QueenZone discussion #892022

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: In our free liberal state, citizens should be granted full negative freedoms, and therefore government can only restrict actions which infringe upon the rights of others. Like gay marriage, owning a gun restricts the rights of no one. It is not the government's responsibility to maximize safety at the expense of our freedoms. For instance, detaining suspected terrorists as prisoners at Guatanamo Bay without having charged them will likely marginally increase our security, however, I think most of you will agree that it is morally wrong to do that at the expense of our freedom. Likewise, illegalizing automobile transportation would decrease the death toll considerably, however, we have the freedom to drive and be driven as it does not infringe upon the rights of anybody else. Therefore, severe restrictions on guns does not make sense for the following reasons: (1) Only a small, small minority of gun owners have used their guns illegally to infringe upon the rights of others. (2) Casualties resulting from firearms is minimal at best, so much so that this should really be a non-issue. A note on the severity of firepower: a derringer could cause the above mentioned tragedy just as an M16 could. In fact, so could a baseball bat or a knife. The only really important factor is the intent to do harm.

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: Can you explain why?

FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote:

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: Can you explain why?

It explains that there are countries where they also have legalized weapons (and easily available weapons) where they don't have like 2000 casualties by guns every year, and where they don't have shootings at school

MDNA wrote: In my opinion people in the US are used to shoot first ank ask questions later, and this is even suported by the actions of the US government (Iraq being the most recent example).

yamaha wrote: It's been reported that this was the result of a twenty year old gruge against girls stemming from a molestation incident of some sort. That would mean that the man was twelve y.o. or so, but nontheless.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: If he didn't have a gun and just plowed them down, it would have been anticlimactic for him. The guns gave him the courage. And he didn't have just one gun, he went in there prepared for a 'long siege'. So, what's the point of owning a gun if not to kill a living thing?

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: I know that the knee jerk reaction from feel-good folks is to blame guns, blame gun laws, but this nut job had a gun, illegally mind you, and killed these kids, planned the whole thing out for a week in advance, as he knew he could do it due to the lack of security at the school.

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: Well.. culture and history plays a big role as well. I mean, America has quite a violent history.

Zeni wrote:

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: Well.. culture and history plays a big role as well. I mean, America has quite a violent history.

How so? Surely you don't believe every western you see. Europe has just as violent a history as the US.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: If someone really wants to kill someone, taking a gun away won't make them stop. They'll just find another method to accomplish that goal.

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: I'm kinda surprised by the big opposition of a stricter gun law. Why is it so important for you Americans, to own a gun? I miss the point here.

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote:

Zeni wrote:

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: Well.. culture and history plays a big role as well. I mean, America has quite a violent history.

How so? Surely you don't believe every western you see. Europe has just as violent a history as the US.

You're right.. But I meant the recent history.. Read the post of MDNA, and you'll see what I mean. I'm kinda surprised by the big opposition of a stricter gun law. Why is it so important for you Americans, to own a gun? I miss the point here.

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: link Read that. Maybe, just maybe, the Amish have it right.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: If someone really wants to kill someone, taking a gun away won't make them stop. They'll just find another method to accomplish that goal.

True, but take this situation - He needed to kill those girls immediately. He lost it completely when he saw all the cops outside the school. If he'd had a knife, at least some of those girls would have been spared - conjecture on my part, of course - and more of those struck might have survived - there are still four girls in the hospital, three of whom are in critical condition. He shot the backs of their heads. His intent was too kill... quickly and as many as possible. How else would he have accomplished his goal - as he apparently did - if not with a gun? I'm not sure where I stand on this. I'm neither pro-gun nor anti-gun, though I'd have to say, I see more liability than benefit when it comes to the right to own one.

iGSM wrote: I want to steal your sexy brain one day.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: My point is that this guy was going to kill these people anyway. He had guns, so that's the method he used, but if he'd had something like a knife or poison gas or explosives or something, he wouldn't have hesitated to use those methods. It's the people behind the gun you have to worry about...not the gun itself.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I don't understand. How do they have it right? By forgiving? Why? To let go of anger so it doesn't fester like this guy's anger did? If that brings them peace, then yes, they have it right. Especially since the bastard is dead. But, what if he didn't die in this siege? Would they still have it right? Should he be forgiven for snuffing out the lives of these children or should he be punished? Maybe this paragraph from the article you posted says it all (though I found it deeply disturbing) - "We think it was God's plan, and we're going to have to pick up the pieces and keep going," he told AP. "A funeral to us is a much more important thing than the day of birth because we believe in the hereafter. The children are better off than their survivors." So they believe in the hereafter where, I assume, they feel he'll be punished for his sins, yes? So perhaps they're at peace knowing this and that's why they can forgive. IMO, forgiveness is a way to heal and move on, but it is in no way an answer to criminal behavior - especially of this magnitude.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: My point is that this guy was going to kill these people anyway. He had guns, so that's the method he used, but if he'd had something like a knife or poison gas or explosives or something, he wouldn't have hesitated to use those methods. It's the people behind the gun you have to worry about...not the gun itself.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, and I do understand what you're saying... but... :) ...without a gun to threaten everyone - without a gun but with a knife - he wouldn't have been able to accomplish as much as he did. To slit someone's throat, you'd need both hands. It's a quick death, but the manner of killing takes more time than firing at the backs of heads in rapid succession, as was done here. And... here, he waved a gun and everyone jumped. If he'd waved a knife around and ordered everyone out, I wonder (though they WERE Amish)if they would have filed out the way they did or if they would have fought him. Face it, you stand a better chance of surviving a fight when someone has a knife than when someone has a gun. To your point, yes, if he wanted to kill, he would have killed with whatever weapon he deemed appropriate. But without a gun, I believe there would have been more survivors in this instance. Besides, he wanted to torture them first. The cops' presence prevented him from doing that. If they hadn't arrived so quickly and in such force, and he had been able to carry out his sick plan, he could have held a knife to the neck of the child he intended to rape and be assured of HER complete submission. But with the wave of a gun, he'd have them all under control. I don't know. The criminal mind is not one I want to get into too deeply. It just seems that firearms give the criminals extra power and confidence, and therefore make the crimes easier and faster to carry out.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: a derringer could cause the above mentioned tragedy just as an M16 could. In fact, so could a baseball bat or a knife. The only really important factor is the intent to do harm.

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: I'm kinda surprised by the big opposition of a stricter gun law. Why is it so important for you Americans, to own a gun? I miss the point here.

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: I can't agree with you Musicman... I think your post is highly ignorant. The figures tell us that legalizing firearms causes thousands of deaths. In the US, 38.000 people die of murder, accidents or suicide with guns while 'only' a few thousand die of firearm accidents in Europe. And is Europe less liberal? I dare to say that we are even more liberal than the US.

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: You compare the use of firearms with driving cars. Well, we all know that some cars are important for the current economy. People need to be mobile. But what are the arguments for owning guns? I agree that a hunter should be able to have one, same as police officers. But people like you and me? You're probably going to say "self defence"... but realise that you need a gun for self defence, because your neighbour has one as well.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Musicman - I understand your post and on the surface agree, but I cannot get the point or reason for the average person to own a gun. Why is that 'right' even still on the books, so to speak? It's an archaic right that no longer serves a legitimate purpose.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Ack, you ARE missing the point. The important issue is not owning a gun. The important issue is the preservation of our absolute negative freedoms. Our entire culture and democracy was founded on such beliefs, and these beliefs profoundly pervade the mindset of the United States of America. This mindset is as follows: above everything (safety, economy, equality, etc.) is FREEDOM; above all else, negative LIBERTY is sacred. Therefore, since owning a gun does not infringe upon the rights of any other person, government does not have the right to legislate against it. I will admit that our government has, over time, perverted the nature of our liberal democracy. Some of these perversions do make sense. But where do we draw the line? That is the real issue here. Owning a gun harms no one. Using one does. There are plenty of laws against the latter, and I believe that any further legislation on the former would be excessive.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Regardless of that figure, I can hardly think that guns are anything close to a leading cause of death, and gun deaths are few and far between. Europe, on this issue, at least, is DEFINITELY less liberal then the US. Any state that would restrict the negative liberties of its citizens is clearly not practicing liberal democracy.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: You do not need a reason to have a right. You need a reason to NOT have a right. And that reason must always be that this right infringes upon the rights of another citizen.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: The right in question is not the right to bear arms, which in this modern time does not serve a legitimate purpose. The right in question is the right to absolute negative liberty.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Likewise, illegalizing automobile transportation would decrease the death toll considerably, however, we have the freedom to drive and be driven as it does not infringe upon the rights of anybody else.

Donna13 wrote: Until the majority of Americans are against the right to bear arms, the Bill of Rights will continue to give us that right.

Mr.Jingles wrote: I'l quote Chris Rock... There shouldn't be gun control. Instead there should be BULLET CONTROL. Every single bullet should cost at least 5,000 dollars. Every time someone shoots a bullet they should be reminded of how much that bullet is worth.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Exactly how much can the government interfere before it's too late, and we're all conforming to this dystopic Orwellian state? I'm not saying that this issue of gun control directly or significantly effects that. I'm also not saying that we are on the verge of 1984. I am saying that if you give the government an inch, they may very well take a mile (and I do believe that the current administration has taken a mile and then some).

Donna13 wrote: I don't understand any of your points about negative and positive liberties. I've actually never heard those terms before.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Exactly how much can the government interfere before it's too late, and we're all conforming to this dystopic Orwellian state? I'm not saying that this issue of gun control directly or significantly effects that. I'm also not saying that we are on the verge of 1984. I am saying that if you give the government an inch, they may very well take a mile (and I do believe that the current administration has taken a mile and then some).

Sadly, I think you're correct, they have taken a mile and then some. But they're taking private rights – as in the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, etc. What we're talking about here is a right with no advantage except to the criminal. I think outlawing - or enforcing/revisiting gun laws is safe for most of the rights – positive or negative of Americans.

Donna13 wrote: Americans do have the right to a fair trial. I believe you are referring to the "war on terror" and the non-American detainees. Unless you are in the business of cooperating with terrorists, you should have no lack of privacy. The people working to find terrorists are not going to sit around and monitor everyone's calls. Where would they get the manpower to do that? They are just monitoring people who are already suspect. And in this case the benefit (to the majority of society) far outweighs any concern for the privacy of the individual. And anyway, they aren't publishing the information they get - it is all top secret. The Patriot Act can be changed at any time by a vote of Congress. So, we are still represented fully (Congress represents the people). Government by the people and for the people. Unfortunately, if you are in the political minority (your political opinions are not shared by the majority of Americans) then you can indeed become frustrated. This is how our country works. So, there are always frustrated Americans. All they can do is protest, campagne, and let their vote take care of the rest. The right to own guns is not just to the advantage of the criminal. If this were the case, then the majority of Americans would be for amending the Constitution. But they are not. Edit: I'll also add that most Americans are too lazy to write to their Congressman. But it is so easy - you can do it on the Internet now. So, there is really no excuse to not write to them.

Elizabeth Knightson wrote: My point here is that more severe laws about guns will not make those dangerous people disappear: they're still dangerous with a knife, a rock, an iron bar...

Donna13 wrote: I'm glad you agree with me on the importance of writing to our representatives. Even if they get elected with a certain platform, things can change. And they need our feedback.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

Donna13 wrote: I'm glad you agree with me on the importance of writing to our representatives. Even if they get elected with a certain platform, things can change. And they need our feedback.

Oh, I absolutely do. Without our voice in the vote, we should have no voice in the complaints.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

Donna13 wrote: I'm glad you agree with me on the importance of writing to our representatives. Even if they get elected with a certain platform, things can change. And they need our feedback.

Oh, I absolutely do. Without our voice in the vote, we should have no voice in the complaints.

This is assuming that the politicians listen to the voters who do vote....and you don't have to look very far to see that they don't, unless it's election time.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

Donna13 wrote: I'm glad you agree with me on the importance of writing to our representatives. Even if they get elected with a certain platform, things can change. And they need our feedback.

Oh, I absolutely do. Without our voice in the vote, we should have no voice in the complaints.

This is assuming that the politicians listen to the voters who do vote....and you don't have to look very far to see that they don't, unless it's election time.

We all know that politicians only listen to a certain kind of people... ...the kind of people rich enough to finance their political campaigns.

yamaha wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I don't understand. How do they have it right? By forgiving? Why? To let go of anger so it doesn't fester like this guy's anger did? If that brings them peace, then yes, they have it right. Especially since the bastard is dead. But, what if he didn't die in this siege? Would they still have it right? Should he be forgiven for snuffing out the lives of these children or should he be punished? Maybe this paragraph from the article you posted says it all (though I found it deeply disturbing) - "We think it was God's plan, and we're going to have to pick up the pieces and keep going," he told AP. "A funeral to us is a much more important thing than the day of birth because we believe in the hereafter. The children are better off than their survivors." So they believe in the hereafter where, I assume, they feel he'll be punished for his sins, yes? So perhaps they're at peace knowing this and that's why they can forgive. IMO, forgiveness is a way to heal and move on, but it is in no way an answer to criminal behavior - especially of this magnitude.

What you are seeing are the Amish practices and traditions that the American (colonial) way of life was based. A real snapshot of the people who escaped persecution of the Church of England. Back in those days, there wasn't a great deal of difference between the Amish and mainstream colonists. Yes, they believe in forgiving acts of evil on earth with the understanding that God will be the final judge. The rest of society will punish him in their own way. That is okay with the Amish, as long as they don't look forward to it. That in itself would be a sin to them. The Amish are incredible people.

Donna13 wrote: Well, keep in mind that the Executive branch does not create laws. And referendums are on ballots at the local and state level. A simple democracy like the one I think you are saying we don't have, would be better for something smaller and less detailed, like a club or neighborhood association. It would never make practical sense for a large country. Also, there is a separation of powers between the states and the federal government.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

Donna13 wrote: Well, keep in mind that the Executive branch does not create laws. And referendums are on ballots at the local and state level. A simple democracy like the one I think you are saying we don't have, would be better for something smaller and less detailed, like a club or neighborhood association. It would never make practical sense for a large country. Also, there is a separation of powers between the states and the federal government.

I am aware that the executive branch doesn't create the laws, it merely enforces them. But, what good are laws that are created if they aren't enforced? Everything works together. The legislature creates the laws, which are useless unless they are enforced by the executive branch. Laws can get passed until time imemorial, but if they aren't enforced they don't amount to a hill of beans. I also realize there is a seperation of powers. My point here is that when good things happen, the President or governor gets the credit for it, even though he really had nothing to do with it. Same thing when bad things happen, the President gets the crap when bad things happen, even though it's not his fault.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

Donna13 wrote: Well, keep in mind that the Executive branch does not create laws. And referendums are on ballots at the local and state level. A simple democracy like the one I think you are saying we don't have, would be better for something smaller and less detailed, like a club or neighborhood association. It would never make practical sense for a large country. Also, there is a separation of powers between the states and the federal government.

I am aware that the executive branch doesn't create the laws, it merely enforces them. But, what good are laws that are created if they aren't enforced? Everything works together. The legislature creates the laws, which are useless unless they are enforced by the executive branch. Laws can get passed until time imemorial, but if they aren't enforced they don't amount to a hill of beans. I also realize there is a seperation of powers. My point here is that when good things happen, the President or governor gets the credit for it, even though he really had nothing to do with it. Same thing when bad things happen, the President gets the crap when bad things happen, even though it's not his fault.

"Separation of Powers" is dwindling under the current administration. See "Signing Statements" and "Unitary Executive."

Donna13 wrote: This would have been a good time to write to one's representatives in the Senate. More than a few Democrats voted in favor of this bill.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

Donna13 wrote: This would have been a good time to write to one's representatives in the Senate. More than a few Democrats voted in favor of this bill.

My state did hold a massive e-mailing campagin to the state senators. Guess the result? Nada. Whole mess got passed anyway. Besides, I think Levin voted against it, which is fine. It's the other 49 states, which we could do nothing about, that we needed to worry about. Democrats run Michigan, and have since the dawn of time. We knew we'd vote against it, but we have no voice as far as Ohio and swing states like that are concerned. And they are the ones who make all the difference.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: In case you aren't aware, there was a horrific scene at an Amish school in Pennsylvania where a guy went in armed to the teeth and then some, and killed 5 young girls ages 7 to 13. link I was reading some of the points of discussion about this, and one person simply said - We need stricter gun laws. <EOM> Someone else replied with this - "How would more laws stop criminals, since criminals do not purchase there guns from a guns store, they buy them on the street from other criminals. In my NRA member opinion, I have no problem with a 24 hour waiting period and background check, but any law that prevents me from owning will not stand." Sweet, ain't he? They say this bastard who killed those 5 young girls didn't have a criminal record and bought his weapons legally. So... going according to the above guy's comment, I can't help but wonder what waiting 24 hours and submitting to a background check would have done for these kids. Stricter guns laws? Outlaw guns completely? What? In your opinion, what's the answer here?

Messenger Of Leah wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: In case you aren't aware, there was a horrific scene at an Amish school in Pennsylvania where a guy went in armed to the teeth and then some, and killed 5 young girls ages 7 to 13. link I was reading some of the points of discussion about this, and one person simply said - We need stricter gun laws. <EOM> Someone else replied with this - "How would more laws stop criminals, since criminals do not purchase there guns from a guns store, they buy them on the street from other criminals. In my NRA member opinion, I have no problem with a 24 hour waiting period and background check, but any law that prevents me from owning will not stand." Sweet, ain't he? They say this bastard who killed those 5 young girls didn't have a criminal record and bought his weapons legally. So... going according to the above guy's comment, I can't help but wonder what waiting 24 hours and submitting to a background check would have done for these kids. Stricter guns laws? Outlaw guns completely? What? In your opinion, what's the answer here?

Gun laws can't control that. Even a cop could go mad and kill an innocent person on purpose. A gun never killed nobody You can ask anyone People get shot by people People with guns

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

Messenger Of Leah wrote: Gun laws can't control that. Even a cop could go mad and kill an innocent person on purpose. A gun never killed nobody You can ask anyone People get shot by people People with guns

This is true. Outlawing guns would simply make people use other means of killing people. Like knives, bats, and other objects that could be used as weapons.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

Messenger Of Leah wrote: Gun laws can't control that. Even a cop could go mad and kill an innocent person on purpose. A gun never killed nobody You can ask anyone People get shot by people People with guns

This is true. Outlawing guns would simply make people use other means of killing people. Like knives, bats, and other objects that could be used as weapons.

So because there will always be other weapons, guns should not be outlawed? That doesn't sound logical to me.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

Messenger Of Leah wrote: Gun laws can't control that. Even a cop could go mad and kill an innocent person on purpose. A gun never killed nobody You can ask anyone People get shot by people People with guns

This is true. Outlawing guns would simply make people use other means of killing people. Like knives, bats, and other objects that could be used as weapons.

So because there will always be other weapons, guns should not be outlawed? That doesn't sound logical to me.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: People kill people. Guns are just another way to do it. Kitchen knives are another way. And just like kitchen knives serve a purpose, so do guns.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: People kill people. Guns are just another way to do it. Kitchen knives are another way. And just like kitchen knives serve a purpose, so do guns.

Bring a kitchen knife into a school and a lot more kids would come out alive.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: People kill people. Guns are just another way to do it. Kitchen knives are another way. And just like kitchen knives serve a purpose, so do guns.

Bring a kitchen knife into a school and a lot more kids would come out alive.

You are missing the point entirely. Yes, more people would come out alive, but that doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the person who died. One person dying is too much, and having 50 die instead doesn't make it any worse. One life is just as valuable as 50. Just ask the one Principal who died when he was shot in his school. Is his life less valuable than the 5 Amish girls who died? I think not, and making value judgments like that doesn't help the argument at all. A life is a life, simple as that. Kill one or kill 50...it's still killing. Taking away guns may solve one facet of the problem, but not the problem itself.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: People kill people. Guns are just another way to do it. Kitchen knives are another way. And just like kitchen knives serve a purpose, so do guns.

Bring a kitchen knife into a school and a lot more kids would come out alive.