Virginia Tech massacre

[LimpingFish]

I'm disappointed that this thread has gone from what could've been an interesting debate about gun-control, to a simple US vs THEM shite-fest.

The first law of the internet is present and correct.

As a side note, I'm sure we all offer our condolenses not only to the families of the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, but also to the family of David Beverly who was shot and killed by disgruntled NASA contract engineer Bill Phillips in Houston, Texas the other day.

[biothlebop]

I on the other hand am both surprised and delighted this thread has turned out so well. Compared to other/earlier gun-related Internet-discussions I've followed, this one managed to introduce me to some some new points as well as re-hash old ones.

I am even slightly optimistic that the Internet might mature alongside me, so that I wouldn't have to resort to printed words or local bar drunkards by the time I turn 40.

I think you are getting better at expressing yourselves, resorting less to OMFG-outburts and making the whole discussion easier and more enjoyable to follow.

Anyways, thank you, and sorry that I don't currently have anything to add; I am exploring unrelated territory and my coherent thoughts as well as epiphanies/eurekas seem to flow toward those subjects.

[Pumaman]

So, the latest case:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6580421.stm

Office worker gets bad review from his manager, so he goes and buys a gun and shoots his boss. He's not a "criminal", so if guns were illegal the chances are he wouldn't have been able to get one. But on the other hand, maybe he would've just used a knife instead so the outcome would've been the same...

[LimpingFish]

So we have to think of a few factors:

1. Was he mentally disturbed?
2. If not, can receiving a bad review from your boss drive you to kill?
3. Does the fact that he was able to purchase a gun legally, on the same day (when his rage would still be fresh) that he received the bad review, matter?

If you answer "no" to questions 1 and 2, then disregard question 3.

If you answer "yes" to either question 1 or 2, answer question 3 and explain your reasons.

[Nikolas]

1. Probably not, at the age of 60 and at a decent job in NASA !!!!!!!!!!!!
2. From the mere facts it appears that yes!
3. I believe so. The next thing would be to take the bad review from his boss (person), while the guy was carrying a long knife and his boss was wearing a t-shirt with a red target printed on! (or something simmilar)

[radiowaves]

If the guy worked in NASA, maybe there were aliens and some higher state involved

[Andail]

To everyone who keeps using the clichée about Internet being so god darn retarded when it comes to debating; show me an excerpt of your latest 'real-life' debate and maybe you can make a point.

Most of the time, people who complain about internet-debates (and re-tell this 10-year-old joke about special olympics and all that) are just not used to having various people of various backgrounds disagreeing with them.

This thread is as pertinent and relevant as you'll ever find a group of people debating anything. Get used to having people providing you with mixed opinions.

[Helm]

Correct, andail.

Some people are used to being kings of their peer group and having their opinion overshadow other opinions because people are put off by their loudness, or taken by their charisma and agree to everything they say, or just don't bother. This leads them to believe dissenting opinions just don't exist. When they hit the internets where opinionated people all over the world (possibly all little kings of that type described above) are merciless about letting you know what think, shock! OMG TEH INTERNETS RETARDED

You can't even punch people to make them shut up. The internet is just a bigger context of the same thing. That being said, this discussion as biothlebop said before was suprisingly civil and interesting considering what we were discussing and while I personally didn't walk off with any new information or points of view (besides 'other countries suck!' information about the UK or Paris) I wouldn't say it wasn't worth it for me.

[Sam.]

I would suggest the opposite.

People who cannot argue their points in real life, resort to using the internet for argument and debate, when they find that their lack of skills transfers to typed word, THEN the internet is "retarded".

[evenwolf]

I learned rhetoric from this very forum.  I was a shy person "IRL" with my opinions until I opened up on dosuser forums.  I got a voice there and expanded to parties and social gatherings.   What's even logical about using the rhetoric "this is an internet argument, its pointless"  when that very rhetoric is being transferred via the internet?

[Pumaman]

To everyone who keeps using the clichée about Internet being so god darn retarded when it comes to debating; show me an excerpt of your latest 'real-life' debate and maybe you can make a point.

Indeed, if anything internet debates have the potential to be more informative than real-life ones, since people have the opportunity to think through and research their response before posting it. In real-life debates, you tend to just get people's normal knee-jerk opinions since there's not time for them to consider anything different.

And of course, as you say most real-life debates don't give you the opportunity to discuss things with people from such a range of different parts of the world and different backgrounds.

[radiowaves]

Fact is, Internet debates never end until one of the mods lock the thread or someone gets banned. So everyone debating is a smartass and debate isn't going anywhere, therefore the conclusion that everyone is retarded.

[Andail]

I think it's often some sort of last resort for people to create some distance to a seemingly lost debate and save their dignity.

Maybe the situation has got better now, but I remember some years ago and back, when every darn internet discussion would feature some "well at least I've got a REAL LIFE you computer geeks!!"-post, as if it wasn't completely transparent how much that person was actually projecting their own real-life-issues.

To tell someone to 'get a life' is a surefired way of making everyone present immediately doubt the quality of your own life.

EDIT
Radiowaves, that's just your version of it. If you don't want to learn from a debate, you won't learn from it. Be it an internet debate or a real one. As we have just discussed, real-life debates are hardly more fruitful.

Also, don't underestimate the debates of this forum just because their participants act hard-headed and 'smart-ass'; people are affected more than you might think, and in the long run you might discover that you've actually changed even though you weren't aware of it yourself.

And please don't write "fact is" when you present something clearly false. We have not yet banned anyone on this forum due to the outcome of a debate. (We have never even banned anyone that we suspect is a real member, only apparent spam-accounts)

[LimpingFish]

Debate threads that go the distance on these forums are always interesting and informative. The racism and religion threads from a while back were very enjoyable and raised some interesting points, which made the various parties involved put some real effort into their arguments/standpoints.

This thread has got a little sidetracked into a cycle of accusations of "anti-americanism" or "generalization", and people defending themselves against such, though. A fairly pointless detour, imho.

That can really deflate any enthusiasm, or energy, a debate may possess. I'm cynical about such debates in the first place, but as long as we're making a decent go of things, I'm happy to participate.

It takes mental stamina, though, if you plan to be in it for the long haul.

Debate-related headaches suck.

EDIT (back on topic):

From the BBC:

"..."All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last 10 years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen - a potential victim - had a gun," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "The latest school shooting at Virginia Tech demands an immediate end to the gun-free zone law which leaves the nation's schools at the mercy of madmen."

Others argue that schools and colleges are not sufficiently protected, and that the lack of security is tantamount to an open invitation."

...is there a ceiling to the situations that might require the carrying of a firearm?

EDIT:

"Following the Columbine killings President Bill Clinton proposed tougher legislation including raising the legal age of possession to 21 and closing loopholes on sales without background checks.

But they proved intensely controversial, and by the time the bill was to be voted on by Congress the president himself denounced it as so watered down it was "worse than current law".

Mr Clinton did however introduce the Assault Weapons Ban, a 10-year ban on 19 types of semi-automatic weapon. The ban expired in 2004 under President George Bush and has not yet been renewed."

Yippee-ki-yay, motherf*cker.

[EagerMind]

The media is all "FEAR THIS FEAR THAT" and I can say that with a straight face. The American media is amazingly dishonest and there's a real problem with how the news is brought and what the news is.

No disagreements here. However, I'd also say that:

- I don't think the state of our media is appreciably worse than the rest of the world. At the very least, we generally don't make each other's news unless it's bad news, thus skewing outsiders' perceptions. “No news is good is good news,” as they say. The idea that Americans are fearful, easily-manipulated sheep is just not true â€" or at least, it's no more true than it is anywhere else.

- American's ideas about guns have existed long before the ratings-based, entertainment-driven, sensationalist, prime-time news we have today.

guns invite violence more often than they deter it.

I'd probably agree with you along the lines of “guns make crime more violent” rather than “guns make more crime,” especially with evidence presented in this thread suggesting that guns may actually reduce crime.

That they're necessary in the US means there's something wrong ... The constitution is generally fine, other than the fact that the right to bear arms

It's not a matter of “need,” but a matter of “want.” I've never needed a gun, and I can't imagine any normal circumstances where I would, and I'm not especially unique in this regard. But for historical and cultural reasons which I've already explained, Americans want their guns. Or more accurately, many Americans want their gun rights. As long as this is so, our constitution, which represents the will of the people, will continue to have this right protected in law. Instead of calling for the government to unilaterally outlaw guns through antidemocratic means, proponents of gun control in this country should be trying to reeducate people and change their opinions, so that the population will want to make guns illegal. Of course, this method is much harder, longer, and may never result in success, but at least it doesn't mean usurping the will of the people.

Go write a love letter to your strawman.

It's not my straw man. You've expressed it quite clearly and succinctly here:

If you cultivate a culture of violence you'll reap violence. Then you say 'we need the guns against the violence'.

And here:

Otherwise I'm being taught a method of precise and clean murder, oh, if the need ever arises or something. That's a culture of violence.

And in many other places. Quite simply, no.

A strawman is when you make of someone else's opinion, a weaker but similar one so you may dismiss it easily.

Like when the idea of owning a gun is dismissed because it presupposes a culture of violence?

Assertion: “I think people should be allowed to have guns in order to protect themselves.”
Response: “I think your culture has a problem with violence.”

That's about as clear an example of a straw man as I could ever come up with. If this isn't what you're saying, then please, by all means, do clarify your position.

In both of the scenarios you present there's supposedly less violence because potential evildoers fear reprisal. In the first scenario, by the officials in the case one has an illegal weapon. In the second, against civilians because they might shoot you. Obviously, the first scenario is quite a bit more civilized.

I don't see it. The first society requires more government interference in the lives of its people to impose a certain way of life, while the second is more permissive of letting people live their lives as they wish within the confines of law and order. The first society punishes behavior that might signify intent to commit violence, while the second punishes only violent behavior itself. It's common for people to make trade-offs like this, and I don't see what makes one scenario necessarily more or less civilized.

I'll tell you what happens. When the US-backed military extremists made a coup in greece, people fled to the mountains, supplied themselves, set up infrastructure and entered a guerilla war of atrittion. Any other questions?

I appreciate your answer. If this is what the drafters of your constitution had in mind, and your people are aware of this and agree with it, then good. Our founding fathers probably had a different idea in mind when they drafted our constitution.

Your attempt to usurp a methodological high-ground here is upsetted by your inability to supply me with zillions of links to irrefutable data.

You've made it clear that you're not interested in looking at such data, why should I waste my time? And I'm not really trying to make a case one way or another for gun control â€" we haven't even reached that point yet, as far as I'm concerned â€" but rather to dispel (in my opinion) widely-held misconceptions of American society. I don't know if growing up and living in America makes me an expert on American society, but hopefully my insight into the issue might be of interest to people who don't understand it or disagree with it.

I wish people were more interested in understanding what I'm saying, asking for clarifications if they need them,

As do I, instead of stereotyping my culture, calling me ignorant, or telling me I'm not worth having a discussion with. But I guess that's what one can expect from mild-tempered tolerance.

If you have an opinion, let's hear it.

I thought this was obvious from my previous posts. If not, hopefully this will be clear enough: People who favor gun rights and people who favor gun control both have the same goal of trying to preserve human life and maintain law and order, and they disagree on how to best accomplish this. One's opinion on the matter is a largely a result of one's unique cultural perspective in combination with one's observations on and experiences with violence. While this makes it a notoriously difficult issue to come to any sort of agreement on in terms of public policy, I hold out hope that common ground can be reached. While I think that stricter gun regulations may be called for, I think it's unrealistic at this point to expect that guns be banned outright (and I'm not necessarily convinced that this should be the case). Unfortunately, such discussions are usually compromised by being carried out as a knee-jerk response to tragic events like this or by being hijacked by pointless arguments like the ones I outlined in my previous post. Consequently, for better or worse, we continue to live with the status quo.

By the way, for those who are interested, this news excerpt is from last Friday's Democracy Now:

The Associated Press is reporting the gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, should not have been able to purchase the guns he used in the massacre. Federal regulations bar the sale of guns to individuals who have been "adjudicated mentally defective." In 2005, a judge ruled Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." The ruling came after two female students accused Cho of stalking them. But it appears the judge's ruling was never conveyed to federal authorities. This allowed Cho to pass the instant background check needed to buy the weapons.

[evenwolf]

radiowaves, Im glad youve reached that part of teen angst where you become a know-it-all.  Trust me, I sat through plenty of high school and college courses where the teacher knew less than me.

Fact is, I was wrong!   And my bluntheadedness served no purpose but to isolate me from others.  So lighten up.  You can't judge an internet debate based on the last post.  Locked or not locked.   People persuade others throughout the debate and small opinions sometimes LARGE opinions are effected.   Some folks' character become established, much like in a movie.  Which enriches the community, makes it sort of fleshed out rather than bland and dull.

The last pages in a forum debate do end up repeating themselves or serve little purpose, but that hardly negates the content of the debate's entirety. 

[big brother]

Since we've touched on the gun control topic, here's a link to the Penn and Teller episode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWeTEXSV7ts

It's interesting/entertaining.

[evenwolf]

That was a great episode.  I've seen many others and this one seemed a lot less biased.   Some may argue!

But I tend to agree with Penn.  Insane people in "gun free zones"  are shooting fish in a barrel.  Its the gun control laws that kept any of those students at VT from getting into a shootout with Seung-Hui.   He knew nobody would be carrying a gun, compared to say Walmart.

[Helm]

I don't think the state of our media is appreciably worse than the rest of the world.

I am no expert, but don't you have sensationalist entertainers-cum-political commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter on prime-time TV and Radio with a large percentage of listeners? The state of greek televised media isn't much better (in the horrid controlled media/entertainment type), but at least a few people here read newspapers still. What's the status of newspapers in america?

The idea that Americans are fearful, easily-manipulated sheep is just not true â€" or at least, it's no more true than it is anywhere else.

I contest that on grounds of other actual americans disagreeing with you, and they live there just as well as you do. But I'm not going to quote them on the subject, if they want, they can make that case. I think that even in this thread having americans explain how a gun is going to save them when they and their family are under attack tells me there's an issue with fear. And that fear I believe, is useful and cultivated to be used.

American's ideas about guns have existed long before the ratings-based, entertainment-driven, sensationalist, prime-time news we have today.

True. That doesn't mean the current situation doesn't profit from this american tradition.

I'd probably agree with you along the lines of “guns make crime more violent” rather than “guns make more crime,” especially with evidence presented in this thread suggesting that guns may actually reduce crime.

I think simply by having around, being trained to use and generally making the means available to own firearms (which are weapons, not tools) one is inviting the concept of violence to have a more prominent position in the collective psyche and therefore culture, of a people.

This isn't a wild claim that aliens are mind-controlling the goverment or anything. It's a very simple line of thinking.

Instead of calling for the government to unilaterally outlaw guns

For the record I never said this would be a full-solution, for one. I talked about social programs, long-term investment in culture and gradual draw-backs on arms availability. Obviously I don't think the goverment's job is to protect you from what-if's mainly. But it is to suggest positive social change through benign and gradual change. A goverment's job, as elected by the people is not only to serve the people's desires (we call that 'mob rules'), it is to serve the people's best interest. At least in greece, hey, perhaps it's different in America.

proponents of gun control in this country should be trying to reeducate people and change their opinions, so that the population will want to make guns illegal.

I agree.

[qute]Of course, this method is much harder, longer, and may never result in success, but at least it doesn't mean usurping the will of the people.[/quote]

I agree.

But I like how this seems to suggest that the current situation in america is the result of no dimagogical control of 'the will of the people'. Consider the concept of other-side propaganda on the subject, and who benefit. Obviously, there are far more malicious intentions that fuel the trade and circulation of guns to the population at large than there are in those that oppose such a thing...

Unless you want to talk about a communist conspiracy aiming at the disarmament of the US population before the coup d'etat is attempted, like most of the pro-gun nuts do.

If you cultivate a culture of violence you'll reap violence. Then you say 'we need the guns against the violence'.

I am sorry, where is the issue with this argument? I don't see me making anything easier to attack here. You might be taking what I am saying the wrong way, but I do not fall into any fallacies of that kind.

Otherwise I'm being taught a method of precise and clean murder, oh, if the need ever arises or something. That's a culture of violence.

Same here. I think you misunderstand the concept, again. You might not like my opinions, but they're not based on a cheap easier-to-attack version of anyone's point.

And in many other places. Quite simply, no.

Wow, if you see it that way, then what can I say. Quite simply, no? Well then. I guess that seals that part of the conversation, now that you have decreed finally on it.

Like when the idea of owning a gun is dismissed because it presupposes a culture of violence?

Jesus! Yes one of many compelling arguments against owning a gun is that having them around is dangerous and leads to a mentality where fatal danger is part and parcel of every-day-life. This is no strawman, this is a simple argument.

Assertion: “I think people should be allowed to have guns in order to protect themselves.”
Response: “I think your culture has a problem with violence.”

The concept of a culture of violence is not a mere degradation of the otherwise-oh-so-noble desire of the saintly US population to have their guns just in case they ever have to defend themselves. It wallows in a never-draining pool of blood, and permiates almost every facet of their society. It is an altogether bigger issue than mere gun control, and as such I did not introduce it to narrow your argument as to shoot it down more easily, but to widen the scope of this discussion.

That's about as clear an example of a straw man as I could ever come up with.

Again, please return to your philosophical lexicon then.

If this isn't what you're saying, then please, by all means, do clarify your position.

a little horsey runs free in the fields

I don't see it. The first society requires more government interference in the lives of its people to impose a certain way of life, while the second is more permissive of letting people live their lives as they wish within the confines of law and order.

That's one way to look at it. I have no hippy sunshine belief that there will be a time when people will not need to be deterred against petty crime by the goverment law and order. As such, if they're to be deterred by something by default, I find it more civilized that they are deterred by a fair but fim law set by the state rather than by the somewhat whimpsy and prone to moodswings trigger finger of some redneck in his trailer.

Each to his own on this one.

The first society punishes behavior that might signify intent to commit violence, while the second punishes only violent behavior itself.

Out of this equation you're leaving the severity of punishment, the fairness of the trial haha and well.. civilization on the whole. But as I said, you make a compelling argument, if you're trying to convince yourself.

It's common for people to make trade-offs like this, and I don't see what makes one scenario necessarily more or less civilized.

It is very probable then that your grasp of what civilization is is very weak. One of the main reasons we like democracy is because it insures (well.. it tries, but let's not bring the failures of democracy into this, you already think you know quite more than you do) equal and fair treatment to all in the judicial system. But what am I telling you?

I appreciate your answer. If this is what the drafters of your constitution had in mind, and your people are aware of this and agree with it, then good. Our founding fathers probably had a different idea in mind when they drafted our constitution.

That may very well be the case. They probably didn't think guns would become so efficient, so easy to use by 10 year olds, and so on. An outmodded provision that brings now more trouble than it's worth might be a good idea to be looked into. You know... amended.

The greek constitution is one of the best in europe out of a simple virtue: it's one of the most recent. We became a sovereign country just a couple of hundred years ago. We took bits and pieces from almost all european constitutions, and we haven't had to amend it vitally. But yours might be in in order of a bit of a clean-up.

You've made it clear that you're not interested in looking at such data, why should I waste my time?

It's right that you shouldn't because I said it could be read either way and I don't want this to become a 'read my pdf' contest. If it did come down to numbers and strict interpretations of numbers I think however that a simple look at the number of accidental gun injuries and fatalities on a yearly scale in the US is a good argument in itself to start thinking about gradual pull-back on gun availability. Make it more difficult for a man to own a gun legally, crack down on illegal gun trade. I am not saying get rid of them completely by tomorrow, I never did.

Reasonable to you?

As do I, instead of stereotyping my culture, calling me ignorant, or telling me I'm not worth having a discussion with. But I guess that's what one can expect from mild-tempered tolerance.

Again, a pathology of a culture is not a stereotype of all of it. I tried to steer away from 'but ...I love america!' talk because that's the talk of the apologist, but damn it, I enjoy so many facets of american culture, movies, books, video-games music, some of my fondest aquaintances online are real, actual americans whom I respect and admire. I am not talking about them. I am talking about an american PROBLEM. Not america AS A PROBLEM.

And yes, sadly your brain goes faster than your ability to reason, and you should take two steps back and see how much of what you say rest on anything else than empty rhetoric, because I will call you on that stuff... if I can be bothered. And I am gradually losing interest.

People who favor gun rights and people who favor gun control both have the same goal of trying to preserve human life and maintain law and order

huh? I'd think a sizable portion of the people who want their guns are interested in preserving their lives and those of the people they care about and damn the evil-doers, and pro-gun people haven't exactly done their best to dispel that notion.

Law and order simply clashes with law of the west. I cannot see how you hope to spin this otherwise. Even if 90% of the time gun-ownership and gun-use doesn't come to unreasonable use of force (fat chance) that 10% it does! How does this help law and order?

While I think that stricter gun regulations may be called for, I think it's unrealistic at this point to expect that guns be banned outright (and I'm not necessarily convinced that this should be the case).

I think stricter gun regulations might be called for as well. It is unrealistic, and I am not suggesting guns be banned outright.

Our opinions converge on this. What's your opinion on the culture of violence issue? My fever dream, doesn't exist? America has no fear in the air, no easy resort to violence there. It's all something I made up to be argumentative on the internet?

But it appears the judge's ruling was never conveyed to federal authorities. This allowed Cho to pass the instant background check needed to buy the weapons.[/i]

The responsible should be tried.

[Andail]

Insane people in "gun free zones"  are shooting fish in a barrel.  Its the gun control laws that kept any of those students at VT from getting into a shootout with Seung-Hui.   He knew nobody would be carrying a gun, compared to say Walmart.

Can you say it out loud that the problem now is that there are too few people carrying guns, instead of the other way around? Can you say that you prefer the wild west scenario where anyonce can carry out justice at will; everyone's a judge and an excecutor?

You pro-gun people need to realise that you can't tell who's the bad guy and who's the good guy in advance. This time the perpetrator had a medical record of mental instability and whatnot, but it's not like it's always the case. Your perfect model society is based on the notion that the world consists of good and bad guys, and that everything is safe and sound as long as the evidently good guys carry weapons and the bad guys don't.