| Quote: |
| CHICAGO (AFP) — A 14-year-old boy with a gun in each hand let loose a hail of bullets in his Ohio high school Wednesday, wounding four people before killing himself in the latest school shooting to rock the United States. |
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gNwMHuLE_gDMO9P-lkmjyAtKg8lwso sad 
My thought for their families. deja vu.
And tbh, "to rock the US" is a big hyperbole, it's becoming more and more common over there I thought?
dude, I wonder why it's always in the US this kinda stuff happens.... too little control on guns over there? school system that makes some people feel left out? media?
| LimpFish wrote: |
| dude, I wonder why it's always in the US this kinda stuff happens.... too little control on guns over there? school system that makes some people feel left out? media? |
I agree, there must be a reason why such stuff happens to the most developed nation of the world.
I think they should ban guns for public use, and severly limit them for governmental use (except in certain circumstances)
I also think their media needs to be slightly more educational and less biased. | ThePolemistis wrote: |
| LimpFish wrote: | | dude, I wonder why it's always in the US this kinda stuff happens.... too little control on guns over there? school system that makes some people feel left out? media? |
I agree, there must be a reason why such stuff happens to the most developed nation of the world.
I think they should ban guns for public use, |
I'll let the Benjamin Franklin quote on my signature speak for my opinion of that idea. 
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: | | LimpFish wrote: | | dude, I wonder why it's always in the US this kinda stuff happens.... too little control on guns over there? school system that makes some people feel left out? media? |
I agree, there must be a reason why such stuff happens to the most developed nation of the world.
I think they should ban guns for public use, |
I'll let the Benjamin Franklin quote on my signature speak for my opinion of that idea.
Respectfully,
M |
you have a right to your opinion..
however, the more affluent people of a nation become, and as a country attains developed status, there is lesser of a need of guns due to better ettiquettes and lesser corruption. Thats how I see it.
Therefore, my sentence is not implying that guns should be banned in all countries, but rather its inferring that given the attitudes of the people, mostly having ahigh standard of living, guns should be eradicated from the USA because the people who are likely to use these guns generally come from poorer backgrounds or due to personal problems and the size of this group is a small minority of the people. The more affluent people have less tendency towards guns and violence of the street crime sense.
If there was a vote tomorrow on whether guns should be outlawed, I think the people would vote against the possession of guns.
Also, I don't think your signiture on Mr Franklin should hold in this case, because it is not about fear or corruption. The ones using the guns are the criminals, who are using it purely in the name of violence and not of liberty. The law-abiding citizens I assume prefer a nation without guns.@ moonspider,
I hardly think a gun in your hand is gonna make politicians be nicer to you. It's a false sense of security, because the biggest threat these days come from people equally armed as you, would you rather a shoot off or a knife off?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
you have a right to your opinion..
however, the more affluent people of a nation become, and as a country attains developed status, there is lesser of a need of guns due to better ettiquettes and lesser corruption. Thats how I see it. |
I disagree. A highly developed democracy can become just as tyrannical as any other government under the right circumstances. Aside from the vengeful burden placed upon it by the Treaty of Versaille after World War I, I don't think many people would refer to Germany at the time of the Nazi party's electoral victory as an undeveloped country. The majority of people can be wrong and even become tyrants against the minority, which I think was Benjamin Franklin's point.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Therefore, my sentence is not implying that guns should be banned in all countries, but rather its inferring that given the attitudes of the people, mostly having ahigh standard of living, guns should be eradicated from the USA because the people who are likely to use these guns generally come from poorer backgrounds or due to personal problems and the size of this group is a small minority of the people. The more affluent people have less tendency towards guns and violence of the street crime sense. |
I am sure that you mean to imply that people who use guns for the purpose of committing crimes generally come from poorer backgrounds, etc. However, people of all socio-economic backgrounds use guns safely and legally for everything from hunting to sport shooting. Would you deny them that freedom becuase of the illegal activity of a small minority of citizens? And do you think that taking legal ownership of guns away from law-abiding citizens would somehow prevent criminals, who already acquire guns illegally, from obtaining them in the future?
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| If there was a vote tomorrow on whether guns should be outlawed, I think the people would vote against the possession of guns. |
I can say with all confidence on this point that you are wrong. If it were so, such laws would have already been passed.
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
| Also, I don't think your signiture on Mr Franklin should hold in this case, because it is not about fear or corruption. The ones using the guns are the criminals, who are using it purely in the name of violence and not of liberty. The law-abiding citizens I assume prefer a nation without guns. |
Once again, I don’t think the majority believe so, or such a national prohibition would already exist. And just because the majority (the “wolves”), do not pose a grave threat to the minority (the “lambs”) in the present does not mean that it will always be so into perpetuity. In Ben Franklin’s analogy, an unarmed lamb is safe with two wolves in a democracy as long as the wolves don’t vote 2-1 to kill and eat him. His liberty in that situation is nothing more than an illusion. Even though in such a circumstance he is technically safe, he has no true liberty because if the majority changes its mind, there is nothing the lamb can do about it.
| bogger wrote: |
@ moonspider,
I hardly think a gun in your hand is gonna make politicians be nicer to you. It's a false sense of security, because the biggest threat these days come from people equally armed as you, would you rather a shoot off or a knife off? |
It has nothing to do with politicians being nicer to you, nor is it a false sense of security. Living with the expectation of the government always looking out for your best interest and protecting you at all times? That is a truly false sense of security!
A people who depend solely upon a government, like the unarmed lamb mentioned above, are not protected by the majority, they are at the mercy of it.
As for a "shoot off or a knife off", I’d prefer the former because that is what I’ve practiced. Because of differences in size or other factors, I could be at a distinct disadvantage in a knife fight against many opponents even if they have less training or experience. Furthermore, say in a home invasion example, I have a distinct advantage with a firearm. The intruder may not have the intent to harm me or my family. Or he may be unsure if he is willing to do so if necessary. This will cause him to hesitate when confronted and a stand-off weapon like a shotgun would allow me to act without coming into contact with him physically while still minimizing collateral risks.
That’s all hypothetical of course, since the chances of that ever happening to me are slim to none. I think about it, but I certainly don't worry about it.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
I disagree. A highly developed democracy can become just as tyrannical as any other government under the right circumstances. Aside from the vengeful burden placed upon it by the Treaty of Versaille after World War I, I don't think many people would refer to Germany at the time of the Nazi party's electoral victory as an undeveloped country. The majority of people can be wrong and even become tyrants against the minority, which I think was Benjamin Franklin's point.
|
You have a valid point on this issue, but this is when the country is no longer a democracy and is under dictatorship. Under a democracy such as America and Britain, the use of guns will never be needed.
What happened in Germany was the switch from democracy to dictatorship, and the use of guns by the public would never have helped prevent this switch. The reason for this switch was because of economical factors: Germany WAS a developed, affluent and democratic nation BUT after WW1 Germany was forced to pay heavily because the Allies put them as the cause of WW1. The Nazi party and Hitler were able to motivate the masses purely because of the ecomical situation in Germany - it was under hyperinflation and this installed hatred towards Jews by Germans, since Jews were still well off and also against other nations.
Like I said: Affluent, democratic and developed nations (usually all three must satisfy) should not be allowed guns for the public. Germany was no longer rich or democratic (and I question its developed status) so in such case guns for public should be permissible.
| Moonspider wrote: |
I am sure that you mean to imply that people who use guns for the purpose of committing crimes generally come from poorer backgrounds, etc. However, people of all socio-economic backgrounds use guns safely and legally for everything from hunting to sport shooting. Would you deny them that freedom becuase of the illegal activity of a small minority of citizens? And do you think that taking legal ownership of guns away from law-abiding citizens would somehow prevent criminals, who already acquire guns illegally, from obtaining them in the future?
|
That is a different case altogether. I am talking about having guns in your own back home. If you have a valid license to bear guns for purposes such as hunting then that is a completely different situation and would not entitle everyone (for instance, those located not near rural areas cannot have arms unless they own a home near that area, and it must be in sparsely populated area). Such guns can only be used for hunting (and the neccessary restrictions should be in place)
Also, I think hunting as a sport should be banned anyway because it is cruel, in the same way fox hunting in Britain has been banned recently,,, I am not sure about the United States but its shameful if they do not have these restrictions in place.
| Moonspider wrote: |
I can say with all confidence on this point that you are wrong. If it were so, such laws would have already been passed.
|
We should have a vote on the issue --maybe start a poll on this forum?? It may not represent America, but the closest poll we can get 
| moonspider wrote: |
Once again, I don’t think the majority believe so, or such a national prohibition would already exist. And just because the majority (the “wolves”), do not pose a grave threat to the minority (the “lambs”) in the present does not mean that it will always be so into perpetuity. In Ben Franklin’s analogy, an unarmed lamb is safe with two wolves in a democracy as long as the wolves don’t vote 2-1 to kill and eat him. His liberty in that situation is nothing more than an illusion. Even though in such a circumstance he is technically safe, he has no true liberty because if the majority changes its mind, there is nothing the lamb can do about it.
|
I understand your point.I mean you could say that the USA could end up as Germany did in WW1 threatening both our democracy and liberties -but at the moment it is "technically safe" since the government are not moving towards that direction.
However, like you said there is a slim chance. Also, because of this slim chance, we are threathening the rest of the nation's people in terms of safety, as seen with the university shootings in America. So long as america stays a democracy and so long as it is developed, there is no need for guns. If ever the time comes when America is not in this state, guns will be ever present in American society before it reaches this state anyways (even if guns were banned before hand).
| moonspider wrote: |
Or he may be unsure if he is willing to do so if necessary. This will cause him to hesitate when confronted and a stand-off weapon like a shotgun would allow me to act without coming into contact with him physically while still minimizing collateral risks.
|
Then you should also be in favour of the death penalty? I am Have you ever seeing "Bowling for Columbine"?
There is the answer.
| LimpFish wrote: |
| dude, I wonder why it's always in the US this kinda stuff happens.... too little control on guns over there? school system that makes some people feel left out? media? |
Just this week the trial of a teenage shooter was ended here. This boy got expelled from his school because he was caught smoking in his dorm room, and thus he bought a shotgun and began hunting for foreign looking people in Antwerp.
Yes; there are too many guns in the US and their school system could indeed use improvement, but these act of violence are not an exclusively American phenomenon.
Try keeping up with all the stabbings and shootings in high schools in the UK. You'll be surprised what doesn't get global media coverage, when American soil is not involved.The shooting isn't the gun's fault.
If this 14 year old child was so traumatized by his own life that he felt the need to shoot others and himself then gun ownership is not the issue we should be discussing. What happened to make this boy decide that killing people was the best solution to his problems? Was it the violent video games he played? I doubt that, because I know plenty of people who play first-person shooter games who have never shot anyone in real life. Perhaps it was because he didn't have proper parental supervision and support. I understand that his parents used video games as a babysitter for him from a very young age, and as a result he never understood the difference between fiction and reality. So, it seems to me that parental neglect was the main cause of this shooting.
If you talk to your child, spend time with and teach your child, then they will know that they have someone to come to when they have problems, that there is somewhere to turn when things get hard. But if you ignore your children and let the TV or the PlayStation raise them for you then how will you know what is going on in their hearts and in their heads? Who will they turn to when life gets hard?
Our society has become all about personal, immediate gratification, and people are forgetting about consequences.
As for gun ownership - cars are just as deadly but I don't see anyone proposing a ban on them. Every human being has the right to defend them self, and if we give up the right to bear arms then we are only giving the criminals and the Powers that Be an unfair advantage over us.
Moonspider - I am in 100% in agreement with you on this issue (love the quotes by the way, I'm a huge Heinlein fan myself. ) you can run away from a knifer, with a fairly good chance of success (if he's bigger, you can run faster, if he's smaller, you can overpower him, if you're slower and smaller, you're righlty ******)
Running from a gun is about as smart as attacking cucumbers.
Your opinions are self centred and entirely pointless to the debate, because we don't debate single cases, we debate the problem as a whole | Quote: |
| I’d prefer the former because that is what I’ve practiced. |
You have gun, he have gun, the chances of getting "invaded" in your home is slim, seriously slim, having a gun is just a problem around the house, you ask for trouble
| Quote: |
| A people who depend solely upon a government |
You vote for them, isn't it slightly hypocritical to vote for someone and then to say that you don't trust him to do his job? If you don't trust him, then you're not a democrat.
so, anti democracy, or anti "others"? which are you | bogger wrote: |
you can run away from a knifer, with a fairly good chance of success (if he's bigger, you can run faster, if he's smaller, you can overpower him, if you're slower and smaller, you're righlty ******)
Running from a gun is about as smart as attacking cucumbers. |
Apparently I misunderstood your question. I thought you were giving me a choice between a knife fight or a gun fight. If you'd asked from which I'd rather run away, I most assuredly would choose a knife.
| bogger wrote: |
Your opinions are self centred and entirely pointless to the debate, because we don't debate single cases, we debate the problem as a whole | Quote: | | I’d prefer the former because that is what I’ve practiced. |
You have gun, he have gun, the chances of getting "invaded" in your home is slim, seriously slim, having a gun is just a problem around the house, you ask for trouble |
Like I said, the chances of invasion are slim to none. Having grown up with firearms and using them on a regular basis, I don't think I am asking for trouble by having them in my house. Like anything that is dangerous, one must be responsible.
I don't understand how my opinion was self-centered, except that I believe firearm ownership to be a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. So it is self-centered in that I choose to exercise that right. And my answer which you said is pointless to the debate was based upon the question posited by you regarding the gun-fight vs. knife fight. The question was aimed at me as an individual, not the issue as a whole.
As for the "problem as a whole," the issue is not gun ownership in my opinion. Far more people get killed every day in automobile accidents. We could save a tens of thousands of lives by banning automobiles and trucks. But is that really the problem?
| bogger wrote: |
| Quote: | | A people who depend solely upon a government |
You vote for them, isn't it slightly hypocritical to vote for someone and then to say that you don't trust him to do his job? If you don't trust him, then you're not a democrat.
so, anti democracy, or anti "others"? which are you |
Humans are humans. Being elected officials doesn't make them infallible. The United States government is not a democracy. It is a republic based upon an elaborate set of checks and balances. For example, we may trust and respect the military, however the system set up in the 18th Century guarantees that the military can never govern itself. It is controlled by the civilian authority to help prevent a military domination of the government or even a takeover. Individual gun ownership rights and the right of individual states to maintain their own military (not the national guards, which report the a federal military ultimately, but militias), are the ultimate checks against federal tyranny.
You seem to think I am being hypocritical. However it is the founding fathers of this country who designed the system based upon the idea that no one man or group of men can be ultimately trusted with power.
Respectfully,
M
