QueenZone discussion #984697

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: On the contrary, the effects of this tragedy would be mitigated if gun laws were not so stringent. Outlawing guns would merely produce a black market for them, more violence, and a higher proportion of guns would be in the hands of criminals. Black markets are not only harmful to the economy, but they also promote violence (consider the illegalization of prostitution and drugs). This is because "contract" disputes cannot be settled in courts, and therefore violence is used instead. Secondly, a person should have the basic right to do anything he wishes, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others (sadly, this is not practiced in all modern laws, such as those outlawing gay marriage and other victimless crimes). Owning a gun does not infringe upon any other person's rights. Finally, by outlawing guns, one effectively prevents a person to defend himself not only from other people, but the oppression of the government itself. This is perhaps the most compelling reason for the second amendment, and surely the one in mind when it was drafted. If we eliminate this right, all the rest of the rights we enjoy are threatened.

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

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: On the contrary, the effects of this tragedy would be mitigated if gun laws were not so stringent. Outlawing guns would merely produce a black market for them, more violence, and a higher proportion of guns would be in the hands of criminals. Black markets are not only harmful to the economy, but they also promote violence (consider the illegalization of prostitution and drugs). This is because "contract" disputes cannot be settled in courts, and therefore violence is used instead. Secondly, a person should have the basic right to do anything he wishes, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others (sadly, this is not practiced in all modern laws, such as those outlawing gay marriage and other victimless crimes). Owning a gun does not infringe upon any other person's rights. Finally, by outlawing guns, one effectively prevents a person to defend himself not only from other people, but the oppression of the government itself. This is perhaps the most compelling reason for the second amendment, and surely the one in mind when it was drafted. If we eliminate this right, all the rest of the rights we enjoy are threatened.

I think we discussed about this before... You give arguments which are never proven, while in Europe guns are actually outlawed and there are fewer accidents here. But let's be honest... Legal guns or illegal guns. I think that nothing would have stopped this idiot of killing those people. Terrible... I feel sorry for the family and friends of all the victims.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: That's a very, very good post, The Mir@cle. No amount of statistics will convince people who believe in guns of Americans right to carry them.

joxerthecornishpirate wrote: shocking news. but at least its given sky news something to report now instead of just going on about prince bloody william and his girlfriend splitting up.

<font color="#FF00FF">its_a_hard_life wrote:

joxerthecornishpirate wrote: shocking news. but at least its given sky news something to report now instead of just going on about prince bloody william and his girlfriend splitting up.

I know you ment well, but that sounded wrong! xD

Micrówave wrote: Yes, they should make all guns illegal. That way no one would be able to get one. If we could not blame the following for this shooting, that would be nice: 1. Gun Laws 2. Bush 3. Rutgers 4. Sanjaya The idea about metal detectors is nice, but hardly realistic. Remember, people PAY MONEY to go to college. Who is going to want to go to one that requires a bulletproof vest? I've often wondered in these school shootings: What is the ROTC program doing at those times? Bring back the early morning marches in full dress. That way if you see some guy waving a gun, it's easier to convince him to stop doing that with a batallion than University Police. It took the University Police two hours to investigate the first shooting? Campus should have been on lock-down at that exact moment.

Micrówave wrote: Campus should have been on lock-down at that exact moment.

joxerthecornishpirate wrote:

Micrówave wrote: Yes, they should make all guns illegal. That way no one would be able to get one.

i agree with you on everything you've written there,apart from your first line re guns.as the old saying goes ''where theres a will theres a way''

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: It just seems like something could have been done to either prevent or minimize this tragedy.

Micrówave wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: It just seems like something could have been done to either prevent or minimize this tragedy.

Why does someone always say this afterwards? No offense, but maybe nothing could have been done. Sometimes people are just bad. Stop blaming society, his parents, his teachers, the kid who made fun of his hair, whatever. Excuses are like a-holes.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: You can make statistics do what you want to, Music Man, I totally agree. Madonna and Britney Spears supporters would argue that they are peers of the Beatles, and better than Queen because of sales. However, if you believe at all in statistics, you surely know the following to be true: Americans are exponentially more likely to die from a handgun than anywhere else in the world. Consider Australia. The US has nearly 14 times Australia's population. It has 64 times Australia's total gun deaths, and 211 times its gun homicides. (According to US government statistics, approximately 9,000 people die every year from homicide with a handgun as weapon of choice.) In the other direction we have Japan with the world's toughest gun laws. Japan has just over seven times Australia's population, but in 1992, enjoying the world's lowest homicide rate, it had just 60 people murdered with guns--nearly 30% less than Australia's recent annual average of 85 people murdered with guns. If Australia had the America's gun homicide rate, they would have 1894--more than five a day. I'm Canadian, and we have 60 to 80 handgun deaths a year, which most Canadian's believe is 60 to 80 too many. So, I believe that people believe what they want to Music Man, and no disrespect, but the constitutional right to bear arms seems to me succeeds in giving American's the constitutional right to be murdered at a rate that far exceeds any other nation in the world. America is a hawkish country, and believes that might is right. Looking at the numbers of people who are murdered with guns compared to other countries, I'd really think the assertion that the average man in the street should be armed needs to be questioned. If not, no surprise when the next horror occurs. Condolences to the families of the victims first and foremost.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I once again am skeptical as to how people can take such adamant stances on this issue when the truth is vague and highly uncertain.

Kiki2 wrote: Come on just open your eyes! I live in France, guns are forbidden and tragedies like this one never happen!!! We NEVER had 30 (or even 1) students killed in a campus! Isn't it the greatest proof?! "The right to posess a gun is the right to defend yourself" Yes right... and if nobody had a gun, you woudn't even have to defend yourself! Instead of saying "everybody should have a gun" why don't you put it the other way? Would he have been able to kill so much persons in just a few minuts if he hadn't be armed? No! Of course not! Because no other weapon is more dangerous and "efficient" than a gun and the fact that everbody has the right to carry one frightens me. I absolutely don't feel safe...on the contrary! Every psycho,every freak has the right to buy a weapon! Just grow out of it! Men are crazy, don't allow them to have guns! They wrote the Constitution when they still had to defend themselves against Indians but I got news!!!! Old West is over...

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I once again am skeptical as to how people can take such adamant stances on this issue when the truth is vague and highly uncertain.

You're stance is adamant, is it not? And if the truth is vague and highly uncertain but facts show that with the status quo so many murders are committed by gunshot, then shouldn't a new approach be examined? Why stand firm on the 'right' to bear arms? Why suggest if the victims were armed the tragedy might have been less? Why not say what cannot be denied - if the gunman were not a gunman but a club or knife-wielding madman, 32 people would not have died by his hand today.

Kiki2 wrote: Come on just open your eyes! I live in France, guns are forbidden and tragedies like this one never happen!!! We NEVER had 30 (or even 1) students killed in a campus! Isn't it the greatest proof?! "The right to posess a gun is the right to defend yourself" Yes right... and if nobody had a gun, you woudn't even have to defend yourself! Instead of saying "everybody should have a gun" why don't you put it the other way? Would he have been able to kill so much persons in just a few minuts if he hadn't be armed? No! Of course not! Because no other weapon is more dangerous and "efficient" than a gun and the fact that everbody has the right to carry one frightens me. I absolutely don't feel safe...on the contrary! Every psycho,every freak has the right to buy a weapon! Just grow out of it! Men are crazy, don't allow them to have guns! They wrote the Constitution when they still had to defend themselves against Indians but I got news!!!! Old West is over...

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Change is needed, but we have people who want it to change in two completely different directions. Now, I'm not entirely sure how to settle that, because compromise is not very effective in this particular issue, as we have seen, since current American gun control policy is more or less such a compromise between the two extremes.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: The government's responsibility should be limited to protecting our freedoms, not taking them away to shape society in the way it deems fit. It is a gross injustice to prevent someone from living their life the way they want to, if this way of life does not infringe upon the rights of others. Throw out any statistics you like, but this principle should not waver, not ever. Perhaps it is different in Europe, but in the United States, rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness should be (but sadly aren't always) INALIENABLE.

Guns should also be legal because we all have the right to defend ourselves. Those 30+ people that died today could not depend on the government to protect them, but could have easily defended themselves if gun laws were not so stringent.

Finally, my arguments are proven. All the various black markets that currently exist, most notably drugs, operate in the same manner. What you mentioned, concerning accidental injury, has nothing to do with this argument at all.

joxerthecornishpirate wrote:

Kiki2 wrote: Come on just open your eyes! I live in France, guns are forbidden and tragedies like this one never happen!!! We NEVER had 30 (or even 1) students killed in a campus! Isn't it the greatest proof?! "The right to posess a gun is the right to defend yourself" Yes right... and if nobody had a gun, you woudn't even have to defend yourself! Instead of saying "everybody should have a gun" why don't you put it the other way? Would he have been able to kill so much persons in just a few minuts if he hadn't be armed? No! Of course not! Because no other weapon is more dangerous and "efficient" than a gun and the fact that everbody has the right to carry one frightens me. I absolutely don't feel safe...on the contrary! Every psycho,every freak has the right to buy a weapon! Just grow out of it! Men are crazy, don't allow them to have guns! They wrote the Constitution when they still had to defend themselves against Indians but I got news!!!! Old West is over...

guns are outlawed here in the UK but that didnt stop a nutter going into a school in dunblane and killing a bunch of kids or the current spate of shootings in south london or the tragedy in Hungerford. just because it may not of happened in France YET doesnt mean it WONT. theres an english saying 'those in glass houses should not throw stones'

technics wrote: music man.. ur an ignorant moron.

<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: "Call my opinion absurd... but what you say doesn't make any sense to me. The fact that I can't buy a weapon, doesn't mean that I can't live my life as I want to. I actually believe that Europe is more liberal than America." "You really believe that it will be a better world when everybody owns a gun to defend their selves? I believe that the world will become one big mess." "Well, I think we can discuss hours but we'll never agree with each other. I just think this way.... no weapons, no need for a weapon to defend yourself."

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: The feeling of safety is derived from the fact that the individual has the ability to defend himself, rather than to depend on the government to defend him. Thirty-two innocent people died yesterday. First, the government took away their right to defend themselves. Then, the government failed to defend them. Doesn't that seem like a problem?

Mr.Jingles wrote: What we need is a better system to respond to emergency situations like this one. Columbine wouldn't have nearly as bad if the police wouldn't have chosen to wait outside the school while kids were still being shot inside. We need school officials and students to receive information on how to communicate with authorities faster and more effectively (given that we have the technology) in order to avoid tragedies like this one from happening. Special security units like local Police forces should be given special training to respond to situations like this, and not wait for hours and hours until SWAT teams come and put things under control. The thought of giving the average citizen the right to own a gun "just in case shit happens" is absolutely absurd.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: The feeling of safety is derived from the fact that the individual has the ability to defend himself, rather than to depend on the government to defend him. Thirty-two innocent people died yesterday. First, the government took away their right to defend themselves. Then, the government failed to defend them. Doesn't that seem like a problem?

Boy Thomas Raker wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: The feeling of safety is derived from the fact that the individual has the ability to defend himself, rather than to depend on the government to defend him. Thirty-two innocent people died yesterday. First, the government took away their right to defend themselves. Then, the government failed to defend them. Doesn't that seem like a problem?

Why do scenes like this happen with great frequency in America though? Yes, it has happened elsewhere, but why do American's need to defend themselves to feel safe? Australians, Canadians, Japanese, Brits, Swedes, Frenchmen, Germans do not have the right to defend themselves. It's because they don't need to defend themselves to feel safe. There's not an American alive who can defend, with a straight face, American homicide rates when guns are involved. If they do, they'd have to admit that Americans are the stupidest people on the planet, unable to solve situations with peaceful solutions, or the most violent nation on earth, in which case I'd say the government is really failing them more as over 200,000 people have died in gun crimes since 1980. If 200,000 Americans died from eating fish or falling into potholes or having pianos fall on their heads from office towers, there'd be laws in place about preparation of fish, potholes would be filled and pianos wouldn't be allowed to be dropped from buildings. But 200,000 gun deaths? An acceptable cost of doing business.

pow wow wrote: And when was the last time 33 people were killed using a knife!

pow wow wrote: And when was the last time 33 people were killed using a knife!

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: OK...I get it. 33 is bad. 2 is fine. What a value judgement. Try telling that to the families of the 2 people who were knifed to death, that there lost loved ones are worth nothing because "At least they weren't shot to death in a mass shooting." Lunacy.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

pow wow wrote: And when was the last time 33 people were killed using a knife!

Totally missing the point. But if you insist on going this way, then I'm happy to point out something you may not realize. A) It's easier to survive a knife attack than a gunshot, so I admit the murder rate is lower. B) You want to turn this into a numbers game? Fine. So, if 2 people are knifed to death that's acceptable, but if 33 people die in a shootout that's unaccpetable? OK...I get it. 33 is bad. 2 is fine. What a value judgement. Try telling that to the families of the 2 people who were knifed to death, that there lost loved ones are worth nothing because "At least they weren't shot to death in a mass shooting." Lunacy.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: There is a fundamental problem with the people who blame guns for this: Guns don't kill people. A gun sitting on a table, even one that's cocked, is not going to kill anyone. It's the person who picks up that gun and points it at another human being and pulls the trigger...that is a real killer. The gun is merely the device. Given this information, and the responses of the anti-gun people here, you would think that banning guns from the face of the earth will solve this problem. WRONG! The problem, as you can clearly see, is that the person snapped and decided to become violent. The fact that he used to a gun to do it is a moot point. He owned a gun, just like my father owns a gun. My father does not snap and use it to kill people. The problem isn't with the ownership of the gun...it's with the fact that the person in question decided to use the gun to commit an act of violence. The Japan argument...this is classic. Yes, they have very low gun murder rates, since guns are forbidden. Does that stop people from being killed? No. It just means they use different methods; in Japan the prefered weapon for such an attack is a knife. Granted in most cases it's easier to survive being knifed than being shot, so the murder rate is lower, but again, keeping in mind that the problem is the person who decided to commit the crime, the problem isn't solved. Do the strict gun laws prevent the mass murder of people like what happened yesterday at VT? Nope. Do I need to remind you of the Sarin Gas Attack in 1995? Those people decided to kill as many people as possible. According to the theory used by the ban-guns people, this should never have happend, because they didn't have guns. Guess what, it happend, and 12 people died with almost 1000 experiencing temporary or permanent disfunctions of the eyes and respiratory system. Those people wanted to hurt people, and they found a way to do it, using Sarin gas. What should be obvious by now is that it's not the weapon that is used that causes the problems of murder, even on a mass scale. It's the fact that someone snapped and decided to become violent. Whether they use guns, knives or sarin gas, people die. It's not the guns fault, nor the knives, nor the sarin gas. It's the person who uses those weapons as a conduit for their own psychosis. Ban all the guns you want, and you won't solve the problem. As demonstrated in Japan, people will just use knives. You will never get to a point where you can ban everything that could be used as a weapon...even rocks can be used as weapons, and I don't think we can ban them. The problem lays with the people who use them as weapons. They are where efforts should be focused to prevent these things in the future. Oh, and whoever sugguested the ROTC be carrying guns to preven this in the future....don't get me started. Turning this into a shooting match between 20 people who aren't sharp shooters is only going to lead to more deaths.

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

pow wow wrote: And when was the last time 33 people were killed using a knife!

Well, Maggie already said that the death count might have been lower. Beside that, killing someone with a knife needs more courage. He might now have done it at all, although I doubt that. The point that Maggie makes is the same as Music Man. The responsibility of using guns is not with the government, but with the people who own them. And the gun is not to blame, but the people who use them. Though I think this is too easy. What is the use of owning a gun anyway? You don't need one, if someone else doesn't have one as well... so why not ban them completely? It does save lives!

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: OK...I get it. 33 is bad. 2 is fine. What a value judgement. Try telling that to the families of the 2 people who were knifed to death, that there lost loved ones are worth nothing because "At least they weren't shot to death in a mass shooting." Lunacy.

Tell the other 31 families that this might not have happened with a stricter gun law. I'm sure they would have begged for it. Of course you can't stop a sick person to murder, but if you can reduce the death count... then why don't do it.

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: I wonder how long it will take for people to blame George Bush.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: There is a fundamental problem with the people who blame guns for this: Guns don't kill people. A gun sitting on a table, even one that's cocked, is not going to kill anyone. It's the person who picks up that gun and points it at another human being and pulls the trigger...that is a real killer. The gun is merely the device. Given this information, and the responses of the anti-gun people here, you would think that banning guns from the face of the earth will solve this problem. WRONG! The problem, as you can clearly see, is that the person snapped and decided to become violent. The fact that he used to a gun to do it is a moot point. He owned a gun, just like my father owns a gun. My father does not snap and use it to kill people. The problem isn't with the ownership of the gun...it's with the fact that the person in question decided to use the gun to commit an act of violence. The Japan argument...this is classic. Yes, they have very low gun murder rates, since guns are forbidden. Does that stop people from being killed? No. It just means they use different methods; in Japan the prefered weapon for such an attack is a knife. Granted in most cases it's easier to survive being knifed than being shot, so the murder rate is lower, but again, keeping in mind that the problem is the person who decided to commit the crime, the problem isn't solved. Do the strict gun laws prevent the mass murder of people like what happened yesterday at VT? Nope. Do I need to remind you of the Sarin Gas Attack in 1995? Those people decided to kill as many people as possible. According to the theory used by the ban-guns people, this should never have happend, because they didn't have guns. Guess what, it happend, and 12 people died with almost 1000 experiencing temporary or permanent disfunctions of the eyes and respiratory system. Those people wanted to hurt people, and they found a way to do it, using Sarin gas. What should be obvious by now is that it's not the weapon that is used that causes the problems of murder, even on a mass scale. It's the fact that someone snapped and decided to become violent. Whether they use guns, knives or sarin gas, people die. It's not the guns fault, nor the knives, nor the sarin gas. It's the person who uses those weapons as a conduit for their own psychosis. Ban all the guns you want, and you won't solve the problem. As demonstrated in Japan, people will just use knives. You will never get to a point where you can ban everything that could be used as a weapon...even rocks can be used as weapons, and I don't think we can ban them. The problem lays with the people who use them as weapons. They are where efforts should be focused to prevent these things in the future. Oh, and whoever sugguested the ROTC be carrying guns to preven this in the future....don't get me started. Turning this into a shooting match between 20 people who aren't sharp shooters is only going to lead to more deaths.

You're an intelligent woman and on many points you and I agree, but this to me is total nonsense. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." If this guy didn't have a gun - excuse me TWO guns - all of those people would not have died. Simple. If he had a knife, he would have been taken down. If he had a club, he would have been taken down. Could he have built a bomb or used gas? Sure enough. Timothy McVeigh did it, didn't he? We can't prevent every crime, but we can prevent many crimes from being repeated - and gun crimes are repeated daily. Not banning guns has not lessened crime. How can it be argued that banning them would keep things the same or make them worse? Why does your father own a gun? For hunting? I won't get into that, it’s simply disgusting. For protection? From whom? Other people with guns? This is such a ridiculous a

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: IMO, the problem here lies with the police and the Campus folks not securing the buildings, and not locking down the campus until the shooter was apprehended. That move alone saves 30 lives. There was simply nothing that could have been done to save the two killed in the dorm room, but for the police to act in the non chalant way that they did was and is inexcusable.

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Abortion, legal or otherwise, is taking a human life. You can argue semantics on that until the cows come home, but the bottom line is, more lives are taken that way than with guns. Some call it murder, some call it "choice", but either way, millions of humans never walk this earth because of that act.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Either tackle the whole problem of murder or don't. Don't pick and choose your arguments. That's the point I make here.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Either tackle the whole problem of murder or don't. Don't pick and choose your arguments. That's the point I make here.

Picture a housing complex. Structures are made of wood and are surrounded by trees and other brush. A fire breaks out and winds carry the flames across the complex. People scatter in every direction, hoping to escape. Though it's clear some will die and many buildings will be destroyed, do we not try to douse the flames anyway? Or do we say flames, water damage and falling timber will also destroy the complex, so why bother to do anything? Imagine a woman with breast cancer. If left alone, the cancer will spread and kill her. Logic says remove it and do whatever is possible to extend her life. But... people die. That's a fact. So is saving or extending this woman's life a waste of effort? That seems to be the argument you are making. No one is saying crime/murder will be eliminated by banning guns or enforcing gun laws. What is being said is that at least one element of crime can be reduced. To say this should not be looked into since crime will still exist is to say fires should not be fought and life-saving surgeries should not be performed.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: I wonder how long it will take for people to blame George Bush.

Well... he did allow the ban on assault weapons to expire without requiring a renewal, so...

FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: after reading topic I begin to think even more that there's something genetically wrong with Americans (except some... you know who you are! ;))

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: I would assume then that you have a problem with the 47,282,923 abortions performed in the US since 1973?

mahlerscom wrote: The above listing is the parents home of the gunman

The Japan argument...this is classic. Yes, they have very low gun murder rates, since guns are forbidden. Does that stop people from being killed? No. It just means they use different methods; in Japan the prefered weapon for such an attack is a knife.

mahlerscom wrote: I am like probably countless others thinking that perhaps there is an underlying al-Qaeda connection here, there has been no official word of a connection.

Micrówave wrote: Ninjas are from Japan. 32 would be easy.

Canada, Argentina, Germany, Russia, Bosnia, Sweden, Netherlands, Yemen, and Scotland have all had school shootings.....regardless on whatever gun laws that they had.

Only Chuck Norris would have

Haystacks Calhounski wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Either tackle the whole problem of murder or don't. Don't pick and choose your arguments. That's the point I make here.

Picture a housing complex. Structures are made of wood and are surrounded by trees and other brush. A fire breaks out and winds carry the flames across the complex. People scatter in every direction, hoping to escape. Though it's clear some will die and many buildings will be destroyed, do we not try to douse the flames anyway? Or do we say flames, water damage and falling timber will also destroy the complex, so why bother to do anything? Imagine a woman with breast cancer. If left alone, the cancer will spread and kill her. Logic says remove it and do whatever is possible to extend her life. But... people die. That's a fact. So is saving or extending this woman's life a waste of effort? That seems to be the argument you are making. No one is saying crime/murder will be eliminated by banning guns or enforcing gun laws. What is being said is that at least one element of crime can be reduced. To say this should not be looked into since crime will still exist is to say fires should not be fought and life-saving surgeries should not be performed.

In Virginia, it is illegal for anyone other than officially designated personnel to carry a firearm on the grounds of a public university. Not even people with valid concealed-carry permits are exempt. So, it was already illegal for the shooter to have the guns on campus. Tighter laws would have made little difference. This guy carefully planned this whole thing, down to carrying the chains and locks to keep people from escaping, purchashed the guns 31 days apart, filed the serial numbers off of them, which in itself is illegal, and went to make "history" yesterday. Anyone who thinks that this man would not purchased these guns on the black market is on a pipe dream. That was his weapon, he bought them legally, and did something against the law. With this careful planning, just as you can purchase illegal drugs, you can also purchase illegal guns. This wasn't a case of some random guy buying a gun at Wal Mart on Sunday, and showing up on Monday blasting everyone in sight. This was a carefully planned murder spree, and no amount of laws on the books was going to stop it. The only thing that would have stopped this was the school locking the campus down, but, due in part to the bomb threats last week that locked the campus down, and due to the fact that the police thought that they had the suspect in the dorm shootings, they did not lock down the campus. It make one wonder to the length that this guy went. Did he call in the threats last week to try to use "the boy who cried wolf"? Did he pick to shoot the girl in the dorm room knowing that her boyfriend would be the suspect? It's odd.....

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: "BLACKSBURG, Va. (AP) -- The gunman suspected of carrying out the Virginia Tech massacre that left 33 people dead was identified Tuesday as a English major whose creative writing was so disturbing that he was referred to the school's counseling service. News reports also said that he may have been taking medication for depression, that he was becoming increasingly violent and erratic, and that he left a note in his dorm in which he railed against "rich kids," "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans" on campus.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I don't see why it is wrong to revisit those laws and others to see how/if they can be improved.

.DeaconJohn. wrote: It's all very well saying that people who want to get a gun will do so whatever the law, but it's not really a valid argument. If it's easy to get a gun, it means someone can do something on a whim which they may not do if they had to invest lots of time and effort in getting a gun. I wouldn't have a clue how to get a gun. I would imagine the average student in the UK wouldn't have a clue how to get a gun. But in the US, it seems most people can get a gun, rather quickly. This DOES make a big difference.

Zebonka12 wrote: (George Harrison mode on) If everyone with a gun shot themselves, the world would be a safer place). (I think I'll leave this mode on for a few minutes while I go write some songs).

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: ...why do American's feel the need to arm themselves when their fellow Western nations don't? I don't understand this at all.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: So, again, if Haystacks Calhounski, Music Man or CMU History Girl could answer why the most heavily armed country on earth is by far the most unsafe, I'd be willing to hear how lack of gun control is a good thing.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Hi CMU History Girl. I apologize for the impression I was putting words into your mouth, I'm probably responding more to everyone who's been pro-gun in my posts. So, and I'm not being a smart ass here, but I've asked this question many times today in many ways, why do American's feel the need to arm themselves when their fellow Western nations don't? I don't understand this at all.

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Abortion, legal or otherwise, is taking a human life. You can argue semantics on that until the cows come home, but the bottom line is, more lives are taken that way than with guns. Some call it murder, some call it "choice", but either way, millions of humans never walk this earth because of that act.

Mr.Jingles wrote: An act which then prevents over population, and avoids a lot of social problems caused by raising a child in an environment where they would be subject to emotional and economical problems caused by unqualified parenting and growing up in a socially troubled environment. Since abortion is such a horrible act, I'd like to see all the anti-abortion moralists put their tax money on social programs to help raise all the kids born whose parents would have chosen to abort. ...Oh wait! They are against that too.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Abortion, legal or otherwise, is taking a human life. You can argue semantics on that until the cows come home, but the bottom line is, more lives are taken that way than with guns. Some call it murder, some call it "choice", but either way, millions of humans never walk this earth because of that act.

How is an abortion more of a murder than using a condom or some other birth control? With your logic, every woman who has had sex and her period is a serial killer too, then. Let's take it one step further. Do you eat meat, or use other products that come from animals? Is it okay to kill them for your needs and consumption? A life is a life. But back to topic... I can't imagine how twisted your mind must be if you honestly believe that killing a fetus that has no feelings or nervous system is as brutal as killing a human being.

Mr.Jingles wrote: An act which then prevents over population, and avoids a lot of social problems caused by raising a child in an environment where they would be subject to emotional and economical problems caused by unqualified parenting and growing up in a socially troubled environment. Since abortion is such a horrible act, I'd like to see all the anti-abortion moralists put their tax money on social programs to help raise all the kids born whose parents would have chosen to abort. ...Oh wait! They are against that too.

Excellent post.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Hi CMU History Girl. I apologize for the impression I was putting words into your mouth, I'm probably responding more to everyone who's been pro-gun in my posts. So, and I'm not being a smart ass here, but I've asked this question many times today in many ways, why do American's feel the need to arm themselves when their fellow Western nations don't? I don't understand this at all.

I think it goes back to the American perception of ourselves probably. We are a young country...we don't have that Massive Historical Memory that Western Europeans have...we can't trace our history back more than about 400 years with any reliability. So, our perception of ourselves and our identities are shaped by our history, history which includes expansionism to fill the continent, which was acheived mostly through use of the gun. Guns have always been a part of our history, and we have the right to have them, though not the need. Sure, some people think they need them, but some people also think the earth is flat. The NRA people (who I'm also opposed to) think that everyone NEEDS to own a gun. I don't think this is the case, but I do think we should have the right to have them. I probably won't personally ever own one, but that doesn't mean I don't want the option. I feel like I know better about what is good for me than the government does. Coincidently, that's my stance on abortion which Haystacks seems fixated on (though I'm not sure why). Europeans went through the same thing several hundred years ago. Nobels being able to carry weapons at court caused huge fiascos all over Europe, and the argument was that they had the right to carry them...it was a hold-over from the days before centralized nations, when nobles needed to be armed to support their claims to power. You've been through the same thing. We are just going through it now. Give it a few hundred years, and things may change. We are all at different phases in development...you guys just happen to be ahead on this one. Again, I'm not anti-gun control...I don't think guns are necessarily a good thing either. I just point out that gun control would not have prevented this incident (as he followed all laws and regulations and went through the background checks required), and I'm someone who would rather not have more government interference in my life than is necessary. I have no faith in the government's ability to run things in a good way, since they've proven time and time again that they are incapable of the task. Let me decide how I want to live my life...that's what I want. That's why I'm also anti-drug laws and pro-choice. It's my life...let me decide how to live my life, provided I'm not trampling on the rights of others, it's no one else's business but mine.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: How is an abortion more of a murder than using a condom or some other birth control?

Sparrow wrote: i have a feeling ill be editing my post to note everything i either think couldve/shouldve been done, etc. the right to bear arms- first of all, as someone said, someone could easily kill someone with a knife, shank, lighter, pencil, nailclipper, you name it! a gun is just the easiest and quickest way to kill/hurt people while they are unarmed. it was the idiot that killed and hurt these people; not the gun itself. that gun could easily have been in the hands of a police officer, security guard, hunter (unlikely with a 9mm, but if it were a shotgun, let's say...) it couldve been used wisely. as for the psycho who decided to do this, i cant wait to hear what his possible motives were (there is supposedly another shooter, reported alive as far as i knew, and im sure the other left evidence that he was planning something, or possibly went postal) personally, if its detected early enouhg, those who are a danger to society (i dont care who they are) should be locked up. the bullshit of letting these people walk the streets because 'they have rights too..."....sorry but no. at the point of brutally harming or killing someone else, you lose your rights. but that is unlikely and the bleeding liberals wouldnt stand for that. as for metal detectors: what are the odds of a shooter coming into my school and shooting everyone around? but then again, why should we feel unsafe in college or school? the problem with that is, eventually we will be as extreme as the airports with 'weapons'. as i said before, anything can be used as a weapon, so therefore, our pencils and pens and computers should be taken away as a threat that one whole person in an unlikely group could turn those into something deadly. so its hard to say, whether we should do that or not. there should be limits to owning a gun, with the way things are going. i never hear about shootings in schools in other countries, so what are we doing wrong? well, like i said, that gun could easily end up in the wrong persons hands, i believe that unless you are using a gun for a designated purpose that is set on papers (hunters owning shotguns, police owning pistols, etc) would be the best way. even keeping a gun for security of your own home, is probably not the smartest idea especially with reports of people accidentally shooting a loved one, or a child finding it and thinking its a toy....i could go on. again, easily tho, those people (police, etc) could also go nuts. its difficult to say on these things. my sincere condolences to those families. i have a feeling we'll be talking about this in forensic psych tomorrow.... *also i noticed* how stupid was someone to send and EMAIL to surrounding buildings. who in any state of panic goes "wait! i gotta check my email!" ? there are cell phones, someone wouldve somehow been aware of what was going on....i dunno its just stupid, it doesnt make sense.

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Abortion is taking a human life and snuffing it, condoms and the like keep that life from ever occuring. If you can't make that distinction, that's your own issue.

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Abortion is taking a human life and snuffing it, condoms and the like keep that life from ever occuring. If you can't make that distinction, that's your own issue.

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Abortion, legal or otherwise, is taking a human life. You can argue semantics on that until the cows come home, but the bottom line is, more lives are taken that way than with guns. Some call it murder, some call it "choice", but either way, millions of humans never walk this earth because of that act. Today, far more than 25 people will be killed in car accidents, for more than that will be taken out by the effects of smoking, the effects of eating artery clogging foods, etc.

Micrówave wrote: After reading some of these posts, I have a problem with a couple that weren't performed. But then some idiot will probably claim that America is the most unsafe place on earth and lack of gun control made it that way. Isn't it a little more dangerous in Iraq? Boy Thomas Niave.

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Lets see... Canada, Argentina, Germany, Russia, Bosnia, Sweden, Netherlands, Yemen, and Scotland have all had school shootings.....regardless on whatever gun laws that they had. I realize that is the knee jerk reaction to blame government for the actions of idiots...in this case, though, no amount of law would have made one iota of difference. Only Chuck Norris would have.

Micrówave wrote: Yes, writing new laws, drafting amendments, majority voting, introducing bills, and a lot of red tape would help immensly. I bet I could just as easily get a handgun in France, Hungary, Australia, or Turkey. Cash buys anything, anytime. How do gun laws come into play there?

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: We could go back and forth on this forever. I realize that troubled people are everywhere and that you can't control their actions. I also realize that you can choke to death eating sunflower seeds, falling down in the bath tub and fucking someone whose sexual health you aren't sure of. People who believe in gun control would advocate banning sunflower seeds, bathing and fucking because they can kill you just like a gun can, which is just a clever way of avoiding a tough question (why do we need guns?) We could sit here for the next few years, and there won't be an answer for how America's guns laws make America safer than other countries because it's exponentially more unsafe. So, if the purpose of "the right to bear arms" is personal and property protection, then your government is f

willem-jan wrote: To all you pro-gun people, how about this. Apparently you think everybody has the right to defend themselves. Iran wants to do that by building nuclear weapons. They don't want to use these weapons, just want them for defensive purposes. However, the US says they can not have such weapons. Why would that be, nuclear weapons don't harm people.... Sure, only if one retard snaps and pushes the button, he will launch some rockets killing thousands of people. But yeah, if somebody snaps he will kill anyway, no matter what weapon he uses. So, coming from this point of view: why can't Iran defend itself with nuclear arms, and can an average American defend his house with firearms. And don't start with the argument that nuclear arms are more harmful, this argument isn't valid in the gun vs. knife discussion either. At least, that's how you put it.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Music Man, when you say "The United States is by no means "unsafe," and is certainly, without a doubt NOT the most unsafe nation on earth. In fact, it is among the safest", compared to which nations? More gun deaths in a day in the US than a year in Japan, more in 3 days than a year in Canada, more in 2 days than a year Australia. I could go on.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: I'm not sure citizens of Canada, Australia, and all of the controls I've named feel they have less liberty than Americans because they can't own a gun.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Saying that televisions, cars, tennis racquets, and other luxuries may be potentially harmful to ourselves and others is a ludricous argument. Guns are meant to kill.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote:
Saying that "we must even be able to use them at the expense of ourselves" is probably where people from countries where guns are prohibited are confused by people wanting/needing a gun. The citizens of the country that has the most guns are most likely to die by them. In other words the average Aussie without a gun is probably a 7 million to 1 shot of being murdered by a gun, where an American with a gun is probably 100,000 to 1. I like the unarmed Aussie's chances

willem-jan wrote: To all you pro-gun people, how about this. Apparently you think everybody has the right to defend themselves. Iran wants to do that by building nuclear weapons. They don't want to use these weapons, just want them for defensive purposes. However, the US says they can not have such weapons. Why would that be, nuclear weapons don't harm people.... Sure, only if one retard snaps and pushes the button, he will launch some rockets killing thousands of people. But yeah, if somebody snaps he will kill anyway, no matter what weapon he uses. So, coming from this point of view: why can't Iran defend itself with nuclear arms, and can an average American defend his house with firearms. And don't start with the argument that nuclear arms are more harmful, this argument isn't valid in the gun vs. knife discussion either. At least, that's how you put it.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: CMU mentioned something about the American mindset, and I have a different take on it. But to borrow what she said, the United States is a very individual nation. Community, country, and society all fade in comparison to the individual. We don't want anyone, or anything else dictating what we are to do - not even our bosses, police officers, or government. That is why individual liberties here are revered more than anywhere else.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Other nations don't feel violated by not being allowed to carry guns because they apparently do rely on their governments.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: It's a misconception that guns are meant to kill. What percentage of guns are ever used to kill another human? One in a million? Guns can be used for other purposes, such as security and even as a hobby. Many people shoot targets regularly - mind you, these targets are not people. If it makes some people happy, it'd be unjust to take it away from people who are not using them for illegal purposes.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Now, the gun vs. knife argument has nothing to do with the power of the weapon. It has to do with the fact that most, if not all, murders would occur, whether the weapon be a knife or a gun. You're really pushing the apples and oranges comparison with this argument.

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

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: CMU mentioned something about the American mindset, and I have a different take on it. But to borrow what she said, the United States is a very individual nation. Community, country, and society all fade in comparison to the individual. We don't want anyone, or anything else dictating what we are to do - not even our bosses, police officers, or government. That is why individual liberties here are revered more than anywhere else.

Other point, but I have to say this. If you Americans hate being dictated (we are not dictating btw... we just try to open your eyes), then why does America dictate the whole world without trying to understand that you're unwanted somewhere else.

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

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Other nations don't feel violated by not being allowed to carry guns because they apparently do rely on their governments.

It doesn't have something to do with relying on our governments, neither we have police officers everywhere to protect us 24/7. It has something to do with trust in the human kind. And it really helps to know that not everyone carries a weapon, when I go out shopping.

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

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: It's a misconception that guns are meant to kill. What percentage of guns are ever used to kill another human? One in a million? Guns can be used for other purposes, such as security and even as a hobby. Many people shoot targets regularly - mind you, these targets are not people. If it makes some people happy, it'd be unjust to take it away from people who are not using them for illegal purposes.

This is a laugh... "It's a misconception that guns are meant to kill". Yeah right, they're made for hugging. Ok, some people use them as an hobby. But wouldn't those people be just as happy as they use rubber bullets for hitting their targets? I think you're making a fool of yourself right now.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: If anything, human kind is something that can never be blindly trusted, no matter how many social advances are undergone. And contrarily, it should be disadvantageous to know that not everyone carries a weapon when you go out shopping.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I might also like to add that there is no clear-cut relationship between gun control, gun ownership, etc. and crime. So the most we can do is surmise the effects of gun control legislation. To say that one opinion is superior to another is absolutely absurd. That is why most of my argument is based on principle, rather than practicality. Since no practical evidence can be drawn, absolute negative freedom should be exercised.

Zebonka12 wrote: "It's a misconception that guns are meant to kill." Hahaha. If there is some other purpose for guns (incapacitation) then they are overpowered. Or perhaps they're intended as a recreational tool? In which case - still overpowered. Unless it's for the military, law enforcement, or control of animals in an agricultural area, a gun is completely overpowered. One can be ambiguous and say 'I carry a gun for self defense' but the odds are you'll kill someone if you use it. Even if you aim somewhere less vital, it's still a pretty deadly weapon.

Zebonka12 wrote: "It has to do with the fact that most, if not all, murders would occur, whether the weapon be a knife or a gun." Not really a 'fact'.... again, with these 30+ killings, I hardly think the body count would be so high if the thug only had access to a bladed weapon. Consider this - you really have to know what you're doing with a knife to kill 'efficiently' like with a gun (barf). It's not very often we talk about "the great machete massacre of '55". So either these things are massively under-reported, or they simply don't happen... unlike gun rampages. You have a point, inasmuch as cases where there's small numbers of victims would probably have the same outcome; knife, gun or pogo stick being the weapon of choice. People would still get killed, but if the issue is saving lives, or lessening the number of deaths - then in my view a blade is much preferable. Sure, they shouldn't have a weapon at all, but I'm thinking of the lesser evil here. The mob stands a chance of taking down said loony, if he isn't packing heat.

Zebonka12 wrote: "I might also like to add that there is no clear-cut relationship between gun control, gun ownership, etc. and crime. " And fair enough.. I just feel - less guns, less shootings. Over time, if the availability of firearms is impaired, or perhaps if the government handed over big bucks to gun owners (hell WE did it, and it works) then it's a start. What I'd really like to know is how many massacres the American people must endure before something really gets done? Meh!

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

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: If anything, human kind is something that can never be blindly trusted, no matter how many social advances are undergone. And contrarily, it should be disadvantageous to know that not everyone carries a weapon when you go out shopping.

You Americans are ruled by fear and paranoia. That your biggest problem I guess. Anyway, this discussion can go on for months without getting anywhere. Call me naive. I don't care.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I might also like to add that there is no clear-cut relationship between gun control, gun ownership, etc. and crime. So the most we can do is surmise the effects of gun control legislation. To say that one opinion is superior to another is absolutely absurd. That is why most of my argument is based on principle, rather than practicality. Since no practical evidence can be drawn, absolute negative freedom should be exercised.

In the end, it's not our business. If you truly believe in that so called ‘absolute negative freedom’, then good luck!!! We just tried to tell you what the price is.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: More than anything, I'm shocked that there's not a soul who'll say, "look, there is a problem in the country with guns. We need to have a civilized and rational dailogue on why we as Americans are killing each other at rates that absolutely dwarf those of our industrial trading partners. The killing of innocent Americans can't go on."

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Again, as outsiders, we have no role in forming American policy. I don't think anyone has said on this board that America had damn well better change their gun laws tomorrow. We're all a bit confused as to why they are needed when other civilized countries appear to be doing fine without guns. And Music Man, when I posted that stat about the odds of an Aussie and an American getting killed by a gun, I was totally ballparking as I was too lazy to do the calculations. Go to this site though: link Now this comes from the Center for Disease Control, which is a non-partisan American government agency. If you to choose to refute their findings I don't know what to say. If you accept the numbers as valid, then it appears clear that an average of 14,000 were murdered on AVERAGE between 1981 and 2000. That's 281,000 people in 20 years. To use your example of televisions as killing machines, I'd find it incomprehensible if someone in government didn't speak up if televisions just started blowing up and killing people to the tune of 40 a day. More than anything, I'm shocked that there's not a soul who'll say, "look, there is a problem in the country with guns. We need to have a civilized and rational dailogue on why we as Americans are killing each other at rates that absolutely dwarf those of our industrial trading partners. The killing of innocent Americans can't go on." Finally, all of the talk of freedoms and liberties is ludicrous. As Your Valentine pointed out so accurately, America is virtually controlled by the government as per what they can and can't do. Smoke a joint and you're potentially facing prison time. Marijuana is a recreational drug, and America treats it as if it's the devil's drug. Smoking doe is bad, but shooting people is good. Nice concern for your citizens.

YourValentine wrote: As to the abortion issue: an unborn embryo is unable to live outside the mother's body. Therefore, the right of the mother has always be to be considered, too when we discuss abortion - it's a totally different issue.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: A gun is a deadly weapon, but the vast majority of gun owners will never use it as one. That's the primary point I was aiming for.

The point is, drugs or guns, both should be legal insofar as that they aren't used to infringe upon the rights of others. If that is ludicrous, then by God I'm mad.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: A gun is a deadly weapon, but the vast majority of gun owners will never use it as one. That's the primary point I was aiming for.

But with all logic in mind... do you honestly think the US would still be at the top of the list of gun crimes if guns couldn't be bought at the corner store?

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: But after a while, a politician (somewhat with clout, not a poster on this board) has to get America to discuss its fascination with guns.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

The point is, drugs or guns, both should be legal insofar as that they aren't used to infringe upon the rights of others. If that is ludicrous, then by God I'm mad.

You, as a person of logic, could make that work. However, the majority of people in your country could not do the same... especially when you still have people in the south who will shoot a black person on first sighting.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: No, I wasn't saying you were denigrating anyone Music Man, as a matter of fact I've mentioned that one of your posts and one of CMU Girl's were excellent and informative. I live in a city that is pretty much despised by the rest of our country, the city is thought to be arrogant and self centred. America is like that to a lot of people in the rest of the world, so it's easy for people to get their backs up when under attack. I just can't for the life of me, and I appreciate the efforts you and others have made to enlighten me, why people would want or need guns. I do understand, and this isn't a shot, that America is a far more violent country than the others I'm comparing it to. But after a while, a politician (somewhat with clout, not a poster on this board) has to get America to discuss its fascination with guns. Further to your freedoms and liberties, Janet Jackson's nipples are worse than television murders. (For those who don't know, one of Janet Jackson's nipples was revealed during a broadcast of the Super Bowl, American football's version of the World Cup.) There was an uproar virtually unprecedented in America over decency standards. The owner of the station (Viacom) paid out $3.5 million to settle indecency claims. There was a chill in broadcasting standards, particularly radio, that exists to this day. Europe and the rest of the world were bemused by this, after all, it's a nipple. But sex is bad in America, and people must be protected from it. Yet at the same time Janet Jackson's nipple was being exposed, there were 3 depictions of violent murders in the first half hour of Alias. Nary a peep from anyone as that's accepted behavior. That's an incredibly confusing message that the government and the FCC is sending its citizens. Sex/nudity, one of life's pleasures, can't been seen by Americans on network television at any time. Murder, which is generally not a good thing, on the other hand is a staple of prime time.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: It always seems so in the beginning, but as we discuss it further and further, you realize that it's all a bunch of "ifs," "buts," and "maybes."

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Not everyone 'realizes' this. No ifs, buts, or maybes about it - new gun control laws and enforcement of them would prevent deaths.

Micrówave wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Not everyone 'realizes' this. No ifs, buts, or maybes about it - new gun control laws and enforcement of them would prevent deaths.

What you (and others) don't realize is they would also cause death and increased illegal activity. So it's better to have a bunch of black market gun dealers selling guns to kids instead of having some sort of system in place (albiet not a perfect one!) that tracks a gun buyer?

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: It always seems so in the beginning, but as we discuss it further and further, you realize that it's all a bunch of "ifs," "buts," and "maybes."

Not everyone 'realizes' this. No ifs, buts, or maybes about it - new gun control laws and enforcement of them would prevent deaths. Exactly how many prevented deaths doesn't seem important or even possible to measure because we all understand about black markets. Fact remains - deaths from gunshot would be reduced. Why that isn't reason enough to provide substantial laws against the acquisition of guns is a point anti-gun control people seem unable to answer logically.

Sparrow wrote: -snip-

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

Sparrow wrote: -snip-

I read your post before, and just have to say that you should never trust a person from the media!

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: The government could mandate a specific healthy diet that every citizen had to legally partake in. It would save countless lives - far more than any gun control laws.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: That's why smoking bans, for example, have been somewhat accepted.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: It's a choice s/he inflicts on those within the circle of exhaled toxins.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: The government could mandate a specific healthy diet that every citizen had to legally partake in. It would save countless lives - far more than any gun control laws.

One affects oneself, the other affects others. That's why smoking bans, for example, have been somewhat accepted. Smoking (as opposed to overeating) isn't simply a choice the smoker makes regarding her/his health. It's a choice s/he inflicts on those within the circle of exhaled toxins.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: From 1970 to 1996, 1,385 Canadians died as a result of homicides with a gun. That's 193 people per year average. According to the findings from the US governments CDC that I listed earlier, an average of 14,000 Americans are victims of gun related murder every year from 1980 to 2001. So, unless your concept of safer is different than mine, Canada is so far safer than the US it's not funny.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: I'm not a statistician but 193 goes into 14,000 roughly 72.5 times So 72.5 Americans will be murdered by a gun in an AVERAGE year before the first person in Canada.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: In socialist, land of no personal freedom Canada, there's a city called Toronto. Couple of million people. You cannot smoke indoors unless it's your home. No offices, no restaurants, no factories. One of the auto factories I deal with now won't allow smoking on their property. It has been met with resistance, but you can't smoke anywhere but the great outdoors. A few places lost business, but the feeling is that non-smokers will make up the slack. So granted, Toronto isn't a hotel that is smoke free, it's a city of say, 10,000 hotels. Most of Ontario is adopting these non-smoking resolutions, if they haven't already. It's a concept called "the greater good."

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Now, honestly, can anyone really tell me what law would have prevented this guy from getting a gun?

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Now, honestly, can anyone really tell me what law would have prevented this guy from getting a gun?

A law requiring a comprehensive mental, physical and criminal background check that includes the right to permanent refusal if mental instability is indicated.

YourValentine wrote: On TV they said the killer was on anti-depression medication, that was also true for one of the killers in the Columbine high school. Perhaps we should be more careful with such medication. He was also perceived as "severly disturbed" by his creative writing teachers. It's easy to give disturbed people a pill - maybe time and care are more useful. It would save us a lot of "blame someone, shoot someone, forbid something" responses.

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Now, honestly, can anyone really tell me what law would have prevented this guy from getting a gun? This dude was a kook, and, sadly, due to whatever reasons political or otherwise, this guy was allowed to continue to be a student. He was a ticking time bomb.... But, lets blame the gun laws. A knee jerk reaction that, to me, makes no sense. Perhaps one law we do need to revisit is letting people like this walk amongst the rest of us. link BLACKSBURG, Virginia (CNN) -- CNN also learned Wednesday that in 2005 Cho was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice, who declared he was "an imminent danger" to himself, a court document states. A temporary detention order from General District Court in the commonwealth of Virginia said Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." A box indicating that the subject "Presents an imminent danger to others as a result of mental illness" was not checked. In another part of the form, Cho was described as "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization, and presents an imminent danger to self or others as a result of mental illness, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for self, and is incapable of volunteering or unwilling to volunteer for treatment."

Mike Van wrote: I bet there would be enough jail capacity to handle the upsurge in crime ...

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: No, I wasn't saying you were denigrating anyone Music Man, as a matter of fact I've mentioned that one of your posts and one of CMU Girl's were excellent and informative. I live in a city that is pretty much despised by the rest of our country, the city is thought to be arrogant and self centred. America is like that to a lot of people in the rest of the world, so it's easy for people to get their backs up when under attack. I just can't for the life of me, and I appreciate the efforts you and others have made to enlighten me, why people would want or need guns. I do understand, and this isn't a shot, that America is a far more violent country than the others I'm comparing it to. But after a while, a politician (somewhat with clout, not a poster on this board) has to get America to discuss its fascination with guns. Further to your freedoms and liberties, Janet Jackson's nipples are worse than television murders. (For those who don't know, one of Janet Jackson's nipples was revealed during a broadcast of the Super Bowl, American football's version of the World Cup.) There was an uproar virtually unprecedented in America over decency standards. The owner of the station (Viacom) paid out $3.5 million to settle indecency claims. There was a chill in broadcasting standards, particularly radio, that exists to this day. Europe and the rest of the world were bemused by this, after all, it's a nipple. But sex is bad in America, and people must be protected from it. Yet at the same time Janet Jackson's nipple was being exposed, there were 3 depictions of violent murders in the first half hour of Alias. Nary a peep from anyone as that's accepted behavior. That's an incredibly confusing message that the government and the FCC is sending its citizens. Sex/nudity, one of life's pleasures, can't been seen by Americans on network television at any time. Murder, which is generally not a good thing, on the other hand is a staple of prime time.

Micrówave wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Not everyone 'realizes' this. No ifs, buts, or maybes about it - new gun control laws and enforcement of them would prevent deaths.

What you (and others) don't realize is they would also cause death and increased illegal activity. So it's better to have a bunch of black market gun dealers selling guns to kids instead of having some sort of system in place (albiet not a perfect one!) that tracks a gun buyer?

Micrówave wrote: #36 United States 5.9 (ah, there we are!) #66 United Kingdom 2.0 (sweet, pat yerselves on the back, panzies!) #67 Canada 2.0

Murder Rate per 100,000 people (2004/2005 Figures) USA: 5.9 Switzerland: 2.94 Isreal: 2.64 France: 1.64 England and Wales: 1.62 New Zealand: 1.29 Australia: 1.28 Spain: 1.25 Italy: 1.23

YourValentine wrote: The idea that Tom, Dick and Harry can have guns all the time does not seem to help them feel safer in their homes.

YourValentine wrote: How much indifference does it take to let a situation get out of control like this.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Abortion was listed as an instrument of murder, along with televisions, several passion fruits, listening to boy bands and non-missionary position intercourse.

YourValentine wrote: On the other hand people in Canada have just as many guns but the murder rate is much, much lower. So, there must be a significant difference in the two societies which cannot be explained by the gun laws...

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Abortion was listed as an instrument of murder, along with televisions, several passion fruits, listening to boy bands and non-missionary position intercourse.

The Mir@cle wrote some stuff without checking:

Some sort of system... hmmm... what sort of system? Selling guns to people who are mentally ill, like the one in Virginia?

Have you seen that the US has still twice as much killed people as other industrialised counties?

Mike Van wrote: Drug use and gambling result in crime and poverty which of course has victims. I suppose marijuana would be ok ... but alcohol should be illegal. What violent threat is a stoned person? wow man.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: My parents live in the US and I've visited 4 or 5 times and have met numerous gun owners. Different culture entirely.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Now that more information is coming out about the murderer, I think we can safely say that all that could have been done to prevent this tragedy was done.

Micrówave wrote:

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: My parents live in the US and I've visited 4 or 5 times and have met numerous gun owners. Different culture entirely.

Ah, now I see why the anti-US sentiment on your part. Do you tell your parents that their life is in jeopardy every day they live here? Why don't you do more about it? They could be getting held up right now...

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: America is a hawkish country, and believes that might is right.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: On the contrary, the effects of this tragedy would be mitigated if gun laws were not so stringent. Outlawing guns would merely produce a black market for them, more violence, and a higher proportion of guns would be in the hands of criminals. Black markets are not only harmful to the economy, but they also promote violence (consider the illegalization of prostitution and drugs). This is because "contract" disputes cannot be settled in courts, and therefore violence is used instead. Secondly, a person should have the basic right to do anything he wishes, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others (sadly, this is not practiced in all modern laws, such as those outlawing gay marriage and other victimless crimes). Owning a gun does not infringe upon any other person's rights. Finally, by outlawing guns, one effectively prevents a person to defend himself not only from other people, but the oppression of the government itself. This is perhaps the most compelling reason for the second amendment, and surely the one in mind when it was drafted. If we eliminate this right, all the rest of the rights we enjoy are threatened.

Micrówave wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Now that more information is coming out about the murderer, I think we can safely say that all that could have been done to prevent this tragedy was done.

You mean my point from all along? Yes, you are correct. Not trying to sound arrogant, just tired of the blame game and the platform to denounce America whenever something tragic happens. Funny, when the bomb on the bus went off, I didn't see any U.S. Queenzoners attacking the british government or blaming their laws or anything. Say what you will about Americans, but at least we take responsibility for our actions and not sit around for the last 900 years pointing fingers.

Micrówave wrote: Holland's rate is low, but what else do they boast: major European producer of synthetic drugs, including ecstasy, and cannabis cultivator; important gateway for cocaine, heroin, and hashish entering Europe; major source of US-bound ecstasy; large financial sector vulnerable to money laundering; significant consumer of ecstasy Sounds like a law abiding country to me!!! I love Dutch Chocolate but I hate danishes. What do I do?

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Ummm...microwave, do you bother to read any posts? Or do you just pick random ones to vent at? I think it's probably the latter.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: If you had seen the posts that I've made in this thread from the beginning, you'll notice that I've pointed out that stricter gun laws would not have stopped the slaughter at VT. Yes, some people on the thread are anti-American, but at least have the brains to direct your posts at them, not at a fellow Americans.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Americans taking responsibility for our actions? Um....can you tell me an example? I can't think of one time our country has taken responsibility for our actions on the world stage. I may be an American, but I'm not so blind with nationalism that I can't tell my head from my butt.

Micrówave wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Ummm...microwave, do you bother to read any posts? Or do you just pick random ones to vent at? I think it's probably the latter.

You are correct. Some of these threads are just way out there.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: If you had seen the posts that I've made in this thread from the beginning, you'll notice that I've pointed out that stricter gun laws would not have stopped the slaughter at VT. Yes, some people on the thread are anti-American, but at least have the brains to direct your posts at them, not at a fellow Americans.

I didn't infer it was you at all. You've never done that until now:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Americans taking responsibility for our actions? Um....can you tell me an example? I can't think of one time our country has taken responsibility for our actions on the world stage. I may be an American, but I'm not so blind with nationalism that I can't tell my head from my butt.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Lebanon Libya Kuwait There's 5 We even paid the Japanese money and they bombed us first!!! Can you give me an example of when the America SHOULD HAVE taken responsibility but didn't? And don't say Iraq because the jury is still out on that.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Since I'm sure you won't let me us Guantanamo either (since I'm sure you still think the Jury is out on that too)

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: how about: 1. The mess in Israel and Palestine? Our blatantly pro-Israeli policy has only lead to the complete inability to be able to come to a peaceful resolution on any of this mess. You can't be a neutral third party working for peace when you are blatantly biased to one side.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: 2. Vietnam. The "Domino theory" was complete crap, as anyone with half a brain should have realized that communism would collapse on it's own. Besides, we have many examples of US murder raids on innocent Vietnamese villages.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: 3. Darfur. If the US has such a great responsibly to be a great nation and spread greatness in the world, why in the world have we ignored the Darfur situation? Thousands die while we are busy committing crimes in Iraq (Abu Gahrib for example, but you won't let me use that)

Micrówave wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Now that more information is coming out about the murderer, I think we can safely say that all that could have been done to prevent this tragedy was done.

You mean my point from all along? Yes, you are correct. Not trying to sound arrogant, just tired of the blame game and the platform to denounce America whenever something tragic happens. Funny, when the bomb on the bus went off, I didn't see any U.S. Queenzoners attacking the british government or blaming their laws or anything. Say what you will about Americans, but at least we take responsibility for our actions and not sit around for the last 900 years pointing fingers.

YourValentine wrote: Concerning the abortion issue: I don't think you would find a doctor who performs an abortion if the mother is 20 weeks pregnant. The law limits abortions to 12 weeks pregancy and most abortions happen within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy. Laws are different but in many countries the pregnant woman has to prove some sort of emergency or has to go through some legally defined process in order to get a legal abortion.

Micrówave wrote:

The Mir@cle wrote some stuff without checking:

Some sort of system... hmmm... what sort of system? Selling guns to people who are mentally ill, like the one in Virginia?

There is a law against that, but you probably don't know the laws in the state of Virginia with regards to mental patients

Have you seen that the US has still twice as much killed people as other industrialised counties?

Mexico is industrialized, they have a 12% share What about Russia? Why are you leaving those two out? So you make the US look like the bad guy? I guess maybe your definition of industrialized is different. And what does industry have to do with anything anyways? People are still being killed in Central America at a much more alarming rate... but then you ignored that fact so you could jump on the anti-US bus.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: I think you're wasting your breath trying to get Microwave on board with any stats, The Miracle. CMU HistoryGirl said that "Now that more information is coming out about the murderer, I think we can safely say that all that could have been done to prevent this tragedy was done." Microwave replied "You mean my point from all along? Yes, you are correct. Not trying to sound arrogant, just tired of the blame game and the platform to denounce America whenever something tragic happens." For most people who have posted their opinions here, the bottom line appears to be having 32 innocent people murdered is unacceptable. Microwave, your POV seems to be that since processes appear to have been followed, that means the system continues to work as intended so you feel you're right about the debate. A few years back, an NFL player died during summer practice in 100+ degree temperatures. The NFL and the Players Association implemented changes to monitor players better during times of intense heat, even though "only" one player died. In the aftermath of 9/11, broad changes were implemented to the freedoms Americans and travelers to America had, even though it was one day of attacks and "only" 3000 people died. My point is not to belittle or diminish anyone's death, but Microwave is far from being alone in his convictions that all is well with the distribution of guns in the US. One death caused great changes in a pro sports league since they deemed one death to one too many. Three thousand deaths changed life in America forever, as the government felt one day of terror was one too many. But since September 2001, statistics indicate roughly 45,000 Americans have been murdered with guns. Personally, I can't see anyone thinking that number is anything close to acceptable.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I think a big misconception about gun violence in the United States is that it is evenly spread throughout the nation. Rather, it is heavily concentrated in inner-city areas, that are populated by the indigent. These people do not receive proper educations, and face tougher living conditions. Surely, the United States has a far larger inner-city population than the rest of the world (for instance, Holland).

Micrówave wrote: Well since you didn't disagree, I guess I was right about those 5. Now you give me 3.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Since I'm sure you won't let me us Guantanamo either (since I'm sure you still think the Jury is out on that too)

Yes it is.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: how about: 1. The mess in Israel and Palestine? Our blatantly pro-Israeli policy has only lead to the complete inability to be able to come to a peaceful resolution on any of this mess. You can't be a neutral third party working for peace when you are blatantly biased to one side.

Ok, then name the true neutral third party and how they are making things stable. Take away Isreal and Palestine for a minute. That whole region has been screwed up long before the US was the US. Nothing has changed. Everyone wants "the holy land" for themselves. So the US is to blame for that, eh? I think you're not handing out nearly enough blame.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: 2. Vietnam. The "Domino theory" was complete crap, as anyone with half a brain should have realized that communism would collapse on it's own. Besides, we have many examples of US murder raids on innocent Vietnamese villages.

Besides you calling every Russian and Red Chinese half-brained, what exactly do we need to apologize for? The North Vietnamese were just sitting there minding their own business when we came in and started bombing them? Have you any idea what life was like before US troops landed in the South? They were obliterating entire villages. Who else came to their aid? Edit: Also, ask any combat veteran from that era how easy it was to identify the enemy. Sometimes a village would welcome you with open arms, only to be hiding a north Vietcong batallion and cutting our troops to pieces. That's a whole 'nother can of worms there. War isn't pretty and the good die too. Heck, it was just released that the US bombed a Canadien ops in Iraq. How do you apologize for that? It's War. They don't have umpires.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: 3. Darfur. If the US has such a great responsibly to be a great nation and spread greatness in the world, why in the world have we ignored the Darfur situation? Thousands die while we are busy committing crimes in Iraq (Abu Gahrib for example, but you won't let me use that)

Why is the US' sole responsibility? Where are the British troops? The Dutch? French? They are a lot closer but are just sitting back waiting for America? Huh? That doesn't make any sense. I have seen the documentaries coming out on the Abu Gahrib prison. Is the entire US Army to blame? Partially. America is not a nation of terrorists, yet we are supposed to be using iterrogation methods that personal have no real training for. When people don't know what to do, most panic. Some go too far and cross the line. Somewhere, though, these tactics are taught and used regularly. A lot of South American influence. Those prisons should get as much publicity as Abu Gahrib. The fact that they don't only backs up my point that America does take responsibility.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: There's a new controversy now - about the airing of Cho's video. Some of the survivors and families are outraged, feeling as if it's giving Cho the attention he wanted. Others feel it should be aired so we can get a better sense of who this person was.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I think a big misconception about gun violence in the United States is that it is evenly spread throughout the nation. Rather, it is heavily concentrated in inner-city areas, that are populated by the indigent. These people do not receive proper educations, and face tougher living conditions. Surely, the United States has a far larger inner-city population than the rest of the world (for instance, Holland).

Micrówave wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: how about: 1. The mess in Israel and Palestine? Our blatantly pro-Israeli policy has only lead to the complete inability to be able to come to a peaceful resolution on any of this mess. You can't be a neutral third party working for peace when you are blatantly biased to one side.

Ok, then name the true neutral third party and how they are making things stable. Take away Isreal and Palestine for a minute. That whole region has been screwed up long before the US was the US. Nothing has changed. Everyone wants "the holy land" for themselves. So the US is to blame for that, eh? I think you're not handing out nearly enough blame.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: There's a new controversy now - about the airing of Cho's video. Some of the survivors and families are outraged, feeling as if it's giving Cho the attention he wanted. Others feel it should be aired so we can get a better sense of who this person was. My extreme sympathies go with the families but I'm leaning more toward the need to know. If they showed him gunning people down, that would be inexcusable, but showing this side of a crazed mind might help us realize change - and what type of change - is needed. Yes? No? After 9/11, images of the towers being hit and crumbling were aired continually. That didn't help us in any way. That was brutally painful. It showed only the destruction. However, videos showing the training and mindset of terrorists - while painful and frightening – were somewhat enlightening. We had more of an idea what we were up against. Isn't that the same here with this guy and others who are as dangerously ill as he was?

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Rap star Cam'ron says there's no situation -- including a serial killer living next door -- that would cause him to help police in any way, because to do so would hurt his music sales and violate his "code of ethics."

Sparrow wrote: the racism is on the rise again as well. about a year ago (or was it 2?) there was a native american boy who shot 4 kids and i believe 1 teacher. they emphasized the fact that he was native american. im surprised noone has gone around like now, saying 'all native americans must be terrorists' but since the media has constantly shown Cho, they emphasized that he was asian. im hearing form different people and friends that they are now being called terrorists because theyre asian. its stupid. at columbine, the boys who caused it were white, but noone claimed that all white people must be killers, right?

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I think a big misconception about gun violence in the United States is that it is evenly spread throughout the nation. Rather, it is heavily concentrated in inner-city areas, that are populated by the indigent. These people do not receive proper educations, and face tougher living conditions. Surely, the United States has a far larger inner-city population than the rest of the world (for instance, Holland).

So, in other words, we need to look at the roots of crime, and by extension, the roots of poverty. That will probably never happen, because it is still conventional to blame the poor for being poor, and leaving it at that.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: For most people who have posted their opinions here, the bottom line appears to be having 32 innocent people murdered is unacceptable. Microwave, your POV seems to be that since processes appear to have been followed, that means the system continues to work as intended so you feel you're right about the debate. A few years back, an NFL player died during summer practice in 100+ degree temperatures. The NFL and the Players Association implemented changes to monitor players better during times of intense heat, even though "only" one player died. In the aftermath of 9/11, broad changes were implemented to the freedoms Americans and travelers to America had, even though it was one day of attacks and "only" 3000 people died. My point is not to belittle or diminish anyone's death, but Microwave is far from being alone in his convictions that all is well with the distribution of guns in the US. One death caused great changes in a pro sports league since they deemed one death to one too many. Three thousand deaths changed life in America forever, as the government felt one day of terror was one too many. But since September 2001, statistics indicate roughly 45,000 Americans have been murdered with guns. Personally, I can't see anyone thinking that number is anything close to acceptable.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME

Sparrow wrote: the racism is on the rise again as well. about a year ago (or was it 2?) there was a native american boy who shot 4 kids and i believe 1 teacher. they emphasized the fact that he was native american. im surprised noone has gone around like now, saying 'all native americans must be terrorists' but since the media has constantly shown Cho, they emphasized that he was asian. im hearing form different people and friends that they are now being called terrorists because theyre asian. its stupid. at columbine, the boys who caused it were white, but noone claimed that all white people must be killers, right?

Good observation. Let's move from race to religion. Recently I pointed out here that they always emphasize when terrorism is Islamic terrorism. But in Oklahoma City in '95, Timothy McVeigh was the member of a Christian doomsday cult... but the media was very quick to cover that one up, all because they're trying to protect Christianity. To this day you will find few sources that will mention this. In other words, the media did a good job.

Haystacks Calhounski wrote: We do have gun control, like it or not. What some folks are calling for is not control..... All goes back to, in this case, who do you blame? The crazy idiot, or a gun?

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: I blame the idiot and the person who made the law so that he could get a gun.

Zebonka12 wrote: I only see this business in Virginia as a reminder of existing problems, not a sole reason to shake things up.

The Mir@cle wrote: Come on.. You want to compare the US to Russia? I don't know if you know the situation in Russia, but it's more like a third wold country to me. I didn't want the US to look like the bad guy. I just want to make your figures more reliable.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: A few years back, an NFL player died during summer practice in 100+ degree temperatures. The NFL and the Players Association implemented changes to monitor players better during times of intense heat, even though "only" one player died. One death caused great changes in a pro sports league since they deemed one death to one too many.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:
I could give you far more than 3 Microwave. But since you are limiting me from using anything connected to Iraq, I just used the first three that came into my head. I would now like to respond to your posts.
A) Any student of history knows that when you use torture to try and extract information, you get bad information, because people will say anything to stop the torture.
SO WE SHOULD DO ANYTHING AT ALL!!!

B) I never said the US was to blame for the mess in Palestine and Israel. I said we need to take responsibility for the fact that we haven't been helping. No one else is doing any better than we are, I will admit.

SO WE SHOULD SHOULDER ALL THE BLAME!!!
C) Yes, I do know what life was like for the South Koreans before we came in...my boyfriend taught in South Korea for more than a year and has informed me what it was like to live there and the things that they thought and going to the DMZ and things like that. What the US should take responsibility for is not getting the troops out sooner when they recognized the attacks weren't working.
SO WE DIDN'T ACT QUICK ENOUGH. REMEMBER NO INTERNET, BAD SATELLITES, SO WE WOULD HAVE "JUMPED THE GUN", HUH?
D) You need to review your geography. How is Britain, The Dutch, etc. closer to Darfur?
AFRICA IS CLOSER TO EUROPE IN MY ATLAS. PERHAPS YOUR IS MISTAKEN.
If the US is truly interested in the good of all people, it wouldn't sit around and wait for some other country to do good things before it acted.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT NO OTHER COUNTRY IS INTERESTED IN THE GOOD OF ALL PEOPLE EITHER THEN, SINCE THEY DON'T LIFT A HAND UNTIL WE DO.
The blatant racism, elitism, mis-use and un-preparadness of the government in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
WHAT ABOUT THE CITY OFFICIALS? THEY DID NOTHING. YOU SAY RAY NAGIN. YOU SAW THE GOVERNOR. YOU SAW THEM DO NOTHING. IT WASN'T JUST THE GOVERNMENT, IT WAS EVERYBODY.
WHAT ABOUT THE BLACKS SHOOTING AT RESCUERS BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T SURE WHO THEY WERE? WHY DIDN'T YOU GET A BOAT AND TRY TO HELP YOURSELF? BECAUSE YOU MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN SHOT BY A CONFUSED AND DEPSPARATE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD NOTHING TO LOSE.
INSTEAD OF YOU BLAMING PEOPLE, HOW BOUT A BETTER SOLUTION?
The Debacle at Walter Ree

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: Microwave, you're like a guy who would dismiss any suggestion from anyone to prove you're right, even when you hold no factual position. So, as to my "lie" about Corey Stringer. Since you'll debunk it, (if you compare America to Russia you don't want intelligent debate), here's a few snippets. link "There was no way for trainers to monitor players' core temperatures on that sweltering July day when Stringer collapsed, no definitive way to tell that his massive body was overheating beyond its threshold. But now there is, in the form of a swallowed capsule that measures core body temperature as it passes through the digestive system, and the Vikings — along with a few other NFL teams — are using it." Jackson Jaguars head trainer Mike Ryan takes a similar approach. "We have what we call a 'watch list.' It's usually for the larger players or players who have a history of conditioning factor or anyone who's lost a lot of weight just before camp," Ryan said. Ryan said if the pill is working properly, it all but eliminates the risk of another heatstroke death." Read that last paragraph. The NFL has a problem (heat issues) and have educated players (proof from two sources) and training staff about hydrating and monitoring their core body temperatures. But I'm lying. You've just got your head so far up your ass you think people hate America or are blaming America for everything that you can't acknowledge that America is the most violent DEVELOPED country in the world, and the stats bear it out.

Micrówave wrote: Let's take a couple of comments and change them to see how ridiculous they sound. (word "gun" changed to "hand grenade") THOMAS QUINN should say: I blame the idiot and the person who made the law so that he could get a hand grenade. MAGICAL FREDDIE MERCURY should say: Exactly. And it seems the person or people would be Texas lawmakers. Micrówave did say: This kid should be allowed right back into school with open arms and we should go get those legislators instead!!!

CNN reports Investigators are seeking records related to an e-mail and eBay account that may have been used by Cho, a source close to the investigation said. The account being checked was used last month to buy magazine clips that would fit one of the handguns used by Cho in his shooting rampage. A CNN check of eBay transaction records online showed that the account that investigators are examining -- Blazers5505 -- was used in numerous transactions over the past several months. Those included the March 22 purchase of two empty, 10-round magazines for a Walther P22 handgun from a company in Rigby, Idaho, that sells hunting and shooting supplies. Authorities have said one of the two handguns used by Cho was a Walther P22 pistol.

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: My verbatim quote, Microwave, was "a few years back, an NFL player died during summer practice in 100+ degree temperatures. The NFL and the Players Association implemented changes to monitor players better during times of intense heat." So even though you thought I said the NFL made RULE changes, I didn't, and my above comments show clearly that they were suggestions, not rule changes, so I proved my point, you've prove you're excellent at factual misinterpretation. Further, I blame the shooter 100%. The guns didn't walk up and start shooting people on their own. This is obvious. And I know that it's obvious and you'd agree 100% that he MAY have killed no one or a lot fewer than 32 if he had a knife instead of a gun.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Interestingly, the only ridiculous sounding comment here is yours since both TQ and I blamed 'the idiot' you complain no one has blamed, AND you are the one spinning it to say what no one else here has said.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: I blame the idiot and the person who made the law so that he could get a gun.

Exactly. And it seems the person or people would be Virginia lawmakers.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Micrówave did say: This kid should be allowed right back into school with open arms and we should go get those legislators instead!!!

Micrówave wrote: So what did you mean when you said it was the lawmakers fault, or did I misunderstand? I'm not spinning anything. You guys blamed government and gun control, I disagreed and it became "What's wrong with America" time.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: However, blame also rests with Virginia lawmakers. Without their wording of Virginia state law this guy would have been prevented from legally obtaining a gun. "Under federal law, Cho should have been barred from buying a gun, but wording differences with a Virginia law allowed him to legally get a weapon, a state law professor said."

Boy Thomas Raker wrote: I Doesn't make either of us bad people, just differing in our opinions.

Micrówave wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: However, blame also rests with Virginia lawmakers. Without their wording of Virginia state law this guy would have been prevented from legally obtaining a gun. "Under federal law, Cho should have been barred from buying a gun, but wording differences with a Virginia law allowed him to legally get a weapon, a state law professor said."

Good, and this is good dialogue to have so I'm glad we can discuss this rationally. But what I have a problem with is you attacking law. First, it wasn't federal law, but State law that supercedes in this case. Check out CNN on today's story about Cho. It wasn't the law that was at fault. Incompetant procedures played a part. And again, FYI, had Cho purchased all 3 guns from a private collector (he only did one that way), he would have circumvented any background check at all. Also, he knew the laws and made sure he purchased his guns a month apart. This guy knew from the start that he was going to do this.

Mr.Jingles wrote: WOW! I can't imagine how much time each one of us has wasted reading, analizing, discussing and typing this crap. 13 Pages and counting...

Mr.Jingles wrote: WOW! I can't imagine how much time each one of us has wasted reading, analizing, discussing and typing this crap. 13 Pages and counting...

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

Mr.Jingles wrote: WOW! I can't imagine how much time each one of us has wasted reading, analizing, discussing and typing this crap. 13 Pages and counting...

I can't even follow it anymore. It might just be the Queenzone curse that plagues every large thread.