something similar in the future. Enforcing a removal of the right would probably take up police resources which would be better spent dealing with other areas of crime.

[Sweet Fanny Addams]

inspectorjason said:

Bah.  From now on, whenever someone criticizes me for posting a Bill O'Reilly column, I'm going to respond by posting additional columns from Ann Coulter, Mike Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and the like.  

I will also be playing all of Ted Nugent's albums at full blast while I do so.  None of you will be able to hear the music over the computer, so you'll have to take my word for it, but you can rest assured that I'll be playing it.


Seriously, Bill O'Reilly is off base sometimes and you have to take everything with a grain of salt, but it does make for interesting reads.

Well, whatever rings your chimes, I guess.
Bill O Reilly is more then a little off base, and IMO  is pretty much on a par with Pat Robertson and  some of the other people you mentioned there. Why would anyone take his views on such an important topic seriously, when even you, who seem to be a fan admit that his views have to be taken with a grain of salt? Why not just ask my cat what he thinks about gun control?
Yanno, I'm an American, and a proud one even though I live outside the USA, I still keep my US citizenship and under no circumstances would I give that up. But I am glad my children are not being raised in the middle of the insane gun culture that grips America. Of course lunatics have massacred in the UK and elsewhere, there was that awful case about 11 years ago when a deranged man in Scotland went into a classroom full of five year olds and killed as many as he could. But the ease with which Cho Seung-hui was able to obtain 2 firearms and ammo with NO background checks, no license, as if he were buying a pack of cigarettes boggles the mind. And now it appears that  Seung-hui spent some time in a mental health facility, and was  involved with the police last year after 2 women complained that he was stalking them. The entire system is insane.

[Red Frog]

lizish said:

If that indeed turns out to be the case, this forum should be renamed 'The Grand Douche-off'

Forget it...I tried to get Flowers Strewn renamed "General Wankery" but it was vetoed.

[Bastian]

Re: video games

The Washington Post published an article earlier today where they brought up that the killer was a fan of violent computer games.

"Several Korean youths who knew Cho Seung Hui from his high school days said he was a fan of violent video games, particularly Counterstrike, a hugely popular online game published by Microsoft, in which players join terrorism or counterterrorism groups and try to shoot each other using all types of guns."

Immediately this caused outrage on many blogs and in the gaming community, and shortly after the article was edited and the above paragraph was removed  (something which is extremely rare).

Seems like sensationalism to me. Oh, and Microsoft did not publish CS.

[monster]

Scared americans are arming themselves to the teeth, shivering, hands shaking, finger on trigger. What kind of society is this? Wondering if the person you pass on the street is packing a gun, the community wanting sivilians to protect themselves with guns? I tell you, the american gunculture combined with todays stressful, money-crazy world is not a good combination.

This world is getting more complicated and difficult by the day, and people flock to phsychiatrists, these people can just walk in to a store and buy a gun in a matter of minutes. Guns are visible everywhere, available within minutes. You guys have to progress. Europe is miles ahead of you. You can't cling to everything you had in the past, you have to change, make sacrifices, and guns are not a big sacrifice IMO.

[inspectorjason]

monster said:

Scared americans are arming themselves to the teeth, shivering, hands shaking, finger on trigger. What kind of society is this? Wondering if the person you pass on the street is packing a gun, the community wanting sivilians to protect themselves with guns? I tell you, the american gunculture combined with todays stressful, money-crazy world is not a good combination.

This world is getting more complicated and difficult by the day, and people flock to phsychiatrists, these people can just walk in to a store and buy a gun in a matter of minutes. Guns are visible everywhere, available within minutes. You guys have to progress. Europe is miles ahead of you. You can't cling to everything you had in the past, you have to change, make sacrifices, and guns are not a big sacrifice IMO.

Every stereotype has a bit of truth to it, but I think that you might be going slightly overboard with your condemnation of America's culture.  

The article that I posted about Europeans who own guns illegally is contrary to your statement that Europe is miles ahead of us.   Americans certainly don't have the monopoly when it comes to being attached to guns.  

It's interesting that I see the term "gun culture" in context to your description of America.  "Culture" is the key word, of course, and further proves my point that guns themselves are not the problem.  People are the problem.

Quote

combined with todays stressful, money-crazy world is not a good combination.

Like everything else, this all comes down to a matter of personal responsibility and personal choice.   You don't have to be a part of the "stressful, money-crazy world" if you don't choose to.  

The truth about the rat race is that, even if you win, you're still only a rat.   Fortunately, there are many of us who make the choice to live life on our own terms and not feel like we have to be a part of the rat race and not be pressured by the stresses that many people voluntarily put on themselves.  

The point stands, of course, that guns are not the problem and people are the problem.  If you perceive the world in the way that your above post implies, then you're buying into a fear that you needn't have.

[Red Frog]

Bastian said:

"Several Korean youths who knew Cho Seung Hui from his high school days said he was a fan of violent video games, particularly Counterstrike, a hugely popular online game published by Microsoft, in which players join terrorism or counterterrorism groups and try to shoot each other using all types of guns."

I know very few college guys who have never played Counterstrike.  I guess I should expect to see 75% of the male population, 18-22 involved in violent crimes soon.

[monster]

inspectorjason said:

Every stereotype has a bit of truth to it, but I think that you might be going slightly overboard with your condemnation of America's culture.  

The article that I posted about Europeans who own guns illegally is contrary to your statement that Europe is miles ahead of us.   Americans certainly don't have the monopoly when it comes to being attached to guns.  

It's interesting that I see the term "gun culture" in context to your description of America.  "Culture" is the key word, of course, and further proves my point that guns themselves are not the problem.  People are the problem.


Like everything else, this all comes down to a matter of personal responsibility and personal choice.   You don't have to be a part of the "stressful, money-crazy world" if you don't choose to.  

The truth about the rat race is that, even if you win, you're still only a rat.   Fortunately, there are many of us who make the choice to live life on our own terms and not feel like we have to be a part of the rat race and not be pressured by the stresses that many people voluntarily put on themselves.  

The point stands, of course, that guns are not the problem and people are the problem.  If you perceive the world in the way that your above post implies, then you're buying into a fear that you needn't have.

I know this isn't something that applies to every american, but as long as it aplies to some, it is alarming enough, I think.

You ruling out guns, and just blame it on people just doesn't cut it. It's the mentality attached with guns that is the problem. By decreasing gun-availability and making it more difficult to get guns, many people would be saved. I'm not saying it will solve the whole problem, but a large part of it is culture and the cultures relation to guns, and how easy you can obtain one.

[inspectorjason]

Red Frog said:

I know very few college guys who have never played Counterstrike.  I guess I should expect to see 75% of the male population, 18-22 involved in violent crimes soon.

Just as with the Columbine tragedy, the media Blame Game is already in full effect here.

Back in 1999, I was hugely upset with the media depiction of teenagers as a "lost generation" who readily succumbed to the influence of violent video games, violent movies, Marilyn Manson, and all of that.  

The truth that nobody talks about was that the Columbine tragedy was a testament to the courage and goodness inherent in people of all ages.   Several students risked their own lives in order to help others escape from the gunmen on that day.  Students tried in vain, at their own risk, to save the life of a teacher who had been shot.  Many of the students at the school made resourceful use of cell phones to notify parents and police of the location of the shooters.  

The killing spree in Virginia on Monday is the most tragic incidence of random violence in America, but even this event offered proof that today's younger generation is probably as courageous and resourceful as any generation that has come before.   The college students in the Engineering building worked to barricade doors and save the lives of others in addition to themselves.   Other students resourcefully used the internet as a way of letting others know about the dangers that were taking place.  

As horrifying as this mass murder was, it's not a sweeping reflection of America or of today's younger generations as a whole.  Every tragedy brings about humanity's finest hour and, in the same way that people selflessly gave money, time, blood donations, etc. in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the events in Virginia show that the vast majority of people are inherently decent.  There are increasing problems with our depreciation of value of life in society as a whole and with increasing narcissistic attitudes that are conducive to random violence, as I've alluded to earlier in this thread, but the vast majority of people remain altruistic and don't cause problems.  

Guns or no guns, the good guys usually win.

[Nazca]

inspectorjason said:

Guns or no guns, the good guys usually win.

If you allow me to be cynical:
Guns or no guns, the winners usually define what "good" means.

btw - I loved the South Park reference.

As for the thread, I think reducing such a complex problem as a yes/no question on gun control is stupid. It's basically just using a new tragedy to invoke again an old debate, but with pretty weak arguments.

Would the guy have found a weapon even with stronger gun laws? Probably (though I can't say I'm certain of this).
Could a gun ban have hindered, slowed down, the massacre? I think so. Gun availability probably weighted for some amount in the plan.

I'm for banning guns, honestly, but it's not really the issue with that tragedy. People just don't go killing people just because guns are easy to get. The problem is how, in such a gun-loving society, someone which presented symptoms of mental unbalance was allowed to get one. If a society wants such weapons to circulate that freely, then it comes with the responsibility to see that such arms are only held by responsible persons. That was not the case here. Nobody will take responsibility for letting that troubled young person get a gun (two), load it, and use it on humans, and that's probably where's the problem.

The video game theory is 98% BS, used mostly by people who have no grasp of statistics, or no will to see through it. Violent people are more likely to love violent video games... Actually, I'm pretty sure that if you'd ask most Counter Strike gamers what they think, they'd mostly be for stronger gun laws.

Somehow, I'm pretty sure I'll be sorry for posting in this place again...