Shooting at Virginia Tech
Oh my god! How do these things happen? America should ban the guns from people.
If one other person on the campus had a gun and could have defended themselves,
the outcome would have likely been very different.
Schools, including colleges and universities, are already designated "gun free zones."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Virginia_Tech_shooting
There isn’t a lot of information on it yet. The number of dead has increased to 32.
This is really scary, especially for me since I live on a big campus and if there is a shooting, they will take out so many people and there is no where to hide since the campus is so open.
Another thing is that there isn’t much you can do to prevent this. Not all people that are sick mentally don't receive help and a lot of times if someone says something, other people will ignore it as a strive for attention or because they don't know what to do or they think they aren't going to do anything. For example, my roommate first semester was very unstable so I know how it is.
I hope the best for everyone on that campus. Something like this will live with the students, friends, and families forever. Some kid’s lives will be ruined because they will not be able to keep up with their classes and others will just be mentally scarred for life.
This is a true tragedy and I feel for everyone that was affected by this.
You don't singlehandedly kill 32 people armed with only sticks and rocks. :mad:
It's just horrible. :sniff:
OK...flame me now.
You don't singlehandedly kill 32 people armed with only sticks and rocks. :mad:
Nope. Fertilizer, fuel oil, and a rental truck do a much better job.
(is this
really the time to go into a gun control debate?)
Nope. Fertilizer, fuel oil, and a rental truck do a much better job.
(is this really the time to go into a gun control debate?)
I was just taking my opportunity when it arose. I certainly don't want to debate anyone, because I know how that goes here in the cellar, but it seems to me that a mass shooting is the PERFECT time to debate guns....I mean, after all, shootings are accomplished with (wait for it...) guns, are they not? :rolleyes:
Sheesh. :thumb:
but it seems to me that a mass shooting is the PERFECT time to debate guns.
Oh fine, fine.
Why is the knee-jerk reaction in these situations to render people defenseless
instead of the other way around?
I'm a knee-jerk kind of girl.
Seriously, I do see what you are saying about the other way around. It's reality whether I like it or not. If I had my druthers...but I don't.
I know we all agree it's a horrible tragedy, and I'll stop there before I say something really stupid!
Peace to all.
Just because you own a gun, does not mean you know what the hell to do during a shoot out.
If one other person on the campus had a gun and could have defended themselves, the outcome would have likely been very different.
Schools, including colleges and universities, are already designated "gun free zones."
Do you know if all students who were killed, injured, or in the vicinity of the killer were unarmed? Get back to me on that, K?
"
Could have". One other person would have to not only
own a gun, but be
packing heat, have the presence of mind to identify the killer as a threat, so as to not kill an innocent college student, AND have the mental strength to murder someone. If only...
Not surprisingly, this situation has been a topic of conversation at work. Admittedly, we don't have a lot of information, but it would appear that the shooter basically lined people up and started shooting them one by one ... why didn't anyone try to rush the shooter?
If you're in the same situation ... first person gets shot, it's a surprise, it's unexpected, even if the shooter tells you that's what he's intending. After the next one or three ... the rest of the folks should start to understand that they have little to lose by trying to do something. If you do NOTHING, you do get shot, and die. If you rush the guy (especially with enough people) you might get shot ... and with a smaller likelihood of being killed.
What makes people choose to do nothing, when nothing is clearly going to result in your death?
(note: I have never had to rush an armed gunman, but I have had to tackle folks armed with screwdrivers, belts, and small appliances.)
What makes people choose to do nothing, when nothing is clearly going to result in your death?
Fear. People inherently never believe that they will die, and rushing towards a mad guy who has already shot several people is almost guaranteed to get you shot, and probably killed, so human nature says, stay back, and stay alive - even if this is a hopeless position.
i'd rush the shooter right behing you wolf! promise, now rush!
Damn. That shit's insane.
VTech admissions will probably drop 100% or so, won't it?
What makes people choose to do nothing, when nothing is clearly going to result in your death?
99% of the people in the world are sheep. Until the first person sacks-up and does something nobody else will even think about it.
In a state of panic I doubt many people would think to do something. I bet in that situation I would curl into a ball in the corner somewhere.
In a state of panic I doubt many people would think to do something. I bet in that situation I would curl into a ball in the corner somewhere.
Having been in enough severe situations where immediate actions were 'required', I know exactly what I would think if lined up to be shot. I would be completely mystified why I did not solve it or averted it somehow. Only once can I remember anyone who paniced during an event.
Wolf, bluesdave is right, this people are probably only 20 years old if younger. I personally am not scared of death but I am the minority, and I am not 100% sure I would rush the attacker unless I knew other people were behind me. I know many people my age that would probably help rush the attacker but I know many many more that wouldn't in fear of getting shot or dying plus the situation was probably so chaotic no one had a chance to rush the shooter. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were still the minority in rushing the shooter at your age but I am not sure.
Also, unless you are more informed than me (this is not sarcasm), we have no idea what really happened and what the situation was. They could have been lined up in a way that resulted them in not being able to rush the attacker.
I find the "blame the victim" line of reasoning misplaced.
Shoot, I'm 19 and I am anticipating the rest of my life eagerly, I don't want to get die now, not at all. I'd be scared shitless if this happened at Illinois. I actually can't honestly say I'd do one thing or the other. Because what happened at VTech today is out of this world and I can't even imagine experiencing anything remotely like it. Inside a campus building? 32 people dead? This is supposed to be a safe environment of academia, that situation is just so outrageous I would feel like it is actually a movie or something unbelievable like that.
we have no idea what really happened and what the situation was.
I'm sure we'll hear more over the week.
We know that some did fight back.
"Kids were running out of the building and I saw a teacher who had been shot in the arm being escorted out by an officer. I heard that the shooter came down the hall and kids were throwing desks at him."
The whole thing is gut wrenching and depressing. Completely destroyed my day to catch the news as this happened. Has me rethinking a lot, too.
I started digging through Wikipedia on school violence and found this interesting bit of history I'd never heard of, before:
Forty-five people killed in bombings at a school, most of the victims in grades second through sixth, by a man upset that taxes had been levied in order to fund its construction. He even loaded a car with every conceivable piece of jagged scrap metal he could find before parking it in front of the school and detonating the bomb inside. The year?
Not as recent as you might think.
So shocking. My heart goes out to the family and friends of all the victims along with the family of the shooter. How must they be feeling now.
Just because you own a gun, does not mean you know what the hell to do during a shoot out.
You point the gun at the bad-guy and pull the fucking trigger.
Whew, that sure was hard!:eyebrow:
What if the bad guy is a mate of yours who's lost his head for whatever reason? Don't you think that in a closed environment like a college campus, it would be hard to make a call like that, especially if you're young and scared out of your brain.
I find the "blame the victim" line of reasoning misplaced.
Who is doing that? And how?
I am really so very sorry for all of the victims in this tragedy.
I did find myself wondering while watching the news, where are all the guns we hear about, if this young man went about the killing without being at least challenged by another person with a weapon. Although never having lived in an armed society I honestly don't know if I could have pulled a weapon on another human being.
I hope all of the people involved get the help and support they need to get through this.
I am not looking to start a pro-gun/ban gun debate but I just want to here the personal expierences from the pro-gunners.
First, do any of you know of anyone personally that has protected his or herself with a handgun (emphasis on handgun)?
If not but know of someone that you don't know personally, please explain.
Second, since most times you have protect yourself at short range, what do you think the difference between a gun and a very powerful stun gun shaped like handgun that can also mark the victim in some way?
You point the gun at the bad-guy and pull the fucking trigger.
Whew, that sure was hard!:eyebrow:
You don't consider this even
slightly over simplified? You're telling me that when they hand a guard, police officer, or solider a gun they could do nothing more than simply include the instructions "1. Point at bad guy. 2. Pull Trigger"? There's nothing more to it than that? No emotional aspects, no panic control, no training on how to handle high pressure life and death situations, no efforts required to concentrate as people around you lay bleeding to death? "Mental clarity" is not how even the most experienced officer would describe their thoughts during something like the VT situation and it completely evaporates in people who are going about their everyday business and are suddenly thrown into shock by events that they come closest to only in the worst of nightmares and cheap Jerry Bruckheimer flicks.
Just "pull the fucking trigger". Right.
Sadly enough, my CCW test didn't even go that far. It included absolutely nothing more than "show me how to make the weapon safe". Drop magazine, lock open the slide, check chamber, lay on counter. "You passed, you're done, go enjoy the range." That, plus a photograph, a money order, and 90 days does not make one ready for situations even remotely similar to what happened yesterday.
First, do any of you know of anyone personally that has protected his or herself with a handgun (emphasis on handgun)?
You've been registered here since October, but maybe you missed
this thread on this very topic two months ago.
They said on the news this morning that he left a note expressing anger towards rich people. :(
I am not looking to start a pro-gun/ban gun debate but I just want to here the personal expierences from the pro-gunners.
First, do any of you know of anyone personally that has protected his or herself with a handgun (emphasis on handgun)?
If not but know of someone that you don't know personally, please explain.
Second, since most times you have protect yourself at short range, what do you think the difference between a gun and a very powerful stun gun shaped like handgun that can also mark the victim in some way?
Yes, no shots were fired. I know three people that were in attempted robberies, and one attempted car jacking. All thwarted by the potential victim pulling a gun and protecting themselves. FBI statistics state that the majority of handgun exchanges take place within 15 feet.
My fiance was once at a gas station when a large, enraged customer attacked an attendant. Being a brave former-military dude, he intervened to try and subdue the attacker. He managed to help until police arrived, but when he told me about it that evening, I was mad. The guy could have had a knife. I don't want to lose someone I love, and neither does his family at home.
Sure, it's easy to imagine throwing yourself on a grenade, or starting an epic shootout with a crazed gunman. But most of us have people counting on us who would really rather that we played it safe. How would you feel if you'd been putting your kid through college, only to have him get himself killed trying to be a hero? The choices that people make in moments of extreme stress like that are extremely difficult and emotionally loaded. It isn't fair to try to pass judgement on them.
You point the gun at the bad-guy and pull the fucking trigger.
Whew, that sure was hard!:eyebrow:
Really? Where are you, where is the bad guy, what's behind him and the wall behind him, do you have cover or concealment, are you really in mortal danger as defined by your state, did you retreat sufficiently to satisfy the law, he's not retreating is he, did you leave the coffee pot on, where's your son, is he in the ball pit behind the guy, is that a gun or a wallet in his hand, is he alone or does he have other people working with him, who is behind you, can you draw without getting his attention and allowing him to shoot first, you're under pressure and you have less than 2 seconds to make a decision and it has to be exactly the right one
They said on the news this morning that he left a note expressing anger towards rich people. :(
Damn Commie.
If a person wants to maximize the effect of their rage, they will find a way. If there is nothing available to help them do so, they will create it...they do it in prison all the time.
I understand why some folks think guns should be banned after an event like this...but such a thing doesn't solve the real problem--the criminal.
Liviu Librescu, 76, was a Holocaust survivor, who his son said, will be remembered as a hero. He "blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee," Joe Librescu told AP. "Students started opening windows and jumping out."
Guy lives through hell and how does he finally go? Some nutjob kid with a pistol.
Well, Dr. Atkins died from slipping and hitting his head...
Well, Dr. Atkins died from slipping and hitting his head...
I thought he had a heart attack.
He apparently had a
heart attack a year before he died.
I understand why some folks think guns should be banned after an event like this...but such a thing doesn't solve the real problem--the criminal.
but I find a valid appeal for control. If multiple round automatic handgun clips are less available, perhaps the shooter will turn to a more time consuming, cumbersome method. And I can't help but spin an alternative to the trained packing student taking the shooter out- what about a slew of cops not knowing who the real shooter is?
Chris Rock has a method. From I think his shows Bigger & Blacker or Never Scared, he goes like instead of banning guns, you just make the bullets cost $1000 each. Funny skit, and intriguing idea.
Here's a link to the shooter's violent plays posted by the AOL employee and student there:
http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/young-...6696869631.html
He was a 23-year-old loner, with roots half a world away in South Korea, who hated "rich kids" and will now go down in US history as a notorious killer.
Cho Seung-Hui moved to the United States when he was just 8, but 15 years later his name is set to be permanently etched on the tragic roll call of US school and campus killings.
"You caused me to do this," he wrote in the several-page-long note that he left in his dorm room, ABC News reported, before going on a murderous rampage killing at least 30 people.
The note railed against "rich kids," "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans" on campus, the Chicago Tribune reported.
But it shed little light on the motives behind his killing spree during which he stalked classrooms, firing on students and professors, before turning his gun on himself. By midday yesterday, 33 people lay dead on the campus.
Authorities were today trying to piece together a crime that sent shockwaves across America and the world.
Cho also died with the words "Ismail Ax" in red ink on the inside of one of his arms, the Chicago Tribune reported, citing unidentified sources.
Police suspect Cho, who was studying English at Virginia Tech, first killed two people at a campus dormitory.
Then, according to media reports, he leisurely returned to his own dorm to write a rambling invective, re-arm and then storm the classroom building.
Cho was among the 2,000 foreigners from more than 110 countries attending the 26,000-student university in Blacksburg, Virginia.
Police said Cho was in his senior year and lived on campus at the Harper Hall dormitory, which houses 249 residents.
Cho had shown recent signs of violent, aberrant behaviour, including setting a fire in a dorm room and allegedly stalking some women, the Chicago Tribune said, citing an unnamed investigative source.
Investigators believe Cho at some point had been taking medication for depression, the daily said.
He was a legal US immigrant whose residence was established in Centreville, Virginia, outside Washington, police said. According to US and South Korean media, Cho moved to America in 1992.
The Tribune said his family runs a dry cleaning business while his sister graduated from the elite Princeton University.
Cho "was very quiet, always by himself," neighbour Abdul Shash was quoted as saying in the Tribune. He spent a lot of his free time playing basketball, and would not respond if someone greeted him, Shash said.
Police released little more official information about Cho and university officials had trouble tracking down details about him.
"He was a loner," said Larry Hincker, associate vice president for university relations.
The lone gunman is the most common profile for a mass murderer, someone who is "isolated, reclusive and antisocial" said Alan Langlieb, director of workplace psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University.
"It's not exactly clear what snaps," he said. "Some of it is premeditated, but a person could wake up that day and decide I'm going to create social havoc."
Whatever Cho's motivations were, the tragedy has reverberated around the world, all the way to South Korea, whose government expressed "indescribable surprise and shock" after Cho was identified.
"We convey deep condolences to the victims and their bereaved families and the (US) people," said Cho Byung-Jae, head of the South Korean Foreign Ministry's North American affairs bureau.
"We have established safety measures for ethnic Koreans in the US in case of contingencies and are in close consultations with all of our diplomatic missions and Korean communities in the US to implement the measures."
He did not elaborate but appeared to be referring to the possibility of reprisal attacks against Korean communities in the United States.
Police released little more official information about Cho and university officials had trouble tracking down details about him.
"He was a loner," said Larry Hincker, associate vice president for university relations.
The lone gunman is the most common profile for a mass murderer, someone who is "isolated, reclusive and antisocial" said Alan Langlieb, director of workplace psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University.
"It's not exactly clear what snaps," he said. "Some of it is premeditated, but a person could wake up that day and decide I'm going to create social havoc."
Whatever Cho's motivations were, the tragedy has reverberated around the world, all the way to South Korea, whose government expressed "indescribable surprise and shock" after Cho was identified.
"We convey deep condolences to the victims and their bereaved families and the (US) people," said Cho Byung-Jae, head of the South Korean Foreign Ministry's North American affairs bureau.
"We have established safety measures for ethnic Koreans in the US in case of contingencies and are in close consultations with all of our diplomatic missions and Korean communities in the US to implement the measures."
He did not elaborate but appeared to be referring to the possibility of reprisal attacks against Korean communities in the United States.
It gets worse.
[Westboro Baptist Church] will preach at the funerals of the Virginia Tech students killed on campus during a shooting rampage April 16, 2007.
whilst I understand your angst, might I remind you that only 33 dead would be considered a good day in Bagdhad?
whilst I understand your angst, might I remind you that only 33 dead would be considered a good day in Bagdhad?
This isn't Baghdad. This is the first world technologically advanced industrialized United States of America, the most powerful, influential, and "greatest" nation in modern times. Again, the largest US massacre by a single gunman. There is no anarchy, no social upheaval, no war torn sectors. This is the free world. And the incident is a damn serious one.
I just wonder about these shooters. I think some people are born--bad. Off. Psycopathic.
Some of the roots of such can be traced to the parents, but not all, I think. I do think we need better support for teenagers in our culture.
This isn't Baghdad. This is the first world technologically advanced industrialized United States of America, the most powerful, influential, and "greatest" nation in modern times. Again, the largest US massacre by a single gunman. There is no anarchy, no social upheaval, no war torn sectors. This is the free world. And the incident is a damn serious one.
Of course it is. And I'm sure the mothers in your country grieve that much harder than the mothers in Bagdhad.
I think it's sick how all the newsies have flocked to VT like crows to a corpse.
but I find a valid appeal for control. If multiple round automatic handgun clips are less available, perhaps the shooter will turn to a more time consuming, cumbersome method. And I can't help but spin an alternative to the trained packing student taking the shooter out- what about a slew of cops not knowing who the real shooter is?
That is crap. A determined individual, as this person seems to have been, will get the guns, the clips, whatever to do the job. Certainly you do not think this was not premeditative?
America not only needs to get rid of the guns but it needs to put a stop to it's culture of violence. Why is it in america violent crime is so rampant and out of control?
America not only needs to get rid of the guns but it needs to put a stop to it's culture of violence. Why is it in america violent crime is so rampant and out of control?
Cool idea. So when are you going to advocate the elimination of the Penis so we can put an end to HIV/AIDS or the removal of all cars to stop drunk drivers. No greater act for the masses eh?:rolleyes:
Am I the only one who has noticed that CNN seems disappointed that there are few if any calls for more gun laws?
Cool idea. So when are you going to advocate the elimination of the Penis so we can put an end to HIV/AIDS or the removal of all cars to stop drunk drivers. No greater act for the masses eh?:rolleyes:
I suppose you can do it your way which is nothing and pretend there is no problem. :rolleyes:
I suppose you can do it your way which is nothing and pretend there is no problem. :rolleyes:
I really do believe that
people should be held responsible for thier actions. Yes, you are correct. Or we could just go the way of some Nazi approach and confiscate all guns, that approach would still not work.
Am I the only one who has noticed that CNN seems disappointed that there are few if any calls for more gun laws?
Damm! the Liberal press disappointed, I think I may lose sleep! Ok, not really.:D
America not only needs to get rid of the guns but it needs to put a stop to it's culture of violence. Why is it in america violent crime is so rampant and out of control?
Wait a minute. Get rid of guns? Culture of violence?
In my opinion, those two statements are absolutely ridiculous, no offense. If we got rid of guns, what can we resort to for defense? Martial arts, or ICBMs? And culture of violence? What culture doesn't have violence deeply rooted into it's history.
I really do believe that people should be held responsible for thier actions. Yes, you are correct. Or we could just go the way of some Nazi approach and confiscate all guns, that approach would still not work.
It works in many parts of the world. I come from a place where the average person can not run down to a gun shop and buy a bunch of guns yet the crime rate is low and the people are free.
Wait a minute. Get rid of guns? Culture of violence?
In my opinion, those two statements are absolutely ridiculous, no offense. If we got rid of guns, what can we resort to for defense? Martial arts, or ICBMs? And culture of violence? What culture doesn't have violence deeply rooted into it's history.
WOW. Evil America! BAD!
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=823982006
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=385&id=740682003
http://dvc.org.uk/dunblane/ni.htmlWait a minute. Get rid of guns? Culture of violence?
In my opinion, those two statements are absolutely ridiculous, no offense. If we got rid of guns, what can we resort to for defense? Martial arts, or ICBMs? And culture of violence? What culture doesn't have violence deeply rooted into it's history.
But it's rampant in america. You can't watch the news without reports of somebody being robbed at gunpoint or shot for their car etc.
The gun laws debate has been done to death, and emprical research in other cultures shows up the wrongness of the mercs and freshones idealogy. The real issue is the lack of value that the american culture places on the life of the individual.
The gun laws debate has been done to death, and emprical research in other cultures shows up the wrongness of the mercs and freshones idealogy.
Great, debate it.
You are right about one thing, I care more about my individual rights as provided by the Consitution and the Bill of Rights than anyone elses.:p
mmmmmm........ Guess just how much I care for your so-called bill of rights, yank.
mmmmmm........ Guess just how much I care for your so-called bill of rights, yank.
Ooops sorry, I don't give a fuck what you think.
:thumb:
That is why you live where you do.:D
Q.E.D.
Well thanks for sharing, I got up early this morning worrying what you might think about the US....
NOT! :beer:
:footpyth:
:f205:
But it's rampant in america. You can't watch the news without reports of somebody being robbed at gunpoint or shot for their car etc.
That is full of bias and bullshit. I strongly disagree. It's getting to the point where I'm almost offended as an American. Where do you hail from that is so much better than the USA?
The gun laws debate has been done to death, and emprical research in other cultures shows up the wrongness of the mercs and freshones idealogy. The real issue is the lack of value that the american culture places on the life of the individual.
Wait so you are placing everyone American in the same boat as me and Merc? I don't even think we agree about the same gun laws specifically. And the second part you just said....What the fuck? I just don't understand what that is supposed to mean.
Listen to me, I'm 19 and go to the University of Illinois. I'm from the suburbs of Chicago, I feel I'm a responsible kid. But I plan to own a gun or two when I have my own apartment in the metropolis that I move to. So that makes me a horrible person, for wanting to have the protection for people out there looking to hurt me or my family? And you're telling me I'm a bad person for not caring if I kill the person I shoot at in self defense, because I cared more for the members of my family who were at risk?
But it's rampant in america. You can't watch the news without reports of somebody being robbed at gunpoint or shot for their car etc.
But you realize that US violent crime rates have been
falling for your whole life,
right?When I hear stuff like this at a party . . .
I leave.
:(
That is full of bias and bullshit. I strongly disagree. It's getting to the point where I'm almost offended as an American. Where do you hail from that is so much better than the USA?
There is nothing biased about it at all. It's just reality. I'm from hong kong and when I moved to america I could see right away how bad the crime is. All one has to do is sit and watch the local and national news.
But you realize that US violent crime rates have been falling for your whole life, right?
So? It still doesn't change the fact that crime is rampant in america.
There is nothing biased about it at all. It's just reality. I'm from hong kong and when I moved to america I could see right away how bad the crime is. All one has to do is sit and watch the local and national news.
You obviously don't know how American news works. These stories make networks. It's not like China where the government HIDES all their scandals and dirty laundered money. Not to mention communist gov't and how they "intervene" with people who don't believe in what they want. You want to talk about violence? How many police beatings happen A DAY in China, to civilians? I have mannnnnny Chinese friends. I know what happens there. They visit China so I get the stories. Maybe in your utopia of Hong Kong there is no violence (shyeah right, Triads anyone?) but here in America there is freedom of PRESS where stories are heard, especially the BAD ones that make networks get coverage. Please keep your American bashing to yourself before you know the whole deal with this country.
By the way, before you pull the race card, I'm Asian too, like yourself. Filipino to be exact. But I know your opinions are full of holes and I have a lot of respect for my country, it's outrageous that you can come to this forum and just blantantly say America is a dangerous crime ridden country.
Of course it is. And I'm sure the mothers in your country grieve that much harder than the mothers in Bagdhad.
I agree Jay, just because our "standards" are higher does not make any loss of life an more or less important. We are all human beings and all our lives are worth the same and it is pathetic to think otherwise.
You obviously don't know how American news works. These stories make networks. It's not like China where the government HIDES all their scandals and dirty laundered money.
You would be suprised on how much the US hides.
You obviously don't know how American news works. These stories make networks. It's not like China where the government HIDES all their scandals and dirty laundered money. Not too mention communist gov't and how they "intervene" with people who don't believe in what they want. You want to talk about violence? How many police beatings happen A DAY in China? I have mannnnnny Chinese friends. I know what happens there. They visit China so I get the stories. Maybe in your utopia of Hong Kong there is no violence (shyeah right, Triads anyone?) but here in America there is freedom of PRESS where stories are heard, especially the BAD ones that make networks get coverage. Please keep your American bashing to yourself before you know the whole deal with this country.
I can't speak for mainland china because I have never lived there, I can only compare hong kong to america. In fact you can compare any major american city to hong kong sar and you will see the violence in the american city much more higher. And of course there is violence in hong kong, there is no such place on earth where people live that there is no violence. But the crime in hong kong, especially violent crime, is extremely low compared to america and hong kong is one of the freest places in the world to live. So tell me what is hong kong doing right and america doing wrong?
By the way, before you pull the race card, I'm Asian too, like yourself. Filipino to be exact. But I know your opinions are full of holes and I have a lot of respect for my country, it's outrageous that you can come to this forum and just blantantly say America is a dangerous crime ridden country.
What does race have to do with the discussion?
I can't speak for mainland china because I have never lived there, I can only compare hong kong to america. In fact you can compare any major american city to hong kong sar and you will see the violence in the american city much more higher. And of course there is violence in hong kong, there is no such place on earth where people live that there is no violence. But the crime in hong kong, especially violent crime, is extremely low compared to america and hong kong is one of the freest places in the world to live. So tell me what is hong kong doing right and america doing wrong?
Show me the stats, I refuse to degrade American cities based on a 16 year olds opinion. Are you one of those rich fobs who has never seen violence and wear aeropostle and american eagle because it looks really American? I know because I know what fobs at my university are like. I don't think you know a thing about American cities. I'm from Chicago and have been to NYC, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, Orlando, Miami and Atlanta. Please don't try to act like you know all about "major american cities." And you didn't even address what I said about American press. Since you didn't say anything I'll assume Hong Kong people are all out of the know. Well it's different here.
You would be suprised on how much the US hides.
A significant amount less than China.
Who are we kidding. My friend went there on a missionary trip and heard the nighlty police beatings of civilians in the village. Nightly! I don't think that was in the newspaper the next morning.
What does race have to do with the discussion?
It doesn't, I just didn't want you pulling out that card.
Show me the stats, I refuse to degrade American cities based on a 16 year olds opinion. Are you one of those rich fobs who has never seen violence and wear aeropostle and american eagle because it looks really American?
Ok I'm not sure what any of this means but here are your statistics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate
I know because I know what fobs at my university are like. I don't think you know a thing about American cities. I'm from Chicago and have been to NYC, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, Orlando, Miami and Atlanta. Please don't try to act like you know all about "major american cities." And you didn't even address what I said about American press. Since you didn't say anything I'll assume Hong Kong people are all out of the know. Well it's different here.
What about the american press? Hong kong has free press too. If there is a murder it will be reported just like in america so I don't see your point.
If you think I'm just america bashing then take the crime rate of your favorite american city and compare it to hong kong and see what you find. See what the comparison in murder, rape, armed robbery, kidnapping is. Maybe you should pay attention to what goes on in your country instead of letting pride color your opinion.
"Hong Kong SAR has a low crime rate. Travelers should exercise caution when in congested areas and pay particular attention to personal belongings while in crowded markets and while traveling on public transportation.
Violent crime, though rare, does occur."
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1136.html
That is from your own state department regarding hong kong. Can you honestly say violent crime is rare in any major american city?
mmmmmm........ Guess just how much I care for your so-called bill of rights, yank.
I think that's one of the reasons why we're not your colonies anymore, Limey*.
* Used in the pejorative sense meaning a person of British descent, rather than the proper name of a Dwellar, limey, whose name is spelled with a lower-case l, anyway.
Ok I'm not sure what any of this means but here are your statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate
Then why are you telling me this. I'm throwing it out the window if you can't explain it.
"Hong Kong SAR has a low crime rate. Travelers should exercise caution when in congested areas and pay particular attention to personal belongings while in crowded markets and while traveling on public transportation. Violent crime, though rare, does occur."
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1136.html
That is from your own state department regarding hong kong. Can you honestly say violent crime is rare in any major american city?
Um, did you read the terrorist report as well? Listen, Hong Kong may resemble Singapore or Tokyo but I still will not degrade American cities. You can't just come and say we are the most violent country in the world. And plus your wikipedia bullshit you can't even comprehend. Therefore I'm done arguing with someone who doesn't know stuff about American cities, which is what I am talking about, not Hong Kong. You have not spent enough time in America to know what it's about. Save your judgements before you call us criminals. Violence happens everywhere and I refuse to believe it is this rampant bullshit that you say. I KNOW American cities, you do not. Do not judge something before you experience it.
Fresh, she is right, America is easily the most violent first world country in the world. We have the highest murder rates and the highest number amount of people in prisions.
Here is stats for murder rates:
http://www.newsbatch.com/gc-intgunsa.html
I'm not going to look for one with prision rates but I know for a fact that we are highest.
Then why are you telling me this. I'm throwing it out the window if you can't explain it.
Um, did you read the terrorist report as well? Listen, Hong Kong may resemble Singapore or Tokyo but I still will not degrade American cities. You can't just come and say we are the most violent country in the world. And plus your wikipedia bullshit you can't even comprehend. Therefore I'm done arguing with someone who doesn't know stuff about American cities, which is what I am talking about, not Hong Kong. You have not spent enough time in America to know what it's about. Save your judgements before you call us criminals. Violence happens everywhere and I refuse to believe it is this rampant bullshit that you say. I KNOW American cities, you do not. Do not judge something before you experience it.
Ok try paying attention. The part where I said i didn't know what any of this means was in reference to your statement I highlighted in bold which was this.
Are you one of those rich fobs who has never seen violence and wear aeropostle and american eagle because it looks really American?
Also I not once said america was the most violent nation in the world.
If we'd actually punish our criminals rather than trying to redeem them, we might get somewhere on lowering the crime rate.
I don't know what you're arguing about anyway. Australia still holds the record for the most people killed by gunshot in one sitting by a crazy gunman, and we're not even a violent country.
Things like this wont be stopped by different gun laws although we've had no more here since the government took away all semi auto weapons. Mind you, we hadn't had anything of that magnitude before either.
I assume you're talking about Port Arthur? I have met some of the responders to that incident.
If we'd actually punish our criminals rather than trying to redeem them, we might get somewhere on lowering the crime rate.
Yes true. America should make a concerted effort to get rid of judges like edward cashman who does not believe in punishing criminals.
Ok try paying attention. The part where I said i didn't know what any of this means was in reference to your statement I highlighted in bold which was this.
Also I not once said america was the most violent nation in the world.
Your original post, all I see in America is violence, it's rampant. That's where I disagree. You make it seem like all US news is about criminal acts and violence and that's what you think of the country as. The violence makes the news of course, but it doesn't mean we are all about violence. It is not rampant, we do not have massacres everyday, every month, every year. American cities are not about killing and violence. I will never believe violence is "rampant" in American cities.
rampant -
1. violent in action or spirit; raging; furious: a rampant leopard.
2. growing luxuriantly, as weeds.
3. in full sway; prevailing or unchecked: a rampant rumor.
It is not growing, it is not unchecked. Just because we have violence does not mean the USA does nothing about it. So for you to call it "rampant" is false. I'm from Chicago and when I think of the Windy City crime is not the first thing that comes to mind, not at all. It (and many and most American cities) has a lot more positive than negative aspects to it. Sure go ahead and tell me about Al Capone and the mob, but then I'll tell you that was 90 years ago. I could go and be ignorant and claim the movie Rush Hour perceives Hong Kong as strictly a drug trafficking, gang infested murder port but that would be wrong as well. It is not rampant, end of story. Rwanda has rampant violence. The USA does not.
Not once did I form my opinion based on a movie and I don't care about mob violence, I'm talking about daily violence. Compared to where I'm from crime in america is rampant. You have armed gangs roaming the streets so how can you say it isn't out of control?
Not once did I form my opinion based on a movie and I don't care about mob violence, I'm talking about daily violence. Compared to where I'm from crime in america is rampant. You have armed gangs roaming the streets so how can you say it isn't out of control?
Armed gangs? And the Triads are just shady business men? Your bullshit I can't stand anymore. I don't give a fuck where you're from the crime in America is not fucking rampant. I ask you to tell some casual city dwelling American who knows a shitload more than you about city life "is violence rampant in your city?" and he will tell you no. Why the fuck would he be LIVING in that city if there was rampant violence. If you think America has rampant violence then you DON'T want to go to mainland China (where you say you have no idea what it's like there) where police beat the shit out of civilians for looking at them the wrong way. Now that is an armed gang roaming the streets. Tell all the other dwellars here that America has rampant violence. The American ones will probably get a little offended if you just are going to label us all a bunch of thieves, thugs and murderers.
Armed gangs? And the Triads are just shady business men? Your bullshit I can't stand anymore. I don't give a fuck where you're from the crime in America is not fucking rampant. I ask you to tell some casual city dwelling American who knows a shitload more than you about city life "is violence rampant in your city?" and he will tell you no. Why the fuck would he be LIVING in that city if there was rampant violence. If you think America has rampant violence then you DON'T want to go to mainland China (where you say you have no idea what it's like there) where police beat the shit out of civilians for looking at them the wrong way. Now that is an armed gang roaming the streets. Tell all the other dwellars here that America has rampant violence. The American ones will probably get a little offended if you just are going to label us all a bunch of thieves, thugs and murderers.
Oh give me a break. The triads do not roam the streets shooting people in the head for their purse or their car. The triads are a shadow of what they were before china took over. In america on the other hand, not a day goes by in an american city without gang violence. And you want to talk about police abuse? Are you saying that doesn't happen in america?? Also why are you telling me I know nothing about america when I live here yet you make claims about china and you have never lived there. Further more I didn't label all of you as criminals, I said your crime is rampant and I stand by that.
America is not a third world thug dictatorship so there is no excuse to have crime on the scale that you do.
I can't wait til morning comes and the other American dwellars reply to your "rampant" bashing of America.
Oh give me a break. The triads do not roam the streets shooting people in the head for their purse or their car. The triads are a shadow of what they were before china took over. In america on the other hand, not a day goes by in an american city without gang violence. And you want to talk about police abuse? Are you saying that doesn't happen in america?? Also why are you telling me I know nothing about america when I live here yet you make claims about china and you have never lived there. Further more I didn't label all of you as criminals, I said your crime is rampant and I stand by that.
America is not a third world thug dictatorship so there is no excuse to have crime on the scale that you do.
So, you're telling me everyday people get shot in the head for their purse in America. That is the most outrageous thing I've ever heard. Police abuse. I am 100000% sure American police injustice is 100000x LESS than communist China's police injustice. And I have heard many stories from my Chinese friends who visit there in the summer. Goddamnit where is the morning. I really didn't think immigrants would move here if they thought our crime was so fucking "rampant." Isn't that why they moved to America? To escape poverty, oppression, VIOLENCE and to have an opportunity? Why come to America, you might have a 100% chance of getting shot in the head for your purse.
Oh course, americans are prideful and so I'm sure to receive all kinds of personal insults for my opinions. We all know that expressing any opinion that is negative of america is of course america bashing.
Since I'm doomed to be insulted by your fellow americans in the morning, I would like to add not only is your crime out of control but you have a pop culture that glorifies.
So, you're telling me everyday people get shot in the head for their purse in America. That is the most outrageous thing I've ever heard. Police abuse. I am 100000% sure American police injustice is 100000x LESS than communist China's police injustice. And I have heard many stories from my Chinese friends who visit there in the summer. Goddamnit where is the morning. I really didn't think immigrants would move here if they thought our crime was so fucking "rampant." Isn't that why they moved to America? To escape poverty, oppression, VIOLENCE and to have an opportunity? Why come to America, you might have a 100% chance of getting shot in the head for your purse.
So car jacking and armed robbery in america is rare? That is new. And as for the police abuse you are comparing to mainland china. You might be right that it is worse in mainland china. I wouldn't know because I have never lived there but neither have you.
Why do immigrants move to america? certainly not because of crimes in their own country but because they think they can make more money in america.
No shit we have a pop culture that glorifies, but you didn't say what. Oh right, mass murder, like this KOREAN immigrant who slaughtered 32 people in AMERICA. Obviously our crime is out of control, damn. Let's just make another glorifying pop video about how we love crime. That's what we do. That's America. You came here, don't blame me.
So car jacking and armed robbery in america is rare? That is new. And as for the police abuse you are comparing to mainland china. You might be right that it is worse in mainland china. I wouldn't know because I have never lived there but neither have you.
Why do immigrants move to america? certainly not because of crimes in their own country but because they think they can make more money in america.
Listen getting shot in the head means you're gonna DIE. That's what you said. Contradict yourself some more. And no, my European friends moved here because eastern Europe has some bad ass violence. Now don't even get me started on my African friends. You must not know anything about Eastern or Central Africa if you think certainly not because crime in their country. But I guess Hong Kong is violence free.
No shit we have a pop culture that glorifies, but you didn't say what. Oh right, mass murder, like this KOREAN immigrant who slaughtered 32 people in AMERICA. Obviously our crime is out of control, damn. Let's just make another glorifying pop video about how we love crime. That's what we do. That's America. You came here, don't blame me.
Oh my mistake, your pop culture glorifies violence. That much is obvious.
Interesting how you point out the mass killer was an immigrant. He lived there since he was 8 years old. :rolleyes:
Listen getting shot in the head means you're gonna DIE. That's what you said. Contradict yourself some more. And no, my European friends moved here because eastern Europe has some bad ass violence. Now don't even get me started on my African friends. You must not know anything about Eastern or Central Africa if you think certainly not because crime in their country. But I guess Hong Kong is violence free.
Um point out where I contradicted myself. And I like how you seem to have friends from everywhere and use that to qualify knowing what you are talking about. I suppose if I said the moon was made of cheddar cheese you would have a friend that has been there and claims it was made of swiss.
Oh my mistake, your pop culture glorifies violence. That much is obvious.
Interesting how you point out the mass killer was an immigrant. He lived there since he was 8 years old. :rolleyes:
Shit, I'm an immigrant I came here when I was two. In fact my family tells me of their extended family in Mindanao who fled the Philippines because of the violence caused by the Moros in MY country. Damn, I'm even going to get personal to prove you wrong.
Um point out where I contradicted myself. And I like how you seem to have friends from everywhere and use that to qualify knowing what you are talking about. I suppose if I said the moon was made of cheddar cheese you would have a friend that has been there and claims it was made of swiss.
Clearly you don't know the University of Illinois lowered it's in state tuition admission and significantly raised it's international admission. That is all about the money. So I have more intnat'l friends, DUH. And I like how your post I quoted above has absolutely no substance. It's a great tactic. I was almost thrown off.
We're not really that violent, it's just oversensationalized in the media because that's what sells. It's never about the actual news anymore, it's about getting the all day coverage on something that makes everyone go "OH MY GOD/S!". News Companies, at the top levels, don't really care what is on the news, as long as it'll stop every dumbass between Maine and Hawaii so they can watch how 30-some odd people got shot today, or how some celebrity did this or that, all to make a quick buck. I suppose it's a bit cold of me to say that I really don't care about what happened in VA the other day, but I actually don't. I care most about what happens where *I* live.
It's all a big ratings contest, and that's why you see so much drugs, sex, violence, and Oprah on TV these days. All I see on the news are stories about the "war", or some sad sack story that's supposed to make you cry. They can wrap up their story on the 6:00 News, and be done with it, and that's what they should be doing, not bulletizing every little detail for an event that is happening halfway (For me, in Iowa, it's about half) across the country, because I really don't care. It doesn't change my life significantly that some guy came to a uni and shot 30 people.
So, don't go saying the USA is incredibly violent, just because that's what you see on TV. To hell with Big News corporations. There's a reason I read the small paper instead of the big one.
We're not really that violent, it's just oversensationalized in the media because that's what sells. It's never about the actual news anymore, it's about getting the all day coverage on something that makes everyone go "OH MY GOD/S!". News Companies, at the top levels, don't really care what is on the news, as long as it'll stop every dumbass between Maine and Hawaii so they can watch how 30-some odd people got shot today, or how some celebrity did this or that, all to make a quick buck. I suppose it's a bit cold of me to say that I really don't care about what happened in VA the other day, but I actually don't. I care most about what happens where *I* live.
It's all a big ratings contest, and that's why you see so much drugs, sex, violence, and Oprah on TV these days. All I see on the news are stories about the "war", or some sad sack story that's supposed to make you cry. They can wrap up their story on the 6:00 News, and be done with it, and that's what they should be doing, not bulletizing every little detail for an event that is happening halfway (For me, in Iowa, it's about half) across the country, because I really don't care. It doesn't change my life significantly that some guy came to a uni and shot 30 people.
So, don't go saying the USA is incredibly violent, just because that's what you see on TV. To hell with Big News corporations. There's a reason I read the small paper instead of the big one.
SEE I BEEN TRYIN TO TELL THIS GIRL BUT SHE DON'T LISTEN GAHHHHHHHHHH US NEWS IS ALL ABOUT DAT!
Clearly you don't know the University of Illinois lowered it's in state tuition admission and significantly raised it's international admission. That is all about the money. So I have more intnat'l friends, DUH. And I like how your post I quoted above has absolutely no substance. It's a great tactic. I was almost thrown off.
Gee any chance of me interviewing your long list of international friends?
As far as posts with no substance, take a look at how you have reduced this discussion into an insult exchange. I have noticed this to be common among a few in here who claim to know what they are talking about.
I'm going to stop listening also if that caps lock key doesn't get turned off.
We're not really that violent, it's just oversensationalized in the media because that's what sells. It's never about the actual news anymore, it's about getting the all day coverage on something that makes everyone go "OH MY GOD/S!". News Companies, at the top levels, don't really care what is on the news, as long as it'll stop every dumbass between Maine and Hawaii so they can watch how 30-some odd people got shot today, or how some celebrity did this or that, all to make a quick buck. I suppose it's a bit cold of me to say that I really don't care about what happened in VA the other day, but I actually don't. I care most about what happens where *I* live.
It's all a big ratings contest, and that's why you see so much drugs, sex, violence, and Oprah on TV these days. All I see on the news are stories about the "war", or some sad sack story that's supposed to make you cry. They can wrap up their story on the 6:00 News, and be done with it, and that's what they should be doing, not bulletizing every little detail for an event that is happening halfway (For me, in Iowa, it's about half) across the country, because I really don't care. It doesn't change my life significantly that some guy came to a uni and shot 30 people.
So, don't go saying the USA is incredibly violent, just because that's what you see on TV. To hell with Big News corporations. There's a reason I read the small paper instead of the big one.
So if I look up police statistics on crime then I can assume that is just sensationalism too?
Gee any chance of me interviewing your long list of international friends?
As far as posts with no substance, take a look at how you have reduced this discussion into an insult exchange. I have noticed this to be common among a few in here who claim to know what they are talking about.
Ikechukwu Valentino Ujari, Slobodan Radonovic, Yirang Wang. But I must be good at googling such ethnic names so quickly. Read Sadists post, she said stuff that I couldn't put my finger on but meant.
I wasn't trying to debunk actual police statistics, but I know a lot of what outsiders think of a place is by what they hear of it in the news and from other people. I'm jsut sick of the media making the US as a whole look bad.
Ikechukwu Valentino Ujari, Slobodan Radonovic, Yirang Wang. But I must be good at googling such ethnic names so quickly. Read Sadists post, she said stuff that I couldn't put my finger on but meant.
Ok can I interview them please? Since you like to say I'm full of bullshit then I will say the same of you until I get to have a discussion with your many international friends.
Oh, and just for the record, I have a penis.
I wasn't trying to debunk actual police statistics, but I know a lot of what outsiders think of a place is by what they hear of it in the news and from other people. I'm jsut sick of the media making the US as a whole look bad.
Before I moved to america I had a completely different view. It wasn't until I lived here that I figured out just how bad the crime was.
Ok can I interview them please? Since you like to say I'm full of bullshit then I will say the same of you until I get to have a discussion with your many international friends.
Would you like my facebook for U of I? They are my facebook friends! And in exchange, can you get me the # of a peaceful distraught Triad who is bummed about his unthorough existence in Hong Kong?
I'm from a medium-ish size city in the midwest, so crime isn't that big of an issue where I'm at. I've also been in the military, and when you ask your fellow soldiers where they are from, you get kind of a window into a lot of the country. Things I've heard about some of the places my friends are from makes me not want to go there, ever.
Would you like my facebook for U of I? They are my facebook friends! And in exchange, can you get me the # of a peaceful distraught Triad who is bummed about his unthorough existence in Hong Kong?
Sure give me their emails and while you are at give me those violent crime stats of hong kong compared to your favorite american city that shows I'm full of bullshit and just "american bashing". :D
I wasn't trying to debunk actual police statistics, but I know a lot of what outsiders think of a place is by what they hear of it in the news and from other people. I'm jsut sick of the media making the US as a whole look bad.
Me too.
Sure give me their emails and while you are at give me those violent crime stats of hong kong compared to your favorite american city that shows I'm full of bullshit and just "american bashing". :D
I'm not arguing Hong Kong. I'm just pretty offended you called America a "rampant" crime ridden country. You'd be offended if I called Hong Kong successful only because of the British. But I guess I can argue that as long as you can argue "rampant" violence in the states.
I'm not arguing Hong Kong. I'm just pretty offended you called America a "rampant" crime ridden country. You'd be offended if I called Hong Kong successful only because of the British. But I guess I can argue that as long as you can argue "rampant" violence in the states.
Actually I would not be offended if you said HK was successful because of the british. Like it or not I believe hong kong would not be what it is today without the british.
I say american crime is rampant because it is compared to where I'm from. I'm not saying that to be insulting or to bash, I'm saying that because crime in any one of your cities is high in comparison. I believe it is a legitimate argument. And no I do not claim you are all thugs or criminals. And I do not claim america is the most violent nation in the world.
Actually I would not be offended if you said HK was successful because of the british. Like it or not I believe hong kong would not be what it is today without the british.
I say american crime is rampant because it is compared to where I'm from. I'm not saying that to be insulting or to bash, I'm saying that because crime in any one of your cities is high in comparison. I believe it is a legitimate argument. And no I do not claim you are all thugs or criminals. And I do not claim america is the most violent nation in the world.
Ok, let's be friends! :grouphug:
Yes wolf, I was talking about Port Arthur.
Just to add to the above argument, there's really no way to refute that the US does have aspects of culture which are violent. That being said, there are many other countries in the world where you're more likely to die a violent death than the US.
Having lived in both and loving neither, I can definitely say that America IS a lot more violent than Hong Kong. It's not just a media issue.
But it's also a lot more free, and a lot more diverse, and a lot more chaotic, and a lot more polarized, all of which for better or worse.
Yes, compared to hong kong or taipei or even beijing, america practically IS a crime-ridden terrible violent place.
That violence is a direct consequence of freedom. When you have no freedom you don't get uppity and shoot people.
I'll take the freedom and the violence, if you please.
There are those that would argue that freedom is not the source of violence. Rather that imprisonment is.
News in the US goes by one slogan: "If it bleeds, it leads!"
I live next to the city with the highest homicide rate in the country (thanks Mayor Street!) and yet I have never personally witnessed a gun crime. 95% of crime is located in drug neighborhoods where there is battle over turf. If you don't go there, and it's easy to know where "there" is, you are not affected by the homicide rate. That's not to say it's not a problem, just not the kind of problem you think it is.
Just to add to the above argument, there's really no way to refute that the US does have aspects of culture which are violent.
...and that, I think, is an issue more complex than the availability of weapons or what is portrayed in the media. The reason the US broadcasts that it has a violent culture and is viewed as being a violent place are disconnected from the reality of the actual violence that takes place and the reasons for it. Symptom and disease are connected but pinpointing any single cause in the mess of social issues, class gaps, racial tension, apathy, mental illness, media encouragement, gun laws, and lack of community would be impossible.
That said, as details emerge Cho Seung-hui to reveal a disturbed individual, I believe that no amount of previous weapons legislation, peaceful culture, or security precautions would have prevented the massacre that seems to have been triggered by either mental illness, childhood abuse, or both. Any warning signs that would have hinted at future violence and the need for treatment were overlooked by friends and purposely ignored by family years ago just as were those of Charles Whitman. The underlying reasons for Cho Seung-hui's actions have no connection to a "violent culture" or the desire to commit crimes for personal gain -- making the connection to this incident and daily crime in the US is foolish. When people snap like this, preventative measures have to be personal and need to have occurred years prior to the breaking point.
suppose if I said the moon was made of cheddar cheese you would have a friend that has been there and claims it was made of swiss
That made me laugh:P
You're both wrong. The moon is made from Provolone.
I think it's sick how all the newsies have flocked to VT like crows to a corpse.
I was watching Dateline NBC the night of the shooting, and it was amazing to see. Matt Lauer and some other old reporter were talking with each other on camera about what a "big story" this was and how surprising it was that the locals didn't understand why all the reporters were showing up.
It really sickened me. They had a very callous attitude. Two seasoned reporters telling war stories about past incidents and how this would make a great new story. They kept referring to this as a new record, like it was something to be broken. In almost the same breath, they went from talking about new records to potential copycats who might come out of the woodwork after this.
I half expected them to turn to the camera and say "So all you potential mass murderers out there, the new number is 33. You must kill more than 33 to get into the record books, and really it should be like 60 to get maximum impact."
News like that is the reason I don't watch the news. I scroll through the stories that interest me on my MSN.com page, but other than that, I really don't care what goes on in the world.
I especially hate "Inside Edition" with whats-her-face on CBS.
Now the big issue is "there were indications that this guy would go postal, but we couldn't do anything other than recommend counselling", and that VT should have "done something". Hopefully Wolf can shed some light on this, but it doesn't seem like some person or institution can force action on someone because they behave outside the norm.
I'm just dreading the news spectacle there will be on the 20th, since that's the 8th anniversary of the Columbine incident. I've already seen advertisements for programs that are covering that old story, as well as the VT one. I wonder who the fuck can't just let the dead horse lay there, and let the people in Colorado have some fucking rest already. I'm pretty sure they don't want to watch some thing about the most horrifying thing some of them had experienced, and I really don't want to watch it either.
Now the big issue is "there were indications that this guy would go postal, but we couldn't do anything other than recommend counselling", and that VT should have "done something". Hopefully Wolf can shed some light on this, but it doesn't seem like some person or institution can force action on someone because they behave outside the norm.
I actually faced a similar issue some semesters ago. From day one in my physiology class, a male student sat in the very back of class and spent a lot of the time talking to himself. He was loud enough that he was repeatedly asked to quiet down and the prof eventually pulled him aside and had a word with him, but the only thing he would say to her was that he "hated her" and "hated the class". Some days later after another class, the student punched another for no reason at all. Police were called, no charges were pressed (the victim later said he simply wanted to know what prompted the unexpected assault from this person he didn't know and didn't even speak to, but got no clear answer) and life went on. One day, he stopped showing up to class, much to everyone's relief. Most found him highly annoying and "just weird". We figured with the grades he was getting that he finally gave up and dropped.
We learned, later, that wasn't the case. He had
snapped inside a Radio Shack in a local mall and killed two random people before killing himself.
He had acted strange in class, had at least one violent outburst, but there simply wasn't enough there to baker act him. For this student majoring in psychology, the professors that all had degrees in the field didn't pick up on enough of his warning signs to do anything about it.
Sounds like the student he punched should have been encouraged more strongly to press charges. He was the one person who had the legal opportunity to get this guy looked at.
Ok, I'm glad it is not just me who thinks America is not "rampant" with violence. Remember what the word rampant bears in mind. Unchecked, furious and growing and out of control.
I think there are certain areas that might be rampant with violence, but my country as a whole? Nah.
He had acted strange in class, had at least one violent outburst, but there simply wasn't enough there to baker act him. For this student majoring in psychology, the professors that all had degrees in the field didn't pick up on enough of his warning signs to do anything about it.
It's a catch 22. We are supposed to have a right to act/say/do whatever we want as long as it doesn't 'hurt' anyone else. Unfortunately, the warning signs of potential future harm usually fall under this so that those who recognize the symptoms of someting serious can't do anything.
However, if we allow 'experts' to have people 'tagged' for closer examination, there will be a group of people who will pipe up about infringing on personal freedoms. It's a very very thin line in a murky grey area.
As a person with a history of mental illness, I rely on my family to point out to me when I need a little tweaking. If I didn't have them, or friends I could trust, I could easily get to a very low point, (though I doubt I would cause anyone but myself harm).
I'm not advocating for troops of rogue psychiatrists roaming the streets with rorschach cards and handcuffs, but it would be nice if we (americans in general) felt a little better about asking someone if they are OK, and reporting it to someone who might actually be able to
DO something if there is obviously something off about a person. What the
DO is, is the question to be debated for the next decade...
I haven't heard enough yet about Cho Seung-hui to make any conclusions myself regarding if there was anything that could have been done to minimize his potential for being dangerous to others.
..I'm not advocating for troops of rogue psychiatrists roaming the streets with rorschach cards and handcuffs, but it would be nice if we (americans in general) felt a little better about asking someone if they are OK, and reporting it to someone who might actually be able to DO something if there is obviously something off about a person. What the DO is, is the question to be debated for the next decade...
...
I'd like to report some strange behavior from the dork that lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...:D
I actually faced a similar issue some semesters ago. ...
I just remembered that I had an "encounter" in the early eighties. I sold glasses to a young woman. She told me that she had just been in the service for about six months (as I remember). I commented that it was strange to only be in for six months, and she said that she and the service made a mutaual agreement that she should be discharged. Her name was
Sylvia Seegrist.
It was estimated that this woman had fired twenty rounds, and the toll that day was two dead and eight wounded. When she was stopped, she had 10 bullets left in one of her clips.
...and that, I think, is an issue more complex than the availability of weapons or what is portrayed in the media. The reason the US broadcasts that it has a violent culture and is viewed as being a violent place are disconnected from the reality of the actual violence that takes place and the reasons for it. Symptom and disease are connected but pinpointing any single cause in the mess of social issues, class gaps, racial tension, apathy, mental illness, media encouragement, gun laws, and lack of community would be impossible.
Well stated. Good summary.
http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_5695553
I hope this person gets flogged publically. This is pathetic and immature.
well, you can't lock up everyone who has the potential to do violence. There'd be no one left on the outside.
they're playing the killer's tapes right now on CNN. It is just fucking horrific.
That kid had NO connection to reality, whatsoever.
I used to work for a university and we had to deal with mental health issues within the university as well as with public health officials and the police department. I've also worked with the police department on mental health issues.
I can't remember who just wrote about the grey area (and kudos to you for pointing this out) but in dealing with both the university system as well as the police department - the mental health system and process is one HUGE grey area.
For instance - (yes - psychology major - specifically abnormal psychology) - most of the time skitzophrenia develops in the early 20's when people are in college. In my college years - 5 1/2 - I had to attend commitment proceedings on 12 different students as they were skitzophrenic and were harmful to themselves as well as to others. The issue is with most of these students is that they are aldults so you can't get the parents involved to assist with the help they so desperately need. The other issue that we came up across - and this has been mentioned in the news media - is that a lot of these kids were asian. (I'm chinese FYI) One of the psychologists that I've worked with and for find different cultures views of mental illness some of the hardest things to overcome.
The issue on doing something - if you notice something that just doesn't seem right - ask someone (aka care) if they are ok. If the response just seems off - discuss it with a crisis line, or in a university setting - a counselor, your dorm director - someone. So many people out there need help and don't know where to get it.
Does this excuse anything that happend this week. Absolutely not. But it does show some insight into it. In all - it is tragic and I truly feel for those victims.
*and something else that completely bothers me - I was watching the interviews with his former roomates and they were sitting there smiling during most of the interview. Not sure if they were just smiling for the camera or what - but it really just rubbed me the wrong way*
FLAME ON!
Observation:
A lot of the pundits on the tube keep hanging their hats on the fact that this guy was found at one time to be "a danger to himself, and a danger to others." Further, he was at one time committed for this behavior, against his will. This is a snap shot of how our system works and how it is broken. He was committed one time for that behavior at that time. He was obviously released, because he was "no longer a threat" or he never would have been released. And so goes the revolving door of mental health care here in the US. Most people with serious mental health issues end up in jail, not getting the help they really need. We have closed the asylums and hospitals and replaced them with prisons. It is no surprise that this guy was out and about.
I want to hear how this guy's life was like in high school. I have a feelign that will answer many questions.
as far as I know, there's never been enough resources for the mentally ill anywhere. It looks as though people were seeing the warning signs, and were reporting them. It seems as though he had no one to step in and care for him, anyway. Maybe his parents were glad to ship him off to college.
Again, there needs to be a better safety net for teenagers.
Agreed, this guy had nothing to go back on and he has probably been living through a daily hell for the past 10 or so years. I gaurantee no one seriously tried to include him and he was the kid that everyone made fun of in high school.
There is no justifiable reason to do this because he directly affected over 10,000 people but if you make someone's life a living hell, exclude him from society, and give him a gun, what the hell do you expect?
I think he just plain cared too much. I'm a social outcast, I guess, sure -- but look at me. I'm here conversing with and acting like a sane reasonable mature adult. You know why?
Because I dont care what they say or think. I'm here to have a good run while I'm here on earth, cause I wont be here long. Only a handful of decades. So I'm gonna have a good run and not let this shit get me down. I act like everyone loves me anyway, act like all the kids here who hate me are my closest friends, because hate and jealousy get me nowhere.
This kid was sick and needed help. Blame his chemicals, blame his broken mind, dont blame the other kids.
Why not? The kids played just as much of a role in it then the chemicals and the broken mind. It is like telling a very badly treated slave that we shouldn't blame his slaveowner because he cared about his freedom too much.
I agree that it has to do with caring too much but that intertwines with his obvious irrational feeling of being opressed. He said he hated the self-centeredness of people and he had to kill because of their greedyness. This means he had goals and aspirations of being rich at a young age but this dream was repeatedly shot down while watching other people live up his dream. This comes down to jealousy and a unwillingness to accept the failures and realities of life.
Thank goodness for multiquote, so I can do this as one big, long post rather than a series ...
Now the big issue is "there were indications that this guy would go postal, but we couldn't do anything other than recommend counselling", and that VT should have "done something". Hopefully Wolf can shed some light on this, but it doesn't seem like some person or institution can force action on someone because they behave outside the norm.
Remembering that my experience is based primarily on Pennsylvania's very different commitment law ...
I did look at the Virginia law. Their standard for commitment is "imminent harm to self," "imminent harm to others," or "substantially unable to care for self." Their law does not define the criteria further. (Pennsylvania is a LOT more specific about dangerous behaviors, and also allows for threats with acts in furtherance of the threats to be utilized as grounds for commitment). Sure, folks were noticing Cho's bizarre behavior ... but until Monday morning, he hadn't crossed the line into observable dangerous behavior. The play posted on The Smoking Gun was weird, certainly showed disorganization of his thinking, but didn't represent any overt dangerousness.
I'm just dreading the news spectacle there will be on the 20th, since that's the 8th anniversary of the Columbine incident. I've already seen advertisements for programs that are covering that old story, as well as the VT one. I wonder who the fuck can't just let the dead horse lay there, and let the people in Colorado have some fucking rest already. I'm pretty sure they don't want to watch some thing about the most horrifying thing some of them had experienced, and I really don't want to watch it either.
This is a bad week for that sort of thing. Oklahoma City, Branch Davidian, and Columbine all share similar timing, not to mention Hitler's Birthday (anybody else catch the 88 reference in the page posted to the msnbc site?), and the date of the final entry (or was it the blowing up of some Federal Building in DC, I forget) in The Turner Diaries. April 16, the day of the shootings was "Patriot's Day" according to my calendar (which I thought was supposed to be April 19 because of the Battle of the Old North Bridge that's regarded as the beginning of the American Revoluntary War. Guess it was Monday Holiday Billed).
I just remembered that I had an "encounter" in the early eighties. I sold glasses to a young woman. She told me that she had just been in the service for about six months (as I remember). I commented that it was strange to only be in for six months, and she said that she and the service made a mutaual agreement that she should be discharged. Her name was Sylvia Seegrist.
Interesting brush with infamy. I remember her well. Especially since I'd been at the Springfield Mall only a few days before the shooting.
Observation:
A lot of the pundits on the tube keep hanging their hats on the fact that this guy was found at one time to be "a danger to himself, and a danger to others." Further, he was at one time committed for this behavior, against his will. This is a snap shot of how our system works and how it is broken. He was committed one time for that behavior at that time. He was obviously released, because he was "no longer a threat" or he never would have been released. And so goes the revolving door of mental health care here in the US. Most people with serious mental health issues end up in jail, not getting the help they really need. We have closed the asylums and hospitals and replaced them with prisons. It is no surprise that this guy was out and about.
Mental health law, because of the civil rights issues of detaining a person against their will, and violating their right of self-determination of treatment, is based on the notion that a patient will be treated at the "least restrictive setting" for their care.
Emergency commitments are just that ... emergencies. A person's behavior two years ago may be
interesting and helpful to understanding them and their situation as it provides context, it is not relevant to the commitment process. You can only be treated for what you're doing NOW, not what you did, or what you
might do.
The door swings rather than revolves most of the time.
Interestingly, the state of Virginia has been, over the last few years, in the process of attempting to revise their commitment laws. I think that the speed at which those changes occur might increase.
I want to hear how this guy's life was like in high school. I have a feelign that will answer many questions.
I doubt it. While a lot of people who are severely mentally ill show signs of it in high school, a lot of the time they don't. He may have been a bit odd, shy, bookish, geeky, but then most of us here were. Schizophrenia, in particular, is like that. All of a sudden, entering into your early 20s, you start having some strange ways of perceiving the world that you become more and more convinced are absolutely true. You start believing that certain songs have special meanings inserted in them for you, and you alone, or that you can hear the thoughts of others, or god and the devil start talking to you, or that the way you pick colors of clothing has impact on world politics.
as far as I know, there's never been enough resources for the mentally ill anywhere. It looks as though people were seeing the warning signs, and were reporting them. It seems as though he had no one to step in and care for him, anyway. Maybe his parents were glad to ship him off to college.
Again, there needs to be a better safety net for teenagers.
There are a lot of resources for the mentally ill. People (patients and their families) don't necessarily take advantage of them, however.
This is particularly true in the Korean community. They have a much stronger stigma about mental illness than a lot of other cultures. They keep things in the family most of all, sometimes will seek help within their own community, and only very rarely approach their local mental health services. When I see a Korean parents and their pastor (to translate) show up, I know that the situation has deteriorated to the point where someone has gotten hurt. They don't come in to do a commitment otherwise.
Agreed, this guy had nothing to go back on and he has probably been living through a daily hell for the past 10 or so years. I gaurantee no one seriously tried to include him and he was the kid that everyone made fun of in high school.
There is no justifiable reason to do this because he directly affected over 10,000 people but if you make someone's life a living hell, exclude him from society, and give him a gun, what the hell do you expect?
It is too early to make that assumption. As I stated above, he was probably a bit odd, but pretty much normal in high school.
Now that we know he has a prior commitment on his record ... this
should have prevented him from being able to purchase the pistols. I don't know how Virginia's version of the background check works, though. In Pennsylvania, involuntary commitment results in an automatic denial through PICS (Penna. Insta-Check System).
I think he just plain cared too much. I'm a social outcast, I guess, sure -- but look at me. I'm here conversing with and acting like a sane reasonable mature adult. You know why?
Because you're a basically normal kid. Actually, one with a better sense of self-esteem and independence than many.
Why not? The kids played just as much of a role in it then the chemicals and the broken mind. It is like telling a very badly treated slave that we shouldn't blame his slaveowner because he cared about his freedom too much.
I agree that it has to do with caring too much but that intertwines with his obvious irrational feeling of being opressed. He said he hated the self-centeredness of people and he had to kill because of their greedyness. This means he had goals and aspirations of being rich at a young age but this dream was repeatedly shot down while watching other people live up his dream. This comes down to jealousy and a unwillingness to accept the failures and realities of life.
You are trying to interpret his world through your own ...
none of the things that he was concerned about were real.Because you're a basically normal kid. Actually, one with a better sense of self-esteem and independence than many.
Independence, sure, but not self-esteem. I hate myself, I think I'm ugly and dumb and a lot of other bad things, then i hate myself more for being all angsty and thinking it... I just dont let it bother me.
I've been a social outcast while living in america and it bothers me a lot but I never felt any violent urges because of it.
yikes, i just realized -
at TAS,
I'M the kid who sits in the back of the class
talks to myself
dresses weird, acts rather crazy, all of that...
I wonder if they think I'll be the next to snap?
Why not? The kids played just as much of a role in it then the chemicals and the broken mind. It is like telling a very badly treated slave that we shouldn't blame his slaveowner because he cared about his freedom too much.
I agree that it has to do with caring too much but that intertwines with his obvious irrational feeling of being opressed. He said he hated the self-centeredness of people and he had to kill because of their greedyness. This means he had goals and aspirations of being rich at a young age but this dream was repeatedly shot down while watching other people live up his dream. This comes down to jealousy and a unwillingness to accept the failures and realities of life.
You are buying into his take on reality. The things he said were only truth to him, not to the rest of us. Many people tried to be friends with this kid. The kid was the problem, not those around him. I will leave the psychoanalysis of his childhood to the experts.
You are trying to interpret his world through your own ... none of the things that he was concerned about were real
You are buying into his take on reality. The things he said were only truth to him, not to the rest of us.
I know, that is why I said
obvious irrational feeling of being oppressed. I've been irrational before and all it does is build up on each other.
The things he said were only truth to him, not to the rest of us. Many people tried to be friends with this kid.
I don't buy that. It is extremely rare that someone will try to be friends with the creepy, violent obsessed kid that never talks. Yeah, they may try to include in a conversation every once in while but I can almost guarantee that no one actually tried to include him in their group. Am I blaming anyone for that? Of course not, I wouldn't do and I'm sure 99% of people wouldn't either.
If people had been friends with him, if that were even possible, he would have used some other rationale to kill. It's a brain chemistry problem, not a social problem. If awkward loners always turned to killing, the streets would all be red with blood.
Independence, sure, but not self-esteem. I hate myself, I think I'm ugly and dumb and a lot of other bad things, then i hate myself more for being all angsty and thinking it... I just dont let it bother me.
Yup, normal kid ;)
If people had been friends with him, if that were even possible, he would have used some other rationale to kill. It's a brain chemistry problem, not a social problem. If awkward loners always turned to killing, the streets would all be red with blood.
Could people have been friends with him? I doubt it, from what I've seeen so far. Many cry that they'd be different if people gave them a chance, but in reality, they push away anyone who tries to get close.
After watching some of the videos, I think I might understand why he finally snapped...because he's a fucking tool, and everyone that knew him probably felt the same way.
Comments, in no particular order:
Ibram, even your low self-esteem is normal. We all love you, just not in that way.
It seems that HIPAA regulations, civil and privacy rights interfere in some cases. Maybe there should be situations that override these policies, that come before violence starts.
Aside from my well-known opinions on guns, this guy should never had been able to get a gun.
Mental health "mechanisms" cost money. Who wants to pony up? My guess is that themercenary doesn't want his taxes increased to pay for someone else's mental healthcare - until there's a shooting spree, of course. :rolleyes:
UT is right. In fact, if people had tried to be his friend, they might well have been his first targets - he may have percieved them as being the cause of his distress.
... I think I might understand why he finally snapped....
That's scary. Need some counselling, Syc? :cool:
Perhaps. :)
Seriously, though...when I watched those videos, I was like, "Wow...what a fucking nerd." And I suspect that that's how many people viewed him. No wonder he just finally lost his mind. He was fine on the surface, but raging underneath...and he decided to finally let loose Monday. The two Columbine shooters came across the same way to me.
Perhaps. :)
Seriously, though...when I watched those videos, I was like, "Wow...what a fucking nerd."
Have any links to the videos? I heard they aired on television but haven't caught them floating around the net, yet.
Scroll down to the video section on MSNBC.com...make sure you're using IE or FireFox.
Aside from my well-known opinions on guns, this guy should never had been able to get a gun.
You might be correct.
On the same day as the second complaint, a person told campus police that they were concerned that Cho might be suicidal. Police did not identify the person, but two of Cho's roommates have said they communicated this concern to the resident advisers in the dorm and to campus police. Campus police spoke with Cho, and asked him to speak with a counselor. He was sent to New River Community Services, a counseling center off campus, and then was detained at St. Alban's, a mental health center near Radford, Va. Police said they don't know details of his treatment at New River, and on Wednesday they applied for a search warrant for his medical records. The officials didn't say how long he was treated there, but his roommates have said in interviews that he was gone for one to two nights. If his detention was involuntarily, it should have shown up on background checks when he bought two guns in the 10 weeks before the shooting, officials said.
After watching some of the videos, I think I might understand why he finally snapped...because he's a fucking tool, and everyone that knew him probably felt the same way.
Has anyone seen my liberalism? I know I must have left it somewhere. I TOTALLY agree with your statement, Sycamore. Ill? Yes he was. An angry fuck that no one would want to be around? Yes he was. :bolt:
Mental health "mechanisms" cost money. Who wants to pony up? My guess is that themercenary doesn't want his taxes increased to pay for someone else's mental healthcare - until there's a shooting spree, of course. :rolleyes:
Ha, ha, ha. ;)
Damm tootin. There is not enough money out there to fix the problems with the mental health system in the US.
When I was in high school, there was this guy that nobody liked...and people tortured the shit out of him. At one point, he said he had a list of people to kill...apparently, I was in the top 10 at one point. My friends and I would joke around that he'd exact his revenge at graduation. He didn't...and I just saw him a couple of weeks ago working at a BP gas station.
We all thought it was funny in 1994...in 2007, the guy probably would have been expelled...and maybe followed through on his threats.
Ha, ha, ha. ;)
Damm tootin. There is not enough money out there to fix the problems with the mental health system in the US.
Observation:
A lot of the pundits on the tube keep hanging their hats on the fact that this guy was found at one time to be "a danger to himself, and a danger to others." Further, he was at one time committed for this behavior, against his will. This is a snap shot of how our system works and how it is broken. He was committed one time for that behavior at that time. He was obviously released, because he was "no longer a threat" or he never would have been released. And so goes the revolving door of mental health care here in the US. Most people with serious mental health issues end up in jail, not getting the help they really need. We have closed the asylums and hospitals and replaced them with prisons. It is no surprise that this guy was out and about.
Well, complaining isn't going to fix it, either.
Well, complaining isn't going to fix it, either.
Ok, then quit your bitching.:D
Aside from my well-known opinions on guns, this guy should never had been able to get a gun.
Given my well-known opinion on guns, this guy should never have been able to get a gun.
The information on the Cho's 2005 hospitalization is that it was involuntary.
He was not a U.S. Citizen. I went looking for the 4473 online, and the BATFE has taken it off their website, so I can't see the wording on it. I know that it asks your citizenship status, and I thought that 'no' resulted in a denial.
Please, everybody stop trying to regard this guy as normal, a geek, a nerd, whatever ... none of those things bear any relation to the kind of serious mental illness that's a play here. You will not succeed in making any kind of sense out of what he says and does.
Scroll down to the video section on MSNBC.com...make sure you're using IE or FireFox.
They wouldn't play for me off MSNBC. I watched these two videos at LiveLeak:
1 2
Its just gibberish, random. Talk of Jesus and the wealthy, martyrs and torture (being set of fire?) I assume he never had to endure. The one thing that interests me the most is that as he reads out these aggressive and violent words to express his anger, his voice doesn't once change pitch. Completely flat tone, emotionless.
He was very mentally ill.
Given my well-known opinion on guns, this guy should never have been able to get a gun.
The information on the Cho's 2005 hospitalization is that it was involuntary.
He was not a U.S. Citizen. I went looking for the 4473 online, and the BATFE has taken it off their website, so I can't see the wording on it. I know that it asks your citizenship status, and I thought that 'no' resulted in a denial.
Please, everybody stop trying to regard this guy as normal, a geek, a nerd, whatever ... none of those things bear any relation to the kind of serious mental illness that's a play here. You will not succeed in making any kind of sense out of what he says and does.
Well said, and more importantly the TV needs to stop giving his picture, video, and manifesto so much air time. The time should be given to those who died.
They wouldn't play for me off MSNBC. I watched these two videos at LiveLeak: 1 2
Its just gibberish, random. Talk of Jesus and the wealthy, martyrs and torture (being set of fire?) I assume he never had to endure. The one thing that interests me the most is that as he reads out these aggressive and violent words to express his anger, his voice doesn't once change pitch. Completely flat tone, emotionless.
He was very mentally ill.
At work we call that "fucking nuts."
I was taught to identify schizophrenia by using The Four As. (it's a distillation of the work of Eugen Bleuler, a 19th century shrink).
Affect - flattened or inappropriate. (Cho is as flat as a pancake)
Associations - loose or strange ones, making odd, often nonsensical linkages between things
Autism - inability to relate socially to others in one's environment, living in your own enclosed perception of the world.
Ambivalence - the ability to hold two concepts in complete logical opposition to each other in your head, and not see the conflict
four for four.
They don't teach identifying schizophrenia this way anymore.
Please, everybody stop trying to regard this guy as normal, a geek, a nerd, whatever ... none of those things bear any relation to the kind of serious mental illness that's a play here. You will not succeed in making any kind of sense out of what he says and does.
I'm not sure what exactly you're saying here, Wolf. If he was schizophrenic, it certainly could have been a result of environmental and/or psychosocial factors.
When I was in high school, there was this guy that nobody liked...and people tortured the shit out of him. At one point, he said he had a list of people to kill...apparently, I was in the top 10 at one point. My friends and I would joke around that he'd exact his revenge at graduation. He didn't...and I just saw him a couple of weeks ago working at a BP gas station.
We all thought it was funny in 1994...in 2007, the guy probably would have been expelled...and maybe followed through on his threats.
Yeah my grade school days I can remember at least 3 times where kids were caught with "hit lists".
From the
BBC:
Police probing the deadly shootings at Virginia Tech University have criticised the decision of US network NBC to show footage of the killer.
My thoughts on this:
1) "If it bleeds, it leads"...that's journalism in today's society. Did the police really expect NBC to sit on it?
2) I think the public should see at least some of Cho's video. It gives us a glimpse into who this guy really was.
At the same time, I think we've officially hit the saturation point with coverage of this. I'm going to quit reading and watching the news for the rest of the day, I think.
From the BBC: Police probing the deadly shootings at Virginia Tech University have criticised the decision of US network NBC to show footage of the killer.
My thoughts on this:
1) "If it bleeds, it leads"...that's journalism in today's society. Did the police really expect NBC to sit on it?
2) I think the public should see at least some of Cho's video. It gives us a glimpse into who this guy really was.
At the same time, I think we've officially hit the saturation point with coverage of this. I'm going to quit reading and watching the news for the rest of the day, I think.
I agree, but it is time to stop giving this idiot, who dead anyway, more air time. It could be fanning the flames of someone with similar delusions and stimulate them into acting in a similar manner. They need to quit already, stop the pictures, stop the video, stop the voice overs. Stop. Let's focus on his victims.
Can you imagine being the NBC staffer who opened the package?
I think there would be more focus on the victims had Cho's package not came up. I recall hearing a lot more about the victims at Columbine and OKC at a similar point in coverage.
So is April the official month of crazy? Look how much bad shit has happened in April in this country.
Can you imagine being the NBC staffer who opened the package?
Apparently, someone at the USPS notified NBC of the package...could you imagine being them?
I suspect
this would be a bigger deal too, if not for VT.
You're both wrong. The moon is made from Provolone.
I thought it was Meunster
So is April the official month of crazy? Look how much bad shit has happened in April in this country.
Yes.
...and happy birthday to me. :p
Merc is right on that they are giving Cho too much air time .
One, we should honor the victim instead of Cho.
Two, we are turning Cho into a fucking martyr. The media just told the entire United States that if you want to get a message out to the world, shoot up a school then kill yourself and people will read it.
yeah--one thing that disturbs me is they keep saying "the deadliest school shooting ever." That gives sickos incentive to beat the record.
Eh...maybe. I'm sure that there's some shithead out there thinking, "I can do 34!" But at the same time, Cho may have been a time bomb. The kids from Columbine may have given him some inspiration, but I suspect that his plan wasn't to go for any kind of record...just to hurt people.
Not once did I form my opinion based on a movie and I don't care about mob violence, I'm talking about daily violence. Compared to where I'm from crime in america is rampant. You have armed gangs roaming the streets so how can you say it isn't out of control?
Imagine this: I'll be 36 next week, and I have *never* seen a gun used aside from the rifle that my friends and I used in the country to shoot cans off of a wall. I've lived in 4 cities so far, two of them metropolitan cities, and I've never seen a gun used or known anyone who has been shot, and I know a LOT of people.
To address those who think that NO ONE having a gun is a good idea, consider this: when guns are totally banned, the only ones who will have them will be exactly the people you want to defend yourself against. People with ill intent *will* find a way to get a gun if they really want one, so relieve yourself of the utopian notion that banning guns will mean that there will be no more guns. The black market is ingenious and capitalistic, and as long as there is easy money to be made, it will be made, laws be damned.
Imagine this: I'll be 36 next week, and I have *never* seen a gun used aside from the rifle that my friends and I used in the country to shoot cans off of a wall. I've lived in 4 cities so far, two of them metropolitan cities, and I've never seen a gun used or known anyone who has been shot, and I know a LOT of people.
To address those who think that NO ONE having a gun is a good idea, consider this: when guns are totally banned, the only ones who will have them will be exactly the people you want to defend yourself against. People with ill intent *will* find a way to get a gun if they really want one, so relieve yourself of the utopian notion that banning guns will mean that there will be no more guns. The black market is ingenious and capitalistic, and as long as there is easy money to be made, it will be made, laws be damned.
:litebulb: :thumb2:
Take a look at the Wikipedia list of school killings, it's interesting reading.
Did you know that in 1927, a disgruntled school board member planted a bomb in a Michigan schoolhouse, killing 45 people? That is the deadliest school massacre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_massacresImagine this: I'll be 36 next week, and I have *never* seen a gun used aside from the rifle that my friends and I used in the country to shoot cans off of a wall. I've lived in 4 cities so far, two of them metropolitan cities, and I've never seen a gun used or known anyone who has been shot, and I know a LOT of people.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Usually all the violence happens in one neighborhood so if you don't live in that neighborhood then you won't see anything.
FACT:In 2004 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 29,569 gun deaths in the U.S:
16,750 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,624 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
649 unintentional shootings, 311 from legal intervention and 235 from undetermined intent (4% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2007.
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
They do happen whether you see them or not.
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
They do happen whether you see them or not.
They may be accurate, but I will question anything that comes from an anti-gun site before I see the original source of the statistic from the CDC. There is motive from these people to show you factoids that have been altered and doctored to show what they want you to see just to bolster their message.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ichv.org
FACT:In 2004 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 29,569 gun deaths in the U.S:
16,750 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,624 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
649 unintentional shootings, 311 from legal intervention and 235 from undetermined intent (4% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2007.
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
They do happen whether you see them or not.
To look at these figures, it seems like we need to balance US suicide figures against those of others where violence is "less rampant." Do you really think that suicides will cease to happen if guns aren't available, or (more likely) that people will just find another way?
It frustrates me that there isn't a further breakdown on how the guns were used: drug related crime, B&Es/robbery, crimes of passion, organized crime, etc. Really, that tells a lot more of a story to me than a black and white total number. I don't live in the hood but I don't live in a gated community either; I think I live the way most Americans do, and I think my chances are ridiculously small of ever seeing any kind of firearm violence. I'm not afraid!
Wow. if you look carefully at that list, you will see one of the "foiled" plots refers to an incident yesterday, in which a kid text-messaged his intention to beat Cho's record.
You said you haven't seen any guns used or heard of any making it seem like you are implying that gun violence doesn't happen and I gave you stats providing how many people have died from firearms in 2004. I have never said anything about banning guns on any thread in the past few days so I don't know where that question about suicide came from.
and I hate to say 'it's not guns that kill people, it's people who kill people' there is a basic flaw in society. I own guns, however I have never shot anyone (although I must admit there are a couple I would have liked to.. but I'm not going to, besides that..and another thing I hate to agree with.. once you outlaw guns only the outlaws (criminals) will have guns. and personally, if someone comes guning for someone I love.. I want to be able to remedy the situation as quickly as possible. (and for the record, I think handguns are for cowards.. if you're going to take someones life, I think one ought to do it face to face, with a knife/sword/big stick it's personal.. and that ought to stick with you for the rest of your life.. that's a life you are taking! taking!... not press a button/pull a trigger and it's done... that is another human being!..however society being what it is.. my views are outmoded if not archaic, so.. I must adapt and survive.)
More people died from poisoning than from firearms in 2004.
During 1979--2004, the three leading causes of injury death in the United States were motor-vehicle traffic, firearm, and poisoning (including drug overdose). In 2004, for the first time since 1968, when such data first became available, the number of reported poisoning deaths (30,308) and the age-adjusted poisoning death rate (10.3 per 1000,000 population) exceeded the number of firearm deaths (29,569) and the firearm death rate (10.0), respectively. During 1999--2004, the poisoning death rate increased 45%, whereas the firearm death rate declined 3%; during the same period, no change occurred in the rate (14.7) for motor-vehicle traffic deaths.
SOURCE: Mortality data from the National Vital Statistics Systems. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5550a6.htmWhat the hell is that suppose to prove? Whether or not 100,000 or 2 people have died from poisoning, it doesn’t change the fact that 12,000 people have died from homicide in 2004. I have never compared firearm deaths to any other death statistics because I don't think it is a contest, they are all horrible and we should be working to prevent deaths in every field. If you are honestly using this to back up a pro-gun view, I highly suggest looking at yourself and what you stand for.
Oh God these stats are cracking me up. I'm so amazed I might shoot someone.
You know what? In 2002 less people died being beat with a beverage straw than were killed by being held under water for 2 hours.
Fascinating stuff. :headshake
What is everyone arguing about I can't tell anymore.
I knew it.
This guy was made fun of throughout high school for his korean accent. He would answer a question, then would be made fun of, then he would hang his head in silence (just heard it on the news, it should pop up later). This is caused by some fucking tools that think they are better than everyone else and will not accept other people.
What is everyone arguing about I can't tell anymore.
Gun deaths and rights.
That's weird. One of my close friends came to the USA from S. Korea 10 years ago at the age of 10 and it is very hard to detect an accent at all if you're not a close friend and listening for it. This guy shouldn't even have an accent after he's been in the states for 15 years at age 8.
If everyone made fun of through high school took up arms the roads would be red with blood.
NOBODY gets out scot-free. And not everyone goes postal about it either. Blame the sick, broken mind of the kid, not his fellow students. School bullying is bad, but not the cause of mass murder.
What the hell is that suppose to prove? Whether or not 100,000 or 2 people have died from poisoning, it doesn’t change the fact that 12,000 people have died from homicide in 2004. I have never compared firearm deaths to any other death statistics because I don't think it is a contest, they are all horrible and we should be working to prevent deaths in every field. If you are honestly using this to back up a pro-gun view, I highly suggest looking at yourself and what you stand for.
Don't be a frigging tool... the point is that the statistics are not all that alarming when taken in the context of all deaths. 46,000 people died from MVA's and I don't hear you quoting some anti-auto site to make sensational claims. Death is a fact of life, here, over there, everywhere. I don't think this is a contest either. This is a discussion, keep it that way. Given that there were 2,400,000 deaths in the US in 2004 the figure of 12,000 deaths is a whopping 0.005% of all deaths in the US for that year.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_19.pdfDon't be a frigging tool... the point is that the statistics are not all that alarming when taken in the context of all deaths. 46,000 people died from MVA's and I don't hear you quoting some anti-auto site to make sensational claims. Death is a fact of life, here, over there, everywhere. I don't think this is a contest either. This is a discussion, keep it that way. Given that there were 2,400,000 deaths in the US in 2004 the figure of 12,000 deaths is a whopping 0.005% of all deaths in the US for that year.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_19.pdf
That is an unrealistic comparison because guns are designed weapons and cars are not.
That is an unrealistic comparison because guns are designed weapons and cars are not.
I guess my comments are about things we can do to avoid deaths in general. Regardless of what causes them.
We should work to prevent deaths in all fronts, including cars and poison.
Ibram, I am not putting all the blame on the kids that made fun of him and I don’t have any sympathy for this guy, I can just relate to him in some ways. He had no right to do this or even come close to doing this but I am just making the point that if you make some kids life a living hell and make him feel excluded from society and you let him buy a gun, what do you think would have happened?
I have NOT red ANY of this thread , ALL you gun haters F off and die !!!
Look at
this and wounder WHY kids Kill !!!
I just watched some video of Cho on ebaumsworld. (He has no accent at all, by the way)
That man was so out of touch with everything that I felt painfully awkward when I viewed it. I support the moment of silence tomorrow at 11 AM in the United States. I will also wear orange and maroon to support Virginia Tech. Man, some things in this life are just unneccessary and irrelevant and the consequences are devastating and disgusting.
I'm not sure what exactly you're saying here, Wolf. If he was schizophrenic, it certainly could have been a result of environmental and/or psychosocial factors.
Most of the current research indicates that schizophrenia is a brain disorder, either chemical or structural. Stressors can exacerbate symptoms, but they don't cause the disease.
1) "If it bleeds, it leads"...that's journalism in today's society. Did the police really expect NBC to sit on it?
NBC only posted the excerpts they did because they were given permission. Frankly, I'd love to see the entire manifesto, including all the video clips.
I collect crazy guy manifestos whenever possible.
I have some good suicide notes, too.
So is April the official month of crazy? Look how much bad shit has happened in April in this country.
I go to a conference every other year on Critical Incident Stress Management. Three times, half of the conference speakers (mostly the FBI guys and other sorts of feds) have had to leave because "something happened." "Something" being things like Branch Davidian, Oklahoma City, and Columbine ... all occured during the conference.
We actually experience a lull in April at the nuthouse. When I left work tonight we were at 64% capacity. We usually are closer to 95%, and gone as high as 116%, but usually manage to cap things at around 105%. Yes, we end up with more patients than we have beds.
To look at these figures, it seems like we need to balance US suicide figures against those of others where violence is "less rampant." Do you really think that suicides will cease to happen if guns aren't available, or (more likely) that people will just find another way?
Although they get a lot more attention, I deal with relatively few suicides by firearm. Based on my own experience, I'd put #1 at overdose, #2 cutting, #3 jumping from high places. #4 kind of sorts out to CO poisoning, hanging, and other (I had a suicide attempt by toothpaste ingestion once). It stands to reason that a higher number of completed suicides are by firearm, but I don't think it would #1 for attempts. Stats on completed suicides are pretty easy to find, I've searched around a bit and can't find any for attempt without completion. There are 16 attempted suicides for every completed suicide according to the CDC.
That is an unrealistic comparison because guns are designed weapons and cars are not.
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than ALL of my firearms (and knives and swords).
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than ALL of my firearms (and knives and swords).
That is irrelevant. Whomever ted kennedy is, his car was not designed as a weapon nor is it something that can be banned because a great deal of ameicans depend on cars to work, go to the market etc.
Guns on the other hand are specifically designed to kill. It is not wise to allow a population that glorifies violence to have access to firearms.
Duck duck, I'm sorry but you are very much mistaken, and following that particular mistake leads to genocides, as has been demonstrated seven or eight times in the last century. Armed populations do not suffer genocides because they can kill off the
Einsatzkommandos before they can have sufficient effect -- it took the available might of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS plus the Romanian Iron Guard and Gestapo an entire month to reduce the Warsaw Ghetto. Now imagine the likely outcome of the Final Solution if every Jew in Europe had had a Mauser Kar-98 and two hundred rounds of ready ammunition -- I mean, would anyone disapprove of an empty Auschwitz and a heap of dead Nazis?
It is wise to prevent genocides, and there is only one known way: stay armed. Genocides happen when three factors come together: hatred, government/state power, and gun control laws.
That is an unrealistic comparison because guns are designed weapons and cars are not.
Funnily enough, automobile accidents are by the numbers thirty-five times as lethal as firearms accidents, and even deliberate homicides only increase the numbers to approximate parity -- and a third of the homicides are ruled justifiable: lawful, that is. Killing bad guys. What's more, two-thirds of the unjustifiables are bad guys on bad guys. This is a net social plus no matter what your point of view is.
We may sum up the Virginia Tech massacre in very simple terms: in places where strong gun control is in place (college campuses generally are such), what you have created is hunting preserves for crazies.
And there is a solution to this kind of problem. It's not exactly nice, but then, getting murdered isn't very nice either, is it? I'll tell you what it is later.
The other thing that really strikes me is how much general resemblance there is between Cho Seung-Hui's diatribe and Ted Kascinski's manifesto: there are lengthy listings of grievances that are in the authors' eyes monstrous, enormous wrongs; there's a fury of resentment -- and then there's a complete inability to come up with any solution or resolution of any of it. They will make some approach to figuring out how to resolve it but will stop short of doing so; there is an incompleteness to their thinking. It stops at the sound and fury and at the revenge fantasy.
There was also genocide in america by the government towards an armed native american population and most of them died anyway. If you want to prevent genocide then the civilized nations of the world should be proactive in preventing monsters like hitler, stalin, saddam etc. from coming to power or staying in power.
As for automobile deaths, what does that have to do with guns? It is not a numbers game and it isn't realistic to compare the two. You cannot ban cars and they are not made as weapons. Just because one has a greater number of deaths per year does not mean the lesser is ok.
Also pointing out college campuses have gun control doesn't mean anything since anybody can walk off said campus, go buy a gun and then walk back on the campus and kill at will.
I understand the pro-gun argument and believe most american gun owners are good people but making guns so available in a nation makes it that much easier for the bad guys to get them.
America should not only ban it's guns but make sure anybody who is ever convicted of a violent crime, never see the light of day ever again.
...Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than ALL of my firearms (and knives and swords).
So has Laura Bush's. Your point?
Ha, ha, ha. ;)
Damm tootin. There is not enough money out there to fix the problems with the mental health system in the US.
So, in order for you to put money in your own pocket, you're willing to sacrifice more people to this kind of mental-illness-spawned killing spree? It WILL happen again, and at a new record level.
Whomever ted kennedy is,
Let me get this right: you want to speak authoritatively on the US based on your short time here, but you don't know who Ted Kennedy is?
I think you can STFU now.
Look at this and wounder WHY kids Kill !!!
I'm going to hell for laughing so loudly at that. :lol2:
The US is NOT the most violent nation in the world for gun violence. There's a chart here:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html that lists firearm deaths per 100,000. The US comes in at 3.72/100,000 and interestingly enough Northern Ireland comes in at 5.24, Brazil at 10.58, Estonia at 8.07, Mexico at 9.88, and Italy, even at 1.88! Italy comes in at more than half what the US does, but I don't ever hear of anyone cancelling honeymoons to Italy or Ireland or trips to Carnivale because they are afraid of being shot.
It's your choice to live in fear. Duck duck, I've read enough of your drivel here that I sincerely hope that you never come back to my country. We have our problems, but your country has its own. With your head that firmly stuck in the sand, my only wish is that the internet didn't have subterranean reach.
Let me get this right: you want to speak authoritatively on the US based on your short time here, but you don't know who Ted Kennedy is?
I think you can STFU now.
I don't think her failure to know the name of the washed up drunk who represents the fine citizens of Massachussets has any real bearing on her point. Not that I agree with her point but your point really isn't material to the debate not to mention kind of asinine.
Guns on the other hand are specifically designed to kill. It is not wise to allow a population that glorifies violence to have access to firearms.
That is 100% wrong. Why would the market sell guns to kill? Who preacehs killing? What society holds killing close to their heart? Every culture kills, but no culture THRIVES off killing (except maybe the Yanomami?).
Handguns are NOT DESIGNED to kill. They and every other firearm have other uses, like say, protection. You can shoot someone in the knee and you do NOT have the motive to kill them.
No one can win this arguement. Duck duck is from a
gun banning culture. Her beliefs are 10000x different than the average Americans'. As much stuff as we can tell her she will never believe guns are used for good. Let's stop arguing a futile cause, because we all know guns have very positive effects and that America is NOT a "rampant" society. Someone just stated the stats above.
You can shoot someone in the knee and you do NOT have the motive to kill them.
That, unfortunately, will get to 10 to 20 most of the time. Wouding someone with a lethal weapon puts you in a very difficult and awkward legal situation. The prosecutor will simply use the boilerplate cross examination to make the point that if you really were in fear of your life then you could not possibly deliver a restrained response (making the point that you really weren't in fear of you life) and will prosecute you on that basis.
If you have a gun and someone is trying to kill you then dont' stop shooting until they are dead. Vital areas only.
Handguns are NOT DESIGNED to kill. They and every other firearm have other uses, like say, protection. You can shoot someone in the knee and you do NOT have the motive to kill them.
.
:bs:
Nice stretch, fresh. I almost had coffee shoot out my nose. Thanks for the laugh.
:bs:
Nice stretch, fresh. I almost had coffee shoot out my nose. Thanks for the laugh.
What the hell is so funny? I'm sure the gun owners here did not buy them because they aim to kill anyone. They probably bought it for PROTECTION.
Dammit, quit making coffee come out my nose. You are SO funny!:lol2:
Whatever. I'm gonna stick with my original post like 4 posts earlier.
I know! let's ban guns and go to the cutting tools, that way we can prevent violent death by lethal means! Our government will protect us. They know best.
Ok, ok, I know that they killed 800,000 people in 100 days in Rawanda in 1994... but that was a loooonnnggg time ago. Ignore that. At least they didn't have evil guns because who knows how many they could have killed in that 100 days.
You seriously don't know what's so funny?
Handguns are NOT DESIGNED to kill.
Funny as irony or funny as utter ignorance, works either way.
How did those people die? Were they all "self-defensed" to death? They were "protected" to death? Maybe the handguns were designed to ... intimidate, to frighten potential threats. Were the victims "scared" to death?
Tell you what, I'll give you a pass on this one, we're all upset, you and me both, and I'll just let slide your clearly false statement. A slip of the fingers in the heat of an argument. You come back to this post in a week and revisit your position on the designed intent of handguns, and we'll talk.
Oh god, more stats. I don't know what's worse, all the stats being thrown about or the ignorance.
Guns kill like the penis is the cause of HIV/AIDS. It is what is behind the tool, not the tool itself. Given the right tool, people are going to do what they want to do regardless of the original intent of the purpose of the tool.
I don't know what's worse, all the stats being thrown about or the ignorance.
I guess in your experience your ignorance trumps someone elses ignorance, right?
NOW we get to the root of it all: gun as penis...penis as power.
This has become the most satirical thread ever. It's so going into my book.
NOW we get to the root of it all: gun as penis...penis as power.
This has become the most satirical thread ever. It's so going into my book.
Yea, most women fear it.
I guess in your experience your ignorance trumps someone elses ignorance, right?
Everything about me trumps everything about everyone else. Didn't you know that? Start listening.
Handguns are NOT DESIGNED to kill. They and every other firearm have other uses, like say, protection. You can shoot someone in the knee and you do NOT have the motive to kill them.
Grenades aren't designed to kill, either. Carefully used, you could use the pressure wave to stun or remove several toes to incapacitate your attacker.
Everything about me trumps everything about everyone else. Didn't you know that? Start listening.
Were you talking?
Yea, most women fear it.
The one time I feared one I just lopped it off with my kitchen knife. No gun needed. Other than that they're pretty blah. Very few men are good with it. God bless the ones who are. God help the ones who just think they are (stop looking around the room, you know who you are.)
Were you talking?
Yep, if you'd quit staring at my tits and jacking off, you might hear something from time to time. :3eye:
NOW we get to the root of it all: gun as penis...penis as power.
Hey! Tangent--- go check out the penis power video I posted in Nothingland! Intriguing stuff.
The one time I feared one I just lopped it off with my kitchen knife. No gun needed. Other than that they're pretty blah. Very few men are good with it. God bless the ones who are. God help the ones who just think they are (stop looking around the room, you know who you are.)
Ha!!! good one.:D
Did you remember to pull it out after you cut it off?!?! I think it may still be up your twat.:eek: It's starting to smell.
Yep, if you'd quit staring at my tits and jacking off, you might hear something from time to time. :3eye:
Those aren't tits! those are bug bites.:p
Well that explains a lot. Wonder why my doc didn't find it?
Well that explains a lot. Wonder why my doc didn't find it?
:D
Ok, Ms. Babbit.
What's that I hear? Did someone in here ask for
more statistics?
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.
...
By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.
What the hell is so funny? I'm sure the gun owners here did not buy them because they aim to kill anyone. They probably bought it for PROTECTION.
How are they going to "protect themselves"? Seriously, follow it out to it's logical conclusion - ultimately, you have to kill someone to "protect yourself". Anything short of that leaves you unprotected. Got it?
And if you're not "protecting" yourself or a loved one, is it worth killing for?
Watched and read his bullshit.
Religion.
If it were not for handguns I would be dead and/or injured many times over. The argument against them is lost on those like me, who have used them for what they were intended, as a tool.
So has Laura Bush's. Your point?
Her
point, O Spexx The Irrational, Tedious And Purblind, who refuseth ever to see, in saecula saeculorum -- I could go on but I dislike boring myself -- is that if murder is in your heart, you'd do it with a big wet rock, and if murder is not in your heart, you wouldn't do it with a case of weeping, overage dynamite.
ultimately, you have to kill someone to "protect yourself"
No you don't. You can shoot someone in the arm or the leg. That generally disables a potential attacker, and if nothing else, makes them think twice about coming after you. Your enemy cannot fire his gun if you disable his firing hand/arm.
Oh god, more stats. I don't know what's worse, all the stats being thrown about or the ignorance.
Stats are a fine bullet with which to kill ignorance -- begging any question of ulterior motives.
Anyone who's seen genocide wants it to stop happening. There's one known way, and it's never been refuted.
Yep, if you'd quit staring at my tits and jacking off, you might hear something from time to time. :3eye:
Actually, if we
kept staring at your tits and stopped the jacking off, we could better help you feel good from time to time. :right:
So, speaking of tits: sensitive nipples, or not very? The wife can about put me on the ceiling going for mine. :blush:... more yummy yummy than fruit salad, I'm tellin' ya.
[Since having heard The Wiggles sing "Fruit Salad" in four-part male close harmony, I've been imagining an entire battalion of big tough Australian infantrymen singing this on being presented with fruit salad in the mess tent and reducing the crusty old mess sergeant to agonies of embarrassment.]
Anyone with a decent education knows you can make stats say anything you want.
4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend this toothpaste. They don't tell you the dentists polled have no teeth, or are dead, or if it's just that they recommend ANY toothpaste, and the toothpaste being touted is, of course, A toothpaste.
I'm just not bowled by spouting stats. It's like a goddam Spout Circus.
I think this thread is too closely resembling the other thread specifically debating guns. This should be about Cho and the incident, I think. Yes, I did my share of making it go off topic, but we should post VT developments here.
How are they going to "protect themselves"? Seriously, follow it out to it's logical conclusion - ultimately, you have to kill someone to "protect yourself". Anything short of that leaves you unprotected. Got it?
What I've got is your number, Spexx: ninety-seven percent of all defensive gun uses end satisfactorily without a shot fired. Of the remaining three percent, less than half have a lethal outcome.
You never did know shit about self defense, Spexx, so your opinion shouldn't even count with yourself. The conclusion you've drawn is resolutely at variance with the reality.
Actually, if we kept staring at your tits and stopped the jacking off, we could better help you feel good from time to time. :right:
Puh, I doubt it. 90% of your purported skillz were actually considered ineffective in providing good by 5 out of 19 women surveyed in Upper Bulgaria in 2004. ;)
And if you're not "protecting" yourself or a loved one, is it worth killing for?
What it always comes down to, Spexx, in all these threads, is that you wouldn't kill someone who is just trying to steal your stuff. You value the criminal's life slightly less than yours or your family's, but always more than everything else.*
You need to accept that lots of people don't have that particular hangup.
[size=1]*I can't recall if you've weighed in on whether your wife getting raped would count as life-threatening or something not worth killing over.[/size]
No you don't. You can shoot someone in the arm or the leg. That generally disables a potential attacker, and if nothing else, makes them think twice about coming after you. Your enemy cannot fire his gun if you disable his firing hand/arm.
But don't try it this way unless you want to do all the dying. Center of mass ONLY, front sight -- press trigger. Those are the fundamentals. Hitting someone in a limb is strictly a matter of chance, and verily I say unto you you don't want to gamble with your life doing that. Limb hits do not necessarily disable; what you must do is disrupt something immediately important, like the central nervous system. You cut his spine or blow out his brains, he's done, and
that problem's over. But there are a couple of useful secondary target areas: the heart is in the center of mass and it's lethal about all the time (there have been a couple-three miracles, but they took place on the operating table and not the field of battle) though it may take some seconds for the perp to collapse rather than the instant switch-off of a brain hit; and also there is the pelvis. Bust that with a bullet and the perp's on the ground without hope of movement and in immediate danger of dying of shock. If you've double-tapped him there and hit him in the balls too, he's in even worse danger. To hit him in the pelvis you aim at his nuts. Aiming low generally works in close firearms combat anyway, particularly with pistols: most people get excited and take too much front sight, which points the pistol considerably higher than what the shooter thinks is his aim point. A nut-shot can end up being a central nervous system hit right between the eyebrows.
By now some readers will have gone all squeamish. While that is proof you have the full measure of human feeling, try this for a human feeling: "He's dead, I'm alive, and that's the way I wanted it."
The mischief is compounded by the unfortunate fact that I don't know any women from Upper Bulgaria. :neutral:
[Quel fromage.] {to rhyme with dommage}
Her point, O Spexx The Irrational, Tedious And Purblind, who refuseth ever to see, in saecula saeculorum...
When your side of the argument is weak, resort to name-calling and insults.
-- I could go on but I dislike boring myself -- ....
And yet you continue to bore everyone else.
No you don't. You can shoot someone in the arm or the leg. That generally disables a potential attacker, and if nothing else, makes them think twice about coming after you. Your enemy cannot fire his gun if you disable his firing hand/arm.
Sure he can. A truly committed criminal will keep trying to kill you until you kill him. Ultimately, this will happen.
What it always comes down to, Spexx, in all these threads, is that you wouldn't kill someone who is just trying to steal your stuff. You value the criminal's life slightly less than yours or your family's, but always more than everything else.*
You need to accept that lots of people don't have that particular hangup.
[size=1]*I can't recall if you've weighed in on whether your wife getting raped would count as life-threatening or something not worth killing over.[/size]
So what posession is worth killing for? A TV? A pack of gum? Certainly there's a continuum - where do you killers draw the line?
Watched and read his bullshit.
Religion.
If it were not for handguns I would be dead and/or injured many times over.
Really? Tell us all the stories when you failed to avoid conflict or failed to resolve conflict in a peaceful manner.
The argument against them is lost on those like me...
There's a term for this: Closed Minded.
I'm just not bowled by spouting stats. It's like a goddam Spout Circus.
Seriously, follow it out to it's logical conclusion - ultimately, you have to kill someone to "protect yourself". Anything short of that leaves you unprotected. Got it?
And if you're not "protecting" yourself or a loved one, is it worth killing for?
1. False.
2. Yes. Because your first premise is incorrect.
Sure he can. A truly committed criminal will keep trying to kill you until you kill him. Ultimately, this will happen.
Then he shall die.
Then he shall die.
Oh, no... the hand-holders want to disarm you... and did disarm the students, so over thirty of them died.
The purple part resembles the mouth, therefore this researcher failed to list the weaknesses of his statistical mode, therefore the study is invalid and no evidence exists that blips may or may not be eaten by this round yellow-purple thingy.:o
The purple part resembles the mouth, therefore this researcher failed to list the weaknesses of his statistical mode, therefore the study is invalid and no evidence exists that blips may or may not be eaten by this round yellow-purple thingy.:o
You don't play much Pac-Man, do you?
Really? Tell us all the stories when you failed to avoid conflict or failed to resolve conflict in a peaceful manner.
There's a term for this: Closed Minded.
Actually, no, I will not answer you questions for two reasons. You don't answer mine and it is sad, bordering on sick, for you to want to hear those kinds of stories.
It is not closed minded, it is experience. Where is yours?
You don't play much Pac-Man, do you?
Probably not, since it's a long way from 1983.
Any chance I get to use this quote from Baseketball, I will:
Denslow: Now wait a minute, hear me out! Now you kids with your loud music and your Dan Fogelberg, your Zima, hula hoops and Pac-Man video games, don't you see? People today have attention spans that can only be measured in nanoseconds. You don't play much Pac-Man, do you?
Use to. When it first came out, when I was a teen and college student. Wasn't that before you were born?
Probably not, since it's a long way from 1983.
Any chance I get to use this quote from Baseketball, I will:
Denslow: Now wait a minute, hear me out! Now you kids with your loud music and your Dan Fogelberg, your Zima, hula hoops and Pac-Man video games, don't you see? People today have attention spans that can only be measured in nanoseconds.
Since I was getting ready to graduate from college back then and Dan Fogelberg was in fact before 1983, I suspect you were what? 4 years old?
Who, me? I remember my friend's Junior High aged brother telling us (high school girls) about this amazing game you could play at the grocery store. Back then, it was fascinating!
I forgot you were in my age range. :o
I'm an old bat...42 (though am told I look early 30's, clean living and all) :) Graduated HS in '83 and college in '87!
Who, me? I remember my friend's Junior High aged brother telling us (high school girls) about this amazing game you could play at the grocery store. Back then, it was fascinating!
I'm an old bat...42 (though am told I look early 30's, clean living and all) :) Graduated HS in '83 and college in '87!
That was the only place we could play it back then, I use to play it at the 7/11. That and Donkey Kong, and a bunch of other Atari games, I can't even remember them all. We use to play those at the Pizza place just off campus. Back then we could drink beer at the age of 18 (3.2), you just had to drink twice as much.
1. False.
2. Yes. Because your first premise is incorrect.
Then he shall die.
I think those two posts are in direct conflict. Nice try, though.
Oh, no... the hand-holders want to disarm you... and did disarm the students, so over thirty of them died.
And all the gun holders want to kill you, arm all the students so at least half of them may die. :right:
The US is NOT the most violent nation in the world for gun violence. There's a chart here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html that lists firearm deaths per 100,000. The US comes in at 3.72/100,000 and interestingly enough Northern Ireland comes in at 5.24, Brazil at 10.58, Estonia at 8.07, Mexico at 9.88, and Italy, even at 1.88! Italy comes in at more than half what the US does, but I don't ever hear of anyone cancelling honeymoons to Italy or Ireland or trips to Carnivale because they are afraid of being shot.
It's your choice to live in fear. Duck duck, I've read enough of your drivel here that I sincerely hope that you never come back to my country. We have our problems, but your country has its own. With your head that firmly stuck in the sand, my only wish is that the internet didn't have subterranean reach.
I never said america was the most violent nation in the world for gun violence. Maybe you should actually pay attention to what people are saying before spouting off your rubbish. Perhaps a good reading comprehension course would do you good as soon as you leave that fantasy world you live in.
Actually, no, I will not answer you questions for two reasons. You don't answer mine and it is sad, bordering on sick, for you to want to hear those kinds of stories.
...
I don't think you have any stories. I think you exhibit this false internet bravado to bolster your self-esteem, which, in itself, is sick.
I think those two posts are in direct conflict. Nice try, though.
Wrong, nice try though.
Originally Posted by Spexxvet
1. Seriously, follow it out to it's logical conclusion - ultimately, you have to kill someone to "protect yourself". Anything short of that leaves you unprotected. Got it?
You are not unprotected if you wound someone trying to kill you. So you are incorrect.
And if you're not "protecting" yourself or a loved one, is it worth killing for?
Many people kill in the line of duty, police and military come to mind most quickly and I am sure that there are others, who may in the course of their duties in those capacities who may need to kill when they are neither "protecting themselves or loved ones", for example they may be protecting others.
I don't think you have any stories. I think you exhibit this false internet bravado to bolster your self-esteem, which, in itself, is sick.
Back to throwing insults,
again, and you call
me sick?
I could make-up as many stories as I have time for and you would take that as proof?
I worked on a ranch and defended myself against poachers and animals and was an armed bouncer and security for three years. What you believe means nothing to the world.
Back to throwing insults, again, and you call me sick?....
Just giving as I get.
So what posession is worth killing for? A TV? A pack of gum? Certainly there's a continuum - where do you killers draw the line?
:handball: :morncoff: :corn:
Sorry man, I have crap to do sometimes.
It comes down not to what they're taking, but the manner in which they're taking it.
--If you break into my house, I don't care if it's just to admire the decor, you are worthy of being shot.
--If you walk by me on the street and jerk my piece of gum out of my hands and keep walking, no, that is not worth shooting over.
--If you pull out a knife and demand that I give you my gum, then yes, you are worthy of being shot.
Each scenario is different, and I consider the average person capable of differentiating.
I dunno about that Clod...sometimes, the judgment of Americans scares the shit out of me. :D
Sorry man, I have crap to do sometimes....
Hold on a darn minute, thar! Are you insinuating that there is something in this world more important than posting on the Cellar? I think Syc's right:
I dunno about that Clod...sometimes, the judgment of Americans scares the shit out of me. :D
The Cellar comes first, damnit!
Sorry man, I have crap to do sometimes.
It comes down not to what they're taking, but the manner in which they're taking it.
--If you break into my house, I don't care if it's just to admire the decor, you are worthy of being shot.
--If you walk by me on the street and jerk my piece of gum out of my hands and keep walking, no, that is not worth shooting over.
--If you pull out a knife and demand that I give you my gum, then yes, you are worthy of being shot.
Each scenario is different, and I consider the average person capable of differentiating.
I don't know... If your house is fully engulfed in fire, you don't go back in, or send a family member in to get your stuff. You're thankful that you and yours got out without injury - that what you lost was onlt "stuff". If someone with a knife wants your gum, and you try to stop him, you and/or your loved ones could end up harmed - is it worth it? Even if you draw you gun and kill him, think of the shit you'll have to go through. You many even regret it, creating emotional problems for yourself. And what if the assailant falls dead, and his knife accidently slices little clod on the way down? Or if your child has post traumatic stress disorder from seeing his mom waste another human being? How could these results be more favorable than giving the fucker the gum, and moving on with your life?
...How could these results be more favorable than giving the fucker the gum, and moving on with your life?
How do you know that's what will happen? Crystal ball? Crazy people with weapons don't always do what you think is logical. So, then what? More barbed wire and flood lights? :rolleyes:
Yeah -- if someone threatens you with deadly force for GUM, they might be a tad unpredictable!
How could these results be more favorable than giving the fucker the gum, and moving on with your life?
That all assumes that all he really wants is my gum. If I could be guaranteed that all I would lose is my stuff, like I would in a fire, then no, I probably wouldn't escalate the situation by bringing out my weapon. But you have no idea what's going to happen when someone's already at the point of threatening another person with a weapon. I would have to assess the situation as it arose--but if I had no weapon, then that whole set of options would be unavailable to me if it turned out he really wanted more than the gum.
I know you don't want to legislate the guns away, you just want to convince people of their foolishness, but I don't think you really understand that the very fact that I
might have a gun is a huge deterrant for him, whether or not I do have one. Truth is, we don't actually own a gun, because I don't have the extra cash or the time/interest in proper upkeep of the machinery. We had them in my family growing up, and I would certainly consider it in the future if our lifestyle or neighborhood changed. But if I ever hear anyone breaking into our house, you can be sure that the first thing I will do is yell, "Honey, get the gun!"
Oh, no... the hand-holders want to disarm you... and did disarm the students, so over thirty of them died.
I am not against total disarmament in society but there should be at campuses. If students and faculty were allowed to carry guns it wouldn't have done anything except for the one in a million chance that someone with a weapon would be close, calm, and skilled enough to do anything. Campuses have many other resources to prevent crime, rape, etc, that normal society doesn't so there is no reason to have a gun for protection. I wouldn't be too against police having guns but I don't see how it would help much since most crime doesn't occur with an officer nearby.
...But if I ever hear anyone breaking into our house, you can be sure that the first thing I will do is yell, "Honey, get the gun!"
I guess you would scare away an unarmed intruder, but if I broke into a house, and had a gun, and heard that, I would shoot the first thing that moved, figuring I would get shot if I hesitated.
That fact anybody in america feels they need a gun to protect themselves says a lot about the state of crime in that nation.
How do you know that's what will happen? Crystal ball? Crazy people with weapons don't always do what you think is logical. So, then what? More barbed wire and flood lights? :rolleyes:
You're right, anything
could happen, especially from someone accosting you with a gun. He's already broken many social norms to do that. If someone points a gun at me and says "give me your gum", I figure if he wanted to kill me, I'd be dead already. If she wanted to rape me, I figure she'd say "take your clothes of and make that weenie hard, hot stuff" or something.
Would you really rather kill someone than put up barbed wire and flood lights?
That fact anybody in america feels they need a gun to protect themselves says a lot about the state of crime in that nation.
YEAH YEAH we heard your rant, we know you are from a gun banning culture, blah blah blah I already argued with you about it. Give the same statements a rest!!! America is a criminal nation wow what else is new from you yack yack yack.
YEAH YEAH we heard your rant, we know you are from a gun banning culture, blah blah blah I already argued with you about it. Give the same statements a rest!!! America is a criminal nation wow what else is new from you yack yack yack.
Don't be such a crybaby about it. It isn't my fault your crime is so high.
Don't be such a crybaby about it. It isn't my fault your crime is so high.
Blah blah blah yack yack yack we heard this 10 pages ago! I seriously don't want to sound like a redneck, but if you don't like the US why did you emigrate here!
And obviously you didn't read what everyone else posted that supported why America is not a rampant criminal society. You didn't read those posts huh didja? Just save it, this thread has moved on ducky.
Blah blah blah yack yack yack we heard this 10 pages ago! I seriously don't want to sound like a redneck, but if you don't like the US why did you emigrate here!
And obviously you didn't read what everyone else posted that supported why America is not a rampant criminal society. You didn't read those posts huh didja? Just save it, this thread has moved on ducky.
Wow like I had a choice moving here. I guess you figure I somehow made my dad uproot us and move us to this place. Oh and I have read those posts but have yet to see anything that shows crime isn't high in the US.
Wow like I had a choice moving here. I guess you figure I somehow made my dad uproot us and move us to this place. Oh and I have read those posts but have yet to see anything that shows crime isn't high in the US.
You are gonna be like my mom when you grow up ducky. A prideful, stubborn, sometimes annoying Asian hag. :headshake
JK! :D But seriously..
(all the Dwellars are gonna be like "oh shit they are flirting again")
You are gonna be like my mom when you grow up ducky. A prideful, stubborn, sometimes annoying Asian hag. :headshake
JK! :D But seriously..
I'll admit I am stubborn...
I'll admit I am stubborn...
REALLY!? :dead3:
(all the Dwellars are gonna be like "oh shit they are flirting again")
What do you mean again? :eyebrow:
for one the use of statistics can be used to prove anything.. so they aren't really valid. I can pull up stats to prove anything.. anything. really. I own a gun.. a 410. quick w/ rocksalt/gravel ( holding to the old 'blunderbuss' ideal' rounds. quick and very very painfull) if that doesn't make you think twice.. the 45. call. will. I would regret taking a human life, however if you are trying to rob me.. you are not a ' human being' in the traditional ( amer-indian) sense. so your life is forfeit. play nice.
hey duck_duck? where do you live? perhaps it's just a national ' bad neighborhood' ie. detroit. / freshchronic? where? huh? souds liek more of a case of bad luck rather than a national average..
I live in Champaign IL, but I'm from Chicago suburbs. RePRzNtN Chi-Town wooooooo! Yeah we have guns, WHAT? Hahaha, jk. But seriously....we do. But I love the city, no one's gonna make me think differently.
hey duck_duck? where do you live? perhaps it's just a national ' bad neighborhood' ie. detroit. / freshchronic? where? huh? souds liek more of a case of bad luck rather than a national average..
I'm originally from hong kong but have been living in houston for a while now.
That fact anybody in america feels they need a gun to protect themselves says a lot about the state of crime in that nation.
Maybe...maybe not. I think it varies on people's individual circumstances. I've lived in high-crime cities most of my life, and have never felt the need to own a gun. Though I'm not opposed to responsible people owning guns (some of my friends and relatives have them, mostly for hunting and law enforcement, a few for 'protection') for me, using good sense has worked well enough.
I heard a humorous send up of the 'gun crisis' in the US at the moment on a local radio station the other day. They were generally discussing it on a talk back station when one of the hosts popped up and said, "The answer to the gun crisis in America is more guns".
I thought this was interesting. Not only because it was funny to hear at the time, but also because that seems to be the general concensus. Ironic really.
The general consensus (that's how we spell it in the States)? That's news to me.
The general consensus (that's how we spell it in the States)? That's news to me.
Not only is it news, it is a stupid notion.
Well, gun proponents would have us believe we'd all be safer if we all had guns right? How many times in this thread alone have we seen the argument that if someone else had had a gun the VT shooting might not have occured or at least may have been minimized?
We don't need spelling nazi's here too do we? I think you got the idea didn't you?
Maybe...maybe not. I think it varies on people's individual circumstances. I've lived in high-crime cities most of my life, and have never felt the need to own a gun. Though I'm not opposed to responsible people owning guns (some of my friends and relatives have them, mostly for hunting and law enforcement, a few for 'protection') for me, using good sense has worked well enough.
Good sense will go a long way to keeping you protected. It will not protect you forever. The gun is for those times when the best of your intentions cannot prevent you from being some punk-assed-criminal-rapper-wanta-be tries to put a cap in your ass.
I'm originally from hong kong but have been living in houston for a while now.
Hong Kong is one of the safest cities I have ever been to, I was there for a month. I imagine, from the things I read, that Singapore is similar.
Good sense will go a long way to keeping you protected. It will not protect you forever. The gun is for those times when the best of your intentions cannot prevent you from being some punk-assed-criminal-rapper-wanta-be tries to put a cap in your ass.
OH. That must be the good advice they dispense at
CNS News.OH. That must be the good advice they dispense at CNS News.
What is CNS news? Never heard of it.
If someone points a gun at me and says "give me your gum", I figure if he wanted to kill me, I'd be dead already.
Yeah, because since that's what they always say on tv, it must be how it works.
Would you really rather kill someone than put up barbed wire and flood lights?
Once again you've phrased something so poorly as to make it intellectually dishonest... but yes, yes I would. Are you seriously suggesting I should live like a prisoner so that criminals are a little safer?
Once again you've phrased something so poorly as to make it intellectually dishonest... but yes, yes I would.
How so? You made the connection, I'm just asking....
Are you seriously suggesting I should live like a prisoner so that criminals are a little safer?
No, so
you'd be safer. Do you lock your car, or just carry a gun?
That doesn't sound like the Chuck Norris I know, Spexxvet.
If there is an "altercation" between two people, and neither has a gun, the likelihood of someone dying is low. Add one gun, and the likelihood increases. Add two guns, and the likelihood skyrockets. If your goal, in life, is to keep all your stuff, or die trying, then I recommend that you pack heat. If your goal is to spend a long life with your family, don't have a gun. You and your family can do without a TV. You can overcome the emotional trauma of a sex crime. But you won't be there if you are dead, or in jail for having misjudged a situation. Sure, an assailant can come along, demand your gum, then rape you and kill you. You can also have a car accident and get killed. Or a safe could fall on your head. You take prudent precautions to improve your safety, but shit happens. IMHO, you are less likely to die if you have a gun.
That doesn't sound like the Chuck Norris I know, Spexxvet.
Add two guns, and the likelihood skyrockets.
This is the part where you are wrong.
This is the part where you are wrong.
two people are packing guns, one is a criminal. Explain how the likelihood of death doesn't increase.
I am curious to see your point too Clod.
If only one person has a gun, the person with the gun obviously has the power and as long as both parties cooperate and want to get out without anyone dead, nothing with happen.
If both people have guns, a power struggle will ensue. Most criminals are only stealing out of need and do not want to get hurt, so once they see a gun they may panic and attack if they have a weapon. That goes the other way too, if someone is being attacked they may jump the gun to early and one if not both could be killed.
If only one person has a gun, the person with the gun obviously has the power and as long as both parties cooperate and want to get out without anyone dead, nothing with happen.
If both people have guns, a power struggle will ensue. Most criminals are only stealing out of need and do not want to get hurt, so once they see a gun they may panic and attack if they have a weapon. That goes the other way too, if someone is being attacked they may jump the gun to early and one if not both could be killed.
Where did you get your expertise in the psychology of gunpoint scenarios?
two people are packing guns, one is a criminal. Explain how the likelihood of death doesn't increase.
The criminal is a coward, and wasn't planning on (and isn't interested in) a fair fight.
Most criminals are only stealing out of need
bullshit
and do not want to get hurt, so once they see a gun they may panic and attack if they have a weapon.
You misspelled "run." At least you got the "may" part right, since you don't have a goddamn idea what they may or may not do.
Where did you get your expertise in the psychology of gunpoint scenarios?
Its common sense. If you put two people with guns in the same room and one threatens the other in a stressful situation, things will usually go downhill fast.
bullshit
Yeah, all the guys in the projects steal from people for the fun of it. Then why do they steal if it isn't for need?
You misspelled "run." At least you got the "may" part right, since you don't have a goddamn idea what they may or may not do.
What was the point of that? Do you expect me to list all the options that are irrelevant to the point?
Its common sense. If you put two people with guns in the same room and one threatens the other in a stressful situation, things will usually go downhill fast.
No, it is not common sense. It is your biased opinion. :D I win!
wow... champaign huh? I spent a few years there growing up... southside elementary school, last time I was thru it was closed down.. hesslle (sp?) park? we lived a few blocks from there.. there was a twisty brick lined street.. huh... memories..
my granmonster (meant with love mind you) lives right behind the poolhall where they shot the color of money... in little poland town :)) if you ever do the sausage thing... (food... mind you) head out of the laramie station L station, head down the road and hit the Krakow deli... best damn sausage in the world (or as much of the world as I know, which is a little bit).. made by people who speak nglish as a second language... but I have never heard words that i didn't understand sound more beautiful coming from that blackhaired ice blueeyed woman behind the counter....
If only
this lady had been there...
"She had to balance on her walker as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun..."
The criminal is a coward, and wasn't planning on (and isn't interested in) a fair fight.
...
Unfair and cowardly would be to kill your opponent before they have a chance to shoot - as soon as you see the gun. Like I said, as soon as a second gun is introduced, likelihood of death shyrockets. You may be thinking like a rational, law-abiding citizen. As Jinx said, anything can happen.
If only this lady had been there...
"She had to balance on her walker as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun..."
Like I said, if keeping your stuff or die trying is your life goal, and you're willing to kill someone to keep your stuff, pack heat.
Like I said, if keeping your stuff or die trying is your life goal, and you're willing to kill someone to keep your stuff, pack heat.
I really didn't think this was the idea, since the law in nearly every state requires you to flee if you can in almost all situations outside of one's home. Some states won't let you fire a shot on a home intruder unless they show violent intent with a weapon.
Unfair and cowardly would be to kill your opponent before they have a chance to shoot - as soon as you see the gun.
You're really going to have to explain this to me, because I don't understand that statement.
What was the point of that? Do you expect me to list all the options that are irrelevant to the point?
Your whole point here was, "If you have a gun, they will shoot you."
My response was, "Unless they don't, which is at least equally likely."
Your response was, "Yeah, that's a possibility, so what?"
Your point is invalid.
Unfair and cowardly would be to kill your opponent before they have a chance to shoot - as soon as you see the gun.
I would disagree. That would be the smartest move. If a criminal pulls a gun on you and you shoot and kill that person, you will not find a jury that will convict that person for defending themselves. Well unless they are OJ's jury.
:dedhorse:
From
here, only updated for today.
Of course the [Virginia Tech Shootings] are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. However, we must also consider if this is not also a lesson to us all; a lesson that my political views are correct. Although what is done can never be undone, the fact remains that if the world were organised according to my political views, this tragedy would never have happened.
Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced.
Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events.
Countries which I like seem to never suffer such tragedies, while countries which, for one reason or another, I dislike, suffer them all the time. The one common factor which seems to explain this has to do with my political views, and it suggests that my political views should be implemented as a matter of urgency, even though they are, as a matter of fact, not implemented in the countries which I like.
Of course the [Virginia Tech Shootings] are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. But we must also not lose sight of the fact that I am right on every significant moral and political issue, and everybody ought to agree with me. Please, I ask you as fellow human beings, vote for the political party which I support, and ask your legislators to support policies endorsed by me, as a matter of urgency.
It would be a fitting memorial.
two people are packing guns, one is a criminal. Explain how the likelihood of death doesn't increase.
The criminal is a coward, and wasn't planning on (and isn't interested in) a fair fight.
Unfair and cowardly would be to kill your opponent before they have a chance to shoot - as soon as you see the gun.
You're really going to have to explain this to me, because I don't understand that statement.
Cowardice is avoiding situations that put you in danger. There's not a whole lot of situations more dangerous than having a gun pointing at you. If you are an armed criminal, the easiest and surest way of avoiding the danger of a gun being pointed at you would be to kill your victim before they have a chance to aim their gun at you. As soon as you see a gun, bang! An armed criminal facing an armed victim would not run away - that would give the victim the opportunity to shoot the criminal as he fled.
A fair fight would be one in which both parties have the same tools. A criminal would not want a fair fight. An easy way to keep the fight unfair would be to eliminate the victim's ability to use a gun - in other words pre-emptively shoot the victim. Again: see a gun and bang!
I would disagree. That would be the smartest move. If a criminal pulls a gun on you and you shoot and kill that person, ...
Are you saying that you will have your gun out and ready to shoot before the criminal does? If you don't, it would be unlikely that you could draw your gun and shoot the criminal first, since he has his gun already pointing at you.
A criminal walks up to you, points his gun at you and says "give me all your gum". How are you going to kill him, even if you're packing heat?
A criminal walks up to you, points his gun at you and says "give me all your gum". How are you going to kill him, even if you're packing heat?
Why, you'd have to be Quick Draw McGraw!
Are you saying that you will have your gun out and ready to shoot before the criminal does? If you don't, it would be unlikely that you could draw your gun and shoot the criminal first, since he has his gun already pointing at you.
A criminal walks up to you, points his gun at you and says "give me all your gum". How are you going to kill him, even if you're packing heat?
No one can state how or where and under what circumstances anyone is going to encounter any situation. Who knows? I will tell you if I have a chance to pull it out and shoot the person dead, without asking questions, I will do it. Of course you are talking to someone who has had formal combat CQ handgun training from H&K. So my position is much different from others. There are many ways to foil events like this. Dramatic gestures work very well in diffusing situations like this. One of the least used and most effective is for a person to put his/her hands up and scream at the top of your lungs over and over "Don't shoot..... (bla, bla, bla)". Fall to the ground and obtain your weapon and fire. There are others, but you need to be ready and train for such events. Nine times out of ten you have been targeted because you presented yourself as a target. Situational awareness is number one. Learning to avoid becoming a victim is more important than learning to shoot a gun, or owning one. There are plenty of law abiding citizens male and female, who should probably not allow themselves to get anywhere near a gun, for their own safety.:earth:
I said if they have a gun and see that you have a gun, they may shoot you.
It wasn't a definite statement meaning there are other possibilities.
My statement is valid as long as you don’t change what I say.
Here is some candy for you pro-gun people.
[youtube]NZrdbSJVSVM[/youtube]
No one can state how or where and under what circumstances anyone is going to encounter any situation. Who knows? I will tell you if I have a chance to pull it out and shoot the person dead, without asking questions, I will do it.
Or die trying.
Of course you are talking to someone who has had formal combat CQ handgun training from H&K.
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! You're the ginchiest! My hero! I'm soooooooo impressed!
So my position is much different from others.
The lotus? Doggie style?
There are many ways to foil events like this. Dramatic gestures work very well in diffusing situations like this. One of the least used and most effective is for a person to put his/her hands up and scream at the top of your lungs over and over "Don't shoot..... (bla, bla, bla)". Fall to the ground and obtain your weapon and fire.
If I were a criminal, with my gun out, and you made a "dramatic gesture", you'd be dead.
There are others, but you need to be ready and train for such events.
Unfortunately, most Americans aren't.
.... Situational awareness is number one. Learning to avoid becoming a victim is more important than learning to shoot a gun, or owning one. ...
That's what I'm talking about. There are many things one can do to avoid killing or being killed with a gun.
Or die trying.
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! You're the ginchiest! My hero! I'm soooooooo impressed!
The lotus? Doggie style?
If I were a criminal, with my gun out, and you made a "dramatic gesture", you'd be dead.
Unfortunately, most Americans aren't.
That's what I'm talking about. There are many things one can do to avoid killing or being killed with a gun.
And you want a serious reply to those comments??? My bad I thought you wanted a serious answer...
Why can't we all just get along?
Are you saying that you will have your gun out and ready to shoot before the criminal does? If you don't, it would be unlikely that you could draw your gun and shoot the criminal first, since he has his gun already pointing at you.
A criminal walks up to you, points his gun at you and says "give me all your gum". How are you going to kill him, even if you're packing heat?
I would just grab your happy ass and hold you in front of me until they finished firing all of their bullets, hoping that you would catch most of them in your chest or head and I would be missed completely. Then I would knock the bad guy down with your limp body by throwing your bloody mess at him! Then I would give him your gum.:D :D :D :D
And you want a serious reply to those comments??? My bad I thought you wanted a serious answer...
The only statement that could be responded to was whether your possition was Lotus or doggie style. Seriously...:right:
Just giving as I get.
You get what you get because your arguments are all crime- and genocide-friendly, Spexx. You prove, at length, redundantly, and
ad nauseam that your morals just aren't what they could be, nor what you suppose them to be.
That's called having a disconnect in your brain.
The rest of us, happily, are better adjusted.
That fact anybody in america feels they need a gun to protect themselves says a lot about the state of crime in that nation.
I've only heard ONE in this thread say that a firearm has been necessary to preserve their life. The rest, like me, have said that we aren't afraid and many of us, me included, do not even own a gun. I leave my windows open and my doors unlocked the vast majority of the time. Don't judge ME by a minority group of people who are either paranoid or choose to live in bad areas of the cities they live in.
We get it: you are 16, idealistic, and scared to death of the average Joe's ability to use reason and logic. The US is unlikely to change its policies on the right of citizens to arm themselves, since it was something the founding fathers saw as important enough to put in the documents created in the founding of this country, regardless of how brilliant a 16 year old thinks she is in knowing what is best for an entire nation of people!
So you have two years, maybe less, until you are a legal adult and can get the hell out of the United States of Wyatt Earp of your own accord.
Think about this for a minute: is your father an idiot to have moved his family to a gun-totin' country like the US, or did he have good reason to come here? Perhaps all isn't as rosy in Hong Kong as you would like to think? I have some friends from HK who would argue that life is much, much better here, and they have been around the block many more times than you have.
You say in your profile that you are a simple person who sees the world in simple terms. It might be time for a broader world view, since the world is far from simple and to dumb it down to the level of simplicity is to close your mind to things you don't know. And trust me, at 16, there is a whole lot that you don't know.
I applaud you Agent. Well said, well said.
I would have said something like that, but I didn't want to get that personal.
I've only heard ONE in this thread say that a firearm has been necessary to preserve their life.
To be fair, there's been a few other people on the Cellar who've said that.
You get what you get because your arguments are all crime- and genocide-friendly, Spexx.
You give what you give because your arguments are all murder- and violence-friendly, Urb.
You prove, at length, redundantly, and ad nauseam that your morals just aren't what they could be, nor what you suppose them to be.
Thankfully, my morals just aren't what they could be - they could be anti-humanity, like yours.
That's called having a disconnect in your brain.
At least I have a brain and twice your IQ.
The rest of us, happily, are better adjusted.
Ignorance is bliss. :)
Here's a link to the shooter's violent plays posted by the AOL employee and student there:
http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/
Here is Stephen King's take on Cho's writing.
Caution, there's a picture of a girl in a bikini on the top of the page.
http://www.wwtdd.com/post.phtml?pk=2193You give what you give because your arguments are all murder- and violence-friendly, Urb.
Thankfully, my morals just aren't what they could be - they could be anti-humanity, like yours.
At least I have a brain and twice your IQ.
Ignorance is bliss. :)
Wrong. Everyone here but you knows that. Having no actual rebuttal, you resort to bitchery, thereby condemning yourself.
For instance: for a brain, you have a hoplophobic neurosis and no connection with the realities of armed self defense, as all our previous dispute has made clear. Never credit yourself with intelligence when you're busily refusing to use any.
Pro-self-defense is anti-humanity? You're over the edge.
I've decided to prevail shoud someone want to murder me. You aren't going to, and you're immoral enough to ask that I take your view of it. Hell no.
Your careful ignorance is lethal -- to you. My careful knowledge will aid me.
Campuses have many other resources to prevent crime, rape, etc, that normal society doesn't
Not very effective resources, however. It's hard to really say, since a lot of college campuses don't report crimes to the local municipality, since they aren't involving the "townies", and don't make their internal crime statistic information available.
Things have probably changed, but on starting college, I went to a seminar in which the Campus police explained "how to say no to a rapist and survive," which primarily consisted of instructions on how to disable or kill your attacker. This was 1980 and the campus police were admitting they were powerless to stop crime on campus. (this was even a few years after they were allowed to carry their guns on the campus after 4pm. Yes, that was a real regulation. The place I went, the campus police were actually sworn police officers, not just security guards)
You must be wrong. I didn't read a word you said, but I'm sure you're wrong. Therefore, you're also a stupid cunt. That's the way it rolls around here.
Bye cunt fuck whore.
Ban me ban me, shove it up your ass and fan me.
Ban me ban me, shove it up your ass and fan me.
:confused:
Yeah, all the guys in the projects steal from people for the fun of it. Then why do they steal if it isn't for need?
The "need" for money for crack or heroin or to establish primacy in a gang territory is not the same kind of "need" that Jean Valjean had when he stole the bread to feed his family.
Cowardice is avoiding situations that put you in danger.
Absolutely not. Avoiding situations that put you into danger is called "tactical thinking." Sometimes, despite our best efforts to avoid such, that dangerous situation presents itself. Cowardice would be complying with an attackers demands when you have the means at your disposal to deal with that situation.
:confused:
It's carryover from another thread. She's not over her tantrum yet.
Wolf - I can't be certain but I think campuses do a lot more for student's safety in the past because I know for a fact there are more things you can do except learning how to disable someone with a gun or a knife. The number of crimes that could have been prevented with a gun is very low because of how college crime works. If you are trigger happy and paranoid the chances of shooting an innocent horny drunk teenager skyrockets since they will tend to violate people's privacy but not go far enough to actually hurt someone.
The "need" for money for crack or heroin or to establish primacy in a gang territory is not the same kind of "need" that Jean Valjean had when he stole the bread to feed his family.
Yes, there is a difference but you can not assume that all the crime is from that.
I've only heard ONE in this thread say that a firearm has been necessary to preserve their life. The rest, like me, have said that we aren't afraid and many of us, me included, do not even own a gun. I leave my windows open and my doors unlocked the vast majority of the time. Don't judge ME by a minority group of people who are either paranoid or choose to live in bad areas of the cities they live in.
I am sorry if I misjudged you but I see americans as crazy with the crime.
We get it: you are 16, idealistic, and scared to death of the average Joe's ability to use reason and logic.
Correction.. I'm scared to death of the average Joe's ability to get a gun and use it.
The US is unlikely to change its policies on the right of citizens to arm themselves, since it was something the founding fathers saw as important enough to put in the documents created in the founding of this country, regardless of how brilliant a 16 year old thinks she is in knowing what is best for an entire nation of people!
Did they have this in mind when 230 years later armed gangs roamed the streets? Or when 1 in 5 women are raped? Did they expect crime in america to be so out of control by now that everybody needed guns?
So you have two years, maybe less, until you are a legal adult and can get the hell out of the United States of Wyatt Earp of your own accord.
I just left thank you :)
Think about this for a minute: is your father an idiot to have moved his family to a gun-totin' country like the US, or did he have good reason to come here? Perhaps all isn't as rosy in Hong Kong as you would like to think? I have some friends from HK who would argue that life is much, much better here, and they have been around the block many more times than you have.
My dad moved here for greed only not because america is woohoo.
And you have friends from hong kong huh? What did they do? where did they work? Were they mid level?
You say in your profile that you are a simple person who sees the world in simple terms. It might be time for a broader world view, since the world is far from simple and to dumb it down to the level of simplicity is to close your mind to things you don't know. And trust me, at 16, there is a whole lot that you don't know.
Yes I was made fun of for my simple view before. But you complex guys who pretend to know what you are talking about don't really say anything do you? Your time is spent pointing out how simple or stupid somebody like me is.
Correction.. I'm scared to death of the average Joe's ability to get a gun and use it.
...
Did they have this in mind when 230 years later armed gangs roamed the streets? Or when 1 in 5 women are raped? Did they expect crime in america to be so out of control by now that everybody needed guns?
As your second paragraph alludes to, its not the average Joe you should be afraid of. Average Joes aren't the ones committing most of the gun crime. And the armed gangs that you imagine are taking over America's streets at sunset are a fiction of Hollywood. Besides, gang members aren't legal gun owners now nor would they be even if the most draconian of gun control laws came to be.
And the founding fathers lived in a society
substantially more violent and threatening than the one we live in now. Part of - a lot of- the reason America has prospered as it has is because the founding fathers were very distrustful of the government and gave it as little power as they could since government authority comes at the direct expense of individual freedom.
I mean who would you trust - the half-wit millionaire club running America today with its religious zealots, Marxists who don't even understand Marx, petty men fueled by greed, power brokers, men of limited intelligence, men who worship empty ideologies they don't understand or men such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and James Monroe - the forward-thinking visionary architects of the most powerful nation in world history.
If the clowns in Washington today don't want to screw up the little country club they have built for themselves at the expense of those they supposedly govern then they are advised not to screw with the one we citizens were given by the men who made this whole thing possible.
Yes, America might have been more violent back then but it is still different.
Back then no one could shoot up 32 people in a row. They could get maybe one and then they would have to reload for 20 seconds before they could get another shot off.
Back then a citizen was just as good as a soldier then the soldier's were if not better. Now, I would like to see a group of people armed with handguns stop a swat team or a tank. The army is much more powerful and a rebellion would end in a slaughter instead of a fight. The only way to fight now is extreme guerilla tactics that deal more with explosives then guns. Rifles would be somewhat useful but even I will fight to not have them banned.
Ducky you want to hear something you don't want to hear?
You are too young to judge such an issue as banning guns in this country AND you don't know enough about the United States to tell us to ban guns and call us "rampant" with violence. The truth is, you are ignorant in your opinions on the USA and guns. That's the truth. We aren't judging Hong Kong, but you are judging the US with little substantial evidence only by "your simple terms". And you think "americans are crazy with crime?" That has to be the most retardeded thing I have ever heard in my life. Like literally, my IQ dropped 10 points by hearing someone actually say that. Seriously. You are one of the most ignorant people I have ever read posts by. A 16 year old who knows how we should run OUR country when she doesn't even know what our country is about.
Case closed.
NEXT!
You are too young to judge such an issue as banning guns in this country
Age has nothing to do with it. She has been throwing around some big assumptions but those assumptions aren't necessarily false, just distorted. You have never lived in the inner city so you have no idea what it is like in there. You are also not experienced enough to make a good judgment on the issue.
Like literally, my IQ dropped 10 points by hearing someone actually say that. !
I am pretty sure that drop in IQ points is from the "chronic" you like so much and not from me slapping you in the face with the reality of your crime ridden nation.
A 16 year old who knows how we should run OUR country when she doesn't even know what our country is about.
Case closed.
Freshness, aren't you like 18 or something? Or at least early college years? You have to have at least have 10 years (better that it be 2x other person's age) before you can play the age card.
Because of her age, I would personally work towards approaching things from offering other evidence to refute the opinion that she's clinging to. Much like dealing with other adults, she may never change that opinion, but the opportunity here is to allow her to learn to think critically, a skill too few teenagers have.
I am pretty sure that drop in IQ points is from the "chronic" you like so much and not from me slapping you in the face with the reality of your crime ridden nation.
Here we go, insults again. You don't know crap about the US, so I won't even consider anything you say valid.
And by the way, I've graduated high school, been in college. Ducky has no idea what collge is like. That is all self discipline, all making your own decisions. It's all on you. It really opens your eyes to the world. I am 19, still young but I know so much more than a 16 year old. I am independent, have been paying my way since I was 17 as a senior. I am not omniscient, but I AM more experienced than her. It is tiring to see her completely degrade the US as a crime ridden nation. Who else here thinks that? I think very very little think the way she thinks.
You don't know crap about the US, so I won't even consider anything you say valid.
Apparently neither do you so I guess nothing you say is any more valid than what I say concerning america.
I am 19, still young but I know so much more than a 16 year old.
Watch it, bub. You know more than THAT 16-year-old. You probably do know more than me too, honestly, but I'm not appreciative of generalizations on intelligence/experience based on age, because theyre ALWAYS bullshit and ALWAYS have exceptions.
Watch it, bub. You know more than THAT 16-year-old. You probably do know more than me too, honestly, but I'm not appreciative of generalizations on intelligence/experience based on age, because theyre ALWAYS bullshit and ALWAYS have exceptions.
That would be a major statement of Bullshit in and of itself....
Yes, yes, merc, we get it, you are biased, bigoted, and discriminatory against everyone under the age of 20. We get it, now just shut UP already.
...now just shut UP already.
Ummmm no. I can't remember the last time I did something a teen told me to do... ok, like about 40 years ago when I was like 10 years old or something.... But it really has been a long time since some teeny bopper had a leg up.. I mean really kid, just move along.
Keep sticking your hand in the cage and expect to be bitten, I'm just saying... :rolleyes:
Apparently neither do you so I guess nothing you say is any more valid than what I say concerning america.
Because? Give me supporting evidence, other than I'm a killer civilian, like the rest of us Americans.
Because? Give me supporting evidence, other than I'm a killer civilian, like the rest of us Americans.
All Americans are cold blooded killers, didn't you hear?
Because? Give me supporting evidence, other than I'm a killer civilian, like the rest of us Americans.
Supporting evidence for what? I haven't yet seen you post anything to make me believe you know what you are talking about concerning crime in your country.
Honestly ducky, even if the cellar people here do agree with your gun ban on America you are biasing all of us in America to an exponential degree and that is what really pisses the shit out of me. You've lived here a coupla years, right? And you went back to the utopia of Hong Kong, that's great. But you still don't know what America is like, you still don't understand media in America, you still don't know WHY guns ARE NOT banned here and you still don't understand how to break down someone's arguement, likewise mine. You can give me the stats and all but it does not make America a killer country. The culture is different here than in Hong Kong. You want to know why I'm really pissed? Because you are NOT accepting of American culture, ONE BIT. You are telling us to completely throw away values of a developed culture for your simple and ignorant viewpoint on the world.
I am an immigrant just like you and I love this country. This country let my family emigrate here and prosper. But for you to totally condem people and society in this country is totally unfair, ignorant and downright wrong of you. That is a huge insult to me and the USA.
You can say whatever bullshit response you want to say but I am not listening. And I bet you 10 to 1 the other dwellars here are not listening to your rampant bullshit on crime ridden America anymore.
Hong Kong ain't no Utopia. Now I have not been there since 1987 but it really is no different from any other cities. Ok, I take that back, for an American it is very exotic. Nothing like the US.
Honestly ducky, even if the cellar people here do agree with your gun ban on America you are biasing all of us in America to an exponential degree and that is what really pisses the shit out of me. You've lived here a coupla years, right? And you went back to the utopia of Hong Kong, that's great. But you still don't know what America is like, you still don't understand media in America, you still don't know WHY guns ARE NOT banned here and you still don't understand how to break down someone's arguement, likewise mine. You can give me the stats and all but it does not make America a killer country. The culture is different here than in Hong Kong. You want to know why I'm really pissed? Because you are NOT accepting of American culture, ONE BIT. You are telling us to completely throw away values of a developed culture for your simple and ignorant viewpoint on the world.
I am an immigrant just like you and I love this country. This country let my family emigrate here and prosper. But for you to totally condem people and society in this country is totally unfair, ignorant and downright wrong of you. That is a huge insult to me and the USA.
You can say whatever bullshit response you want to say but I am not listening. And I bet you 10 to 1 the other dwellars here are not listening to your rampant bullshit on crime ridden America anymore.
Nice speech but it doesn't change the fact your country is full of violent crime and you have as yet to refute that. Instead you go off on rants about how you are insulted and how you being a 19 year old college boy somehow makes you know what you are talking about. Is that how they teach you to have a discussion at your university? I think you should ask for your tuition back if it is.
Hong Kong ain't no Utopia. Now I have not been there since 1987 but it really is no different from any other cities. Ok, I take that back, for an American it is very exotic. Nothing like the US.
There is no such thing as a utopia but here I can travel all of the territory and not worry about ending up on a missing persons list or getting my head shot off by roving gangs of armed thugs.
Whatever, just insult me some more. And my refute is like 15 pages back you just won't listen to them at all. And I believe MANY other dwellars have refuted your ignorance as well. But whatever, as a fellow dwellar told me, your head is stuck way too far in the sand for any reasonable person to help you.
Just, please, stay in Hong Kong. And take an American cultures class too, babe.
And also, try to make a post that doesn't have to deal with armed gangs roaming the streets, grrrr scary. That shiet is old. Ok I'm seriously done talking to you about this, it's like talking to my grandma who can't speak English.
Whatever, just insult me some more. And my refute is like 15 pages back you just won't listen to them at all. And I believe MANY other dwellars have refuted your ignorance as well.
I'm sorry but saying things like "no it isn't" or "you're ignorant" isn't refuting anything.
But whatever, as a fellow dwellar told me, your head is stuck way too far in the sand for any reasonable person to help you.
Yet you are the one in denial. lol
And also, try to make a post that doesn't have to deal with armed gangs roaming the streets, grrrr scary. That shiet is old. Ok I'm seriously done talking to you about this, it's like talking to my grandma who can't speak English.
No I will not because it's true.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA, DUCKY.
You are proving the point, that you truly are, a 16 year old, with a 16 year old's ability to argue and reason. You are seriously making a fool out of yourself on this forum. Please, just drop it, sometimes, like my dad says, you SHOULDN'T have the last word.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA, DUCKY.
You are proving the point, that you truly are, a 16 year old, with a 16 year old's ability to argue and reason. You are seriously making a fool out of yourself on this forum. Please, just drop it, sometimes, like my dad says, you SHOULDN'T have the last word.
Yes I'm 16 so what is your excuse?
Ummmm no. I can't remember the last time I did something a teen told me to do... ok, like about 40 years ago when I was like 10 years old or something.... But it really has been a long time since some teeny bopper had a leg up.. I mean really kid, just move along.
Keep sticking your hand in the cage and expect to be bitten, I'm just saying... :rolleyes:
Mercy, you really should respect your betters.
Mercy, you really should respect your betters.
HAAAAAaaaaaaaaa... What "betters"? :D
There are none, those that were are all dead.;)
HAAAAAaaaaaaaaa... What "betters"? :D
There are none, those that were are all dead.;)
You've just lost the eentsy-weentsy-teeny-weenie bit of credibility you had.
You've just lost the eentsy-weentsy-teeny-weenie bit of credibility you had.
Well DAMM! I was really thinking this morning when I got up, "Gosh, that Spexxvet, who is the issuer of all crediblity on this thread or anywhere in my life, might be on today! I wonder if he will issue some credibility to me!"
That's important....
not.:flycatch:
No I will not because it's true.
Cite.
Ok duck, here's an equally crude citation.
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/china.htm
Hong Kong prostitution trafficking! Damn, all you people from Hong Kong are prostitutes, hoes and sluts! Damn, they need to ban prostitution in Hong Kong! What a horrible place! And it is LEGAL!!! Oh, my god, how horrible!
Ok duck, here's an equally crude citation.
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/china.htm
Hong Kong prostitution trafficking! Damn, all you people from Hong Kong are prostitutes, hoes and sluts! Damn, they need to ban prostitution in Hong Kong! What a horrible place! And it is LEGAL!!! Oh, my god, how horrible!
Most of that data appears to be 10 years old or more but I agree sex trafficing is a big problem in many asian nations except maybe japan. Mainland china is still largely poor so many girls from those areas end up as prostitutes all over the world. Hong Kong has a large population of rich men so yes many of those girls end up here.
See? Don't call me an American thug out to to roam the streets looking for criminal activity, and I won't call you a dirty Asian hobag! Fair enough?
See? Don't call me an American thug out to to roam the streets looking for criminal activity, and I won't call you a dirty Asian hobag! Fair enough?
Show me the post where I called YOU or anybody else on this site an american thug roaming the streets looking for criminal activity.
Way to bypass the whole point, just don't bring your slimy prostitutes stateswide, ok? Thanks.
Way to bypass the whole point, just don't bring your slimy prostitutes stateswide, ok? Thanks.
You just accused me of calling you an american thug roaming the streets looking for criminal activity. I asked you to show me where I said that and you can't seem to find it. lol
As for the prostitutes I think america does well enough on it's own.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/prostitution.htmlAnd you aren't American bashing?
I think I'm going to ignore you, because you obviously don't have the mental capacity to look at the world and America from a panormaic view. This thread is about VT, not about how horrible America is. The only reason I brought up Hong Kong prostitution was to show the crudeness of your citations and how I can bring up an equally crude citation. But now you've full out blown all your credibilty by degrading America in more than one aspect. I am losing respect for your ability to argue and reason exponentially.
http://www.news.gov.hk/en/category/lawandorder/070426/html/070426en08004.htm
Hong Kong crime climbs 4.6% in Q1.
Deceptions rose 25.5%, wounding and serious assault cases 11.5%, serious narcotics offences 39.3%.
Burglaries dropped 20.1%, robberies 28.3% and homicides 62.5%.
Noting there was a 17.5% rise in the number of juvenile offenders and 18.2% in young offenders in the quarter, Mr Lee said the Government will step up its education and publicity programme to raise young people's awareness of the consequences of committing crimes.
Enhanced enforcement by Police and Customs officers saw a rise in drug seizures. They seized 28kg of methylamphetamin in the quarter, up 1,300% over a year earlier. The seizure of cannabis rose 618.5% and that of ecstasy 665.8%. Nevertheless, seizure of ketamine fell 94.9%.
Sounds like some criminal activity going on, but you feel safe there, don't you. Well I feel safe here. I just looked out the window and didn't see any roving bands of murderers.... never have.
I know where to find them, but I don't go there, just as there are places you wouldn't go in Hong Kong.
Gangs and their criminal activity are a problem here, especially where there are large concentrations of Latinos. The Latino gangs are a bigger danger than Black or White gangs, because they have a bigger concern for Macho Pride. The Black and White gangs have pride but not the same kind and aren't nearly as violent.
But that said, most Americans don't have much contact with these gangs and might not even suspect these people are gang members unless they know the dress codes. So your statements about gangs of killers roaming the streets are a gross distortion of the truth.
I think you spent too much time in the media and not enough time in the streets. Was it unsafe the walk the streets where you lived in the US? Day? Night? Gangs or single criminals?
And you aren't American bashing?
I think I'm going to ignore you, because you obviously don't have the mental capacity to look at the world and America from a panormaic view. This thread is about VT, not about how horrible America is. The only reason I brought up Hong Kong prostitution was to show the crudeness of your citations and how I can bring up an equally crude citation. But now you've full out blown all your credibilty by degrading America in more than one aspect. I am losing respect for your ability to argue and reason exponentially.
So pointing out had bad violent crime in your nation is america bashing? Well too bad.
I am losing respect for your ability to argue and reason exponentially.
I find this funny considering your idea of arguing is throwing a childish tantrum every few posts. lol
Seriously take an anthropology course. You are not very accepting of culture at all. Sure, go ahead and call all Americans ethnocentric.
Just another reason why YOU are definitely an example of an ethnocentric person, and those people, I cannot stand. Diversity is the single most important thing to progressing worldwide relations and humanity itself. You are an obstacle, by not accepting anything American values or believes in, by not even giving it a CHANCE.
Please, reread your posts because as you can see no one is running to your aid because your arguement skills cannot do your point justice and it all runs on sole black and white opinion on the world (and how America sucks apparently). And your brilliance in being an ethnocentric naive girl who can't understand cultural differences and cannot be appreciative of things that are different from her. You are going to have a rude awakening one day. But that slap in the face will do your brain good.
You know what, whatever. Nothing I say means anything to you anymore.
By the way, ask anyone here. My posts completley own yours.
http://www.news.gov.hk/en/category/lawandorder/070426/html/070426en08004.htm Sounds like some criminal activity going on, but you feel safe there, don't you. Well I feel safe here. I just looked out the window and didn't see any roving bands of murderers.... never have.
I know where to find them, but I don't go there, just as there are places you wouldn't go in Hong Kong.
Gangs and their criminal activity are a problem here, especially where there are large concentrations of Latinos. The Latino gangs are a bigger danger than Black or White gangs, because they have a bigger concern for Macho Pride. The Black and White gangs have pride but not the same kind and aren't nearly as violent.
But that said, most Americans don't have much contact with these gangs and might not even suspect these people are gang members unless they know the dress codes. So your statements about gangs of killers roaming the streets are a gross distortion of the truth.
I think you spent too much time in the media and not enough time in the streets. Was it unsafe the walk the streets where you lived in the US? Day? Night? Gangs or single criminals?
Of course there is crime in hong kong, there always has been and always will be but violent crime is rare compared to america. Just compare the statistics of any major american city to that of hong kong and you will see what I mean. Not to mention if crime isn't a problem in america then why do millions of americans feel the need to own a gun for protection?
I have always made the comparison between hong kong and america because those are the only two places I have lived and from my perspective your crime rate is insane.
I have always made the comparison between hong kong and america because those are the only two places I have lived and from my perspective your crime rate is insane.
EXACTLY! YOU ARE FUCKING NAIVE LITTLE GIRL WHO DOESN'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT THE REAL WORLD. I AM SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR IDEALISTIC VIEWS ON HOW THE WORLD SHOULD RUN BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CONSIDER ANYTHING ANY OTHER CULTURE OTHER THAN HONG KONG'S RIGHT AND ACCEPTABLE. GUESS WHAT, YOUR CULTURE ISN'T PERFECT, AMERICA'S ISN'T BUT YOU STILL NEED TO RESPECT BOTH.
GOD I HOPE YOU EITHER STAY IN HONG KONG AND NEVER MAKE YOUR PRESENCE KNOWN ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD OR YOU FINALLY REALIZE THERE IS MORE OUT THERE THAN WHAT
[SIZE="7"]YOUUUUUUUUUUUUU[/SIZE] THINK.
Seriously take an anthropology course. You are not very accepting of culture at all. Sure, go ahead and call all Americans ethnocentric.
Just another reason why YOU are definitely an example of an ethnocentric person, and those people, I cannot stand. Diversity is the single most important thing to progressing worldwide relations and humanity itself. You are an obstacle, by not accepting anything American values or believes in, by not even giving it a CHANCE.
Please, reread your posts because as you can see no one is running to your aid because your arguement skills cannot do your point justice and it all runs on sole black and white opinion on the world (and how America sucks apparently). And your brilliance in being an ethnocentric naive girl who can't understand cultural differences and cannot be appreciative of things that are different from her. You are going to have a rude awakening one day. But that slap in the face will do your brain good.
You know what, whatever. Nothing I say means anything to you anymore.
By the way, ask anyone here. My posts completley own yours.
Ok what does any of this rambling have to do with the rate of crime in your nation?
Also you are much better at throwing fits than I am so I guess you are right, your posts completely own mine.
EXACTLY! YOU ARE FUCKING NAIVE LITTLE GIRL WHO DOESN'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT THE REAL WORLD. I AM SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR IDEALISTIC VIEWS ON HOW THE WORLD SHOULD RUN BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CONSIDER ANYTHING ANY OTHER CULTURE OTHER THAN HONG KONG'S RIGHT AND ACCEPTABLE. GUESS WHAT, YOUR CULTURE ISN'T PERFECT, AMERICA'S ISN'T BUT YOU STILL NEED TO RESPECT BOTH.
GOD I HOPE YOU EITHER STAY IN HONG KONG AND NEVER MAKE YOUR PRESENCE KNOWN ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD OR YOU FINALLY REALIZE THERE IS MORE OUT THERE THAN WHAT [SIZE="7"]YOUUUUUUUUUUUUU[/SIZE] THINK.
Is this how 19 year old college boys act these days? And to think just yesterday you kept pulling out the "age card" lol
Oh and duck_duck, you have obviously found a way to live in peaceful co-existence with the Chinese mafia. They have lots of guns and they are not afraid to use them. But that doesn't make the papers over there. I'll let you take a guess as to why not.
We don't have the Chinese mafia in Virginia. If you ever find yourself on their bad side, you are welcome to come over here and enjoy our protection. I can introduce you to some people here that came here for that exact reason. People that people you know would have heard of.
Oh and duck_duck, you have obviously found a way to live in peaceful co-existence with the Chinese mafia. They have lots of guns and they are not afraid to use them. But that doesn't make the papers over there. I'll let you take a guess as to why not.
We don't have the Chinese mafia in Virginia. If you ever find yourself on their bad side, you are welcome to come over here and enjoy our protection. I can introduce you to some people here that came here for that exact reason. People that people you know would have heard of.
Every major population area has a level of organized crime but I'm still safer here than over there.
Every major population area has a level of organized crime but I'm still safer here than over there.
Where exactly is over there? Southeast DC or Boise Idaho? That made no sense. There are plenty of areas within Hong Kong where you wouldn't last five minutes.
Every major population area has a level of organized crime but I'm still safer here than over there.
no ur not
ur prolly just loaded and have never seen real crime other than on tv in america. chiense tv wont televise its crime lollllllll its a commmi country
Where exactly is over there? Southeast DC or Boise Idaho? That made no sense. There are plenty of areas within Hong Kong where you wouldn't last five minutes.
Which areas are those? I've been all over hong kong and never came across one neighborhood where I feared for my life.
And over there was in reference to hoston texas.
no ur not
ur prolly just loaded and have never seen real crime other than on tv in america. chiense tv wont televise its crime lollllllll its a commmi country
Gee you remind me so much of mr. chronic over there.
Like Jeboduuza said, you obviously haven't seen crime because you must be rich and sheltered. Your bubble won't last forever ducky.
I'm still safer here than over there.
Aren't you still in the US living with an Uncle until your Mom takes you home to Hong Kong?
If that's the case - I'm confused how you can say we're so evil and crime riddled, but feel safer HERE than there.
Explain please.
why. because i dont agree with you? im not the only one
Aren't you still in the US living with an Uncle until your Mom takes you home to Hong Kong?
If that's the case - I'm confused how you can say we're so evil and crime riddled, but feel safer HERE than there.
Explain please.
No we moved back to hong kong and are living with my aunt and uncle until my mom finds a place.
Reality is that the United Stated is THE most violent nation among the western democracies. That violence is significantly less even in Mexico and Canada. In the same time that the United Stated massacred school children about 44 times, then entire rest of the world combined only saw that happen about 10 times. So common that Americans attitude to what happened in Virginia: yawn.
America is now so violent that a killer can fire every 3 second consecutively for nine minutes at students. That is now considered acceptable in America because attitudes to so much violence: yawn. Instead, Americans here would instead attack the messenger.
United States is clearly the most violent western nation. That is not even disputable where people live in reality. Furthermore it is predictable from history. As numbers of guns increase, then so does violent death. That fact has been well established throughout the world for at least 200 years.
Reality is that the United Stated is THE most violent nation among the western democracies. That violence is significantly less even in Mexico and Canada. In the same time that the United Stated massacred school children about 44 times, then entire rest of the world combined only saw that happen about 10 times. So common that Americans attitude to what happened in Virginia: yawn.
America is now so violent that a killer can fire every 3 second consecutively for nine minutes at students. That is now considered acceptable in America because attitudes to so much violence: yawn. Instead, Americans here would instead attack the messenger.
United States is clearly the most violent western nation. That is not even disputable where people live in reality. Furthermore it is predictable from history. As numbers of guns increase, then so does violent death. That fact has been well established throughout the world for at least 200 years.
That is pretty much what I have been saying the whole time but not as articulately. Yet I get accused of trying to prove I'm queen of the world, called a naive 16 year old, america basher etc. I even had a bashing thread started about me. lol
One thing that does surprise me about your post is you say the violence is less in mexico. The school I was going to in houston had many latinos that were from mexico and they seemed to think the violent crime was much worse there.
It's only natural that duck_duck feels that the place she lives in is the best place to live. Same with anyone else.
The only difference is that the supposedly more mature people in this forum are arguing with a 16 yr old as if they are 16 yr olds also. Granted the main opponent in the argument is a mere 3 yrs older with probably not much more life experience, and possibly less.
Yes there's crime everywhere. Yes there's different levels of crime from place to place within a country. Yes there are places that we as residents of our country/city know we wouldn't go after dark.
I can see dd's point here and the point she's trying to make and coming from a country with similar gun laws, I know what she's trying to say.
Let me say this to you dd. You wont win this argument. No matter what 'facts' you provide as evidence. Better to save your energy and just be glad you live where you do.
No we moved back to hong kong and are living with my aunt and uncle until my mom finds a place.
But you are still in California.
But you are still in California.
says the two IPs I have to go through to access this site.
My uncle put tor on my computer and because of that I get a "your IP has been banned by the administrator" message so I have to log in through an online server just to get here.
Correction.. I'm scared to death of the average Joe's ability to get a gun and use it.
And never never ever did Duck_duck consider that an average Jane like Duck_duck might get a gun and become skilled with it. At sixteen, she'd still have to wait a while, but still, there it is. Rapists (and I very much doubt the one-in-five-women figure she cited earlier -- sounds like an Andrea Dworkin shibboleth not well borne out by the stats) tend to lose their enthusiasm when somebody lines up a .38 on their naughty bits.
And the ones who
can rape a .38 -- maybe they deserve to. :cool: But they should really buy their own guns. Spoogeing down the bore of somebody else's fighting tool is
not behavior Miss Manners would approve of.
But you complex guys who pretend to know what you are talking about don't really say anything do you? Your time is spent pointing out how simple or stupid somebody like me is.
Actually, we disagree with you because we have studied the matter, and we are persuaded of the veracity of the researchers we've studied. In a word, we know more about it than you do.
Opening up the path to crime, on a retail scale or a wholesale, by eliminating self-defense is stupid, on its face. The pretense that armament benefits only criminals is given the lie by not only the carrying of guns by government arms such as the police and sheriffs' departments, but also by the universal experience of every state in the Union that went more liberal on its concealed carry of weapons: in every single such State, crime went down and stayed down. The States that have not done so have crime levels that remain higher than the states that actively enable self defense even unto arming oneself and fighting crime by shooting back. You could look it up -- the NRA got it right, and lives are being saved en masse.
As numbers of guns increase, then so does violent death. That fact has been well established throughout the world for at least 200 years.
Swiss homes are full of assault rifles, each with a box of 200 rounds of ready ammunition, tw.
Show me the Swiss murder rate. Show me the Swiss rate of murder by firearm. Show me miscellaneous Swiss massacres by selective-fire assault rifle.
Closer to home, try Nevada, Idaho, the Dakotas: all these places have a total murder rate that looks like... England's. Let three examples stand for a couple dozen.
You aren't much of a researcher.:D :D :D
Oh ,my god!It is very pity and the USA government should prohibit the guns now!!!
You give what you give because your arguments are all murder- and violence-friendly, Urb.
Thankfully, my morals just aren't what they could be - they could be anti-humanity, like yours.
Further refutation of your argument, Spexx, may be found in Thomas Hobbes'
The Leviathan: in Chapter 14, he presents two natural laws:
. . .the first. . . which is to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, by all means we can to defend ourselves.
The structure is rather strangely inverted, but the idea is a good one.
You're pretty good at the first of these; I'm considerably better than you at the second. That this discrepancy should anger you so, and motivate you to dish out the guff you have is puzzling, for I do not despise nor do I fail to practice the first.
The LeviathanOh ,my god!It is very pity and the USA government should prohibit the guns now!!!
And who are you to ask us to clear the path to a genocide -- which only happens to unarmed populations? Gun prohibition is necessary before you can get your victims shipped to Aushwitz and Dachau, fullove.
But if the victims have got guns, your
Einsatzkommandos die before they can shove the targeted group into the boxcars.
Oh ,my god!It is very pity and the USA government should prohibit the guns now!!!
What, are let Chairman Mao's minions run roughshod over us?
Swiss homes are full of assault rifles, each with a box of 200 rounds of ready ammunition, tw.
With every Swiss gun is massive, repetitive training. Since number of guns has not increased in Switzerland, then violent crimes do not increase. Where number of guns increase, then violent crimes increase. Charts comparing gun ownership in America compared to a following increase in violent death demonstrates a problem that is also well proven throughout the world.
Yes, the other parts of the western world regard America as a most violent nation - because they look at the numbers. In America, if someone 'disses' you, then you have the right to a gun. That attitude is now becoming more prevalent. So prevalent that American school yard massacres get a response called "Yawn".
How did Britain stop schoolyard slaughters? Everyone now carries a gun? A solution advocated by those who deny basic facts and numbers.
Meanwhile, every home in Switzerland does not have a gun. In Switzerland, those who are mentally unstable cannot have a gun. In Switzerland, everyone is carefully vetted. Urbane Guerrilla forget to mention that part. He also got to mention that many gun advocates oppose 'mental stablity' rules are contrary to the their interpretation of the Second Amendment. According to second admendment 'advocates' even the mentally unstable have a constitutional right to guns - even 155 mm howitizers.
Urbane Guerrilla forgot to mention so much. Therefore what is his poltical agenda?
Urbane Guerrilla forget to mention that part. He also got to mention that many gun advocates oppose 'mental stablity' rules are contrary to the their interpretation of the Second Amendment. According to second admendment 'advocates' even the mentally unstable have a constitutional right to guns - even 155 mm howitizers.
Cite.
Cite.
Second Amendement: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Quoted exactly as interpreted by the NRA. The right of the people, if or if not mentally ill, shall not be infringed. Arms - anything from hunting rifles to assault weapons to 155 mm howitzters - shall not be infringed.
Where "arms" is defined as weapons that you can carry, i.e., an extension of the arm.
next
Second Amendement: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Quoted exactly as interpreted by the NRA. The right of the people, if or if not mentally ill, shall not be infringed. Arms - anything from hunting rifles to assault weapons to 155 mm howitzters - shall not be infringed.
Nice try, now cite where the NRA says the mentally ill should not be denied.
You really can't compare gun control and deaths with other countries and expect it to be accurate. Gun deaths are just a product of something much larger that can not be controlled through laws. If you live in a peaceful society, legalizing or illegalizing guns won't make gun deaths go up or down because people will be less likely to use them to kill in the first place. If you live in a violent society, you will still get violent deaths no matter how many laws you make.
But that is still on the surface. Then you have to consider how many deaths banning guns or making them harder to get will prevent and how much it hurts then find a compromise.
Where "arms" is defined as weapons that you can carry, i.e., an extension of the arm.
Is that a generally accepted definition? IYHO, would the Framers have considered cannons covered by the 2nd Amendment?
Nice try, now cite where the NRA says the mentally ill should not be denied.
Bruce, you are doing this more and more often. Are you alright?
I never said, "NRA says the mentally ill should not be denied." Let's look exactly at what I posted:
He also [for]got to mention that many gun advocates oppose 'mental stablity' rules are contrary to the their interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Bruce - again you have jumped to conclusions rather than read what was posted.
9th Engineer makes another relevant comment in another thread:
However, every time someone takes a serious stab at doing something about it it's portrayed as an assault on a minority culture or something.
Exactly. Many have completely contradictory opinion - none based in political agendas. Whereas the NRA leadership now advocates action to restrict guns from the mentally ill, the Medical industry opposes complete access to everyone's medical records. That (now) NRA advocated gun restriction calls for all such medical records to be accessed by government - a violation of privacy rights.
Meanwhile, what gets lost? Court records (public records) are not even being used to restrict weapons, in part, because of those who opposed 'any and all' gun restrictions. Eventually gun ownership will require one to display responsibility. In so much political spinning, that demand for responsiblity is completely lost in mud and distortions.
And so a hunter in Allentown PA fires a high power rifle. The bullet strikes a pregnant woman in the head in her driveway one half mile away. The hunter would not even apologize for his irresponsible actions. Therein lies the problem. Responsibility is now secondary and irrelevant to rights.
Meanwhile, Bruce should read before making such accusations. Lately he has been doing this more often.
Then you have to consider how many deaths banning guns or making them harder to get will prevent and how much it hurts then find a compromise.
Show me where anyone needs hardware to fire a round every 3 seconds for nine minutes. Clearly he needed that for personal defense, hunting, or to have fun. A post that begs for responses from non-Americans (including Canadians). Tell me if that 'need' sounds justified, necessary, and essential to you?
Is that a generally accepted definition? IYHO, would the Framers have considered cannons covered by the 2nd Amendment?
I think it is accepted. I don't know if they picked the word specifically.
Bouvier's law dictionary (c. 1856, closer to the framers than we are) sez
ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. Co. Litt. 161 b, 162 a; Crompt. Just. P. 65; Cunn. Dict. h. t.
The word "anger" seems subjective here, but I think it makes the point that a rock can be "arms" in certain circumstances.
Show me where anyone needs hardware to fire a round every 3 seconds for nine minutes. Clearly he needed that for personal defense, hunting, or to have fun. A post that begs for responses from non-Americans (including Canadians). Tell me if that 'need' sounds justified, necessary, and essential to you?
I was talking about placing restrictions on guns and maybe banning a few. You seem to be talking about placing restrictions on guns and maybe banning a few. I don't see where our disagreement is?
With every Swiss gun is massive, repetitive training. Since number of guns has not increased in Switzerland, then violent crimes do not increase. Where number of guns increase, then violent crimes increase. Charts comparing gun ownership in America compared to a following increase in violent death demonstrates a problem that is also well proven throughout the world.
Yes, the other parts of the western world regard America as a most violent nation - because they look at the numbers. In America, if someone 'disses' you, then you have the right to a gun. That attitude is now becoming more prevalent. So prevalent that American school yard massacres get a response called "Yawn".
How did Britain stop schoolyard slaughters? Everyone now carries a gun? A solution advocated by those who deny basic facts and numbers.
Meanwhile, every home in Switzerland does not have a gun. In Switzerland, those who are mentally unstable cannot have a gun. In Switzerland, everyone is carefully vetted.
If we had a country the size of Rhode Island with a population not bigger than large American city, that might be significant.
According to second admendment 'advocates' even the mentally unstable have a constitutional right to guns - even 155 mm howitizers.
That would be total bull crap.
NRA Statement On Legislative Efforts On Capitol Hill
Friday, April 27, 2007
Recent reports in the Washington Post, Newsweek and other media outlets are fanning Internet rumors regarding the NRA’s position concerning legislation currently being discussed in Congress in the aftermath of the horrific crimes that occurred at Virginia Tech.
The NRA has a long history of supporting measures to prevent guns from being acquired by violent criminals and those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally incompetent. And we wrote into law mandatory prison sentences for armed felons and other prohibited classes who violate state and federal gun laws.
We will continue to make certain that the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) is accurate, fair, and instant by seeking changes to permanently ensure that no fee is associated with the check, that system outages are minimized, and that our men and women in uniform who have served our country honorably are not unjustly denied their constitutional rights. As always, the NRA is committed to ensuring that any proposal does not infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
It is impossible to predict right now what any final bill will look like; therefore, we will withhold judgment until we see a final product. However, the NRA will continue to work with Members of Congress throughout the process to ensure that any changes to the NICS benefit lawful gun purchasers while ensuring that those adjudicated by the courts as mentally incompetent are included in the system.
Including necessary records on prohibited persons into the NICS is a position we have long supported. However, history has shown that no law will stop a madman intent on doing evil.
The NRA believes that our schools are not adequately protected. Therefore, we believe a national conversation on school security is necessary, and we look forward to those discussions and finding meaningful solutions to keep America’s children safe.
For more information, visit
www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=217&issue=018I was talking about placing restrictions on guns and maybe banning a few. You seem to be talking about placing restrictions on guns and maybe banning a few. I don't see where our disagreement is?
None existed. A reply does not intrinsically mean disagreement. My post simply added information (another perspective) to yours.
Same history applies to cars. As access to cars was restricted, then deaths due to cars decreased. Guns and cars. Both are dangerous weapons. Both require responsible behavior.
None existed. A reply does not intrinsically mean disagreement. My post simply added information (another perspective) to yours.
Whoops, sorry about that.
Urbane Guerrilla forget to mention that part. He also got to mention that many gun advocates oppose 'mental stablity' rules are contrary to the their interpretation of the Second Amendment. According to second admendment 'advocates' even the mentally unstable have a constitutional right to guns - even 155 mm howitizers.
Again tw is caught in a barefaced lie. Claiming "second admendment 'advocates'" say the mentally ill should not be denied firearms.
Cite.
Knowing tw's lying, I asked for a cite.
Second Amendement: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Quoted exactly as interpreted by the NRA. The right of the people, if or if not mentally ill, shall not be infringed. Arms - anything from hunting rifles to assault weapons to 155 mm howitzters - shall not be infringed.
Then tw quotes the NRA. tw's second lie can't go unchallenged.
Nice try, now cite where the NRA says the mentally ill should not be denied.
Now the 'look a birdy' tactic starts, to cover his lies.
Bruce, you are doing this more and more often. Are you alright?
I never said, "NRA says the mentally ill should not be denied." Let's look exactly at what I posted: Bruce - again you have jumped to conclusions rather than read what was posted.
In a classic tw move, he claims he never said that and accuses me of jumping to conclusions. Guess what, he didn't say that. He just tries to deceive everyone by posting lies that allude to backing up his lies. Lies to back up lies and more lies to deny the lies.
This is the modus operandi of all tw's posts..... lies, half truths, and fabricating allusions to create more lies.
tw, fuck you, you're not going to get away with it anymore.
It does not surprise me that as warped a big-C Communist as tw is would be so friendly to the disempowering of the general population: this man is not visibly a democrat, nor is he that sort of democrat known as a republican.
He forgets something a famous commie once wrote: "Power grows from the barrel of a gun." Yes, I can from time to time quote Mao, to my own ends. Considering that in more normal times in China Mao would have been arrested as a bandit and beheaded, whereas my conduct is exceedingly unlikely to get me executed, I'd say my own ends are better than Mao's. It's so often like that for the anticommunists.
In a republic, the source of political power is the people, the electorate. That which reduces the power of the electorate should simply not be countenanced.
Yet, even in the face of all his perfidies, the NRA will patiently uphold tw's gun rights, and encourage him to actually enjoy the use of the rights and the guns.
Charts comparing gun ownership in America compared to a following increase in violent death demonstrates a problem that is also well proven throughout the world.
Of course, if this kind of thing is what tw accepts as factual, no wonder his conclusions are raddled with error, and likewise with all the subsequent horrors that spring from them. The numbers of guns in America have climbed steadily, and crime of all sorts has been slumping -- violent death too -- in all the states of the Union that have liberalized concealed carry of weapons, and accidents with arms have fallen off also. NRA sources are the most convenient places to find the data, but sources outside the NRA exist also -- viz., John Lott and FBI statistics.
Nah, a convenient litmus test for who's the more democratically inclined is to examine their enthusiasm for private arms ownership. Like most convenient tests, it's not comprehensive, but in tw's case, it is most surely illuminating, to say nothing of, in Tolkien's words, "perfectly true and applicable."
