Messages

I agree.

oh, helm

It's more prominent in the US in my opinion. Don't simplify what I say so it's more easy to attribute to a vacant generalization. This is called a strawman argument. Don't make strawmen out of my arguments. Thanks.

Quit creating weak generalizations about Americans and I'll quit pointing it out.  Whether or not you think it's 'strawman' or something else.

It was a stunning display of ignorance I'm not likely to forget anytime soon.

Blah blah blah you hold life very dear but murdering criminals must die. Culture of violence.

A stunning display of ignorance huh?  So you think it's okay to commit murder as long as you make up for it afterwards?  Yeah, that'll really deter violent scumbags from committing murder.  Grand idea.

It's ignorant to presume I am out of touch with reality because I am proposing more humanist methods of dealing with murderers, or am against easy gun ownership. It's just begging to be flamed.

I didn't say you were out of touch with reality for the reasons quoted above.  You're out of touch with reality because you seem to think "more humanist methods of dealing with murderers" is going to have some effect on the rate of violent crimes.  You're out of touch with reality because you seem to think "easy gun ownership" is causing violence.

Trust me, it's not me begging to be flamed.

Of course. But does a culture of violence, and easy access to guns lead to less violence or more violence? I want less violence. I am not living in some fantasy world where there's no violence. I am living in europe where there's no suicidal rampages at schools with 30 people dead... yet, at least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan

Must have been that damn Culture. Of. Violence. in America finding it's way across the pond ....

Strawman. You're talking to me. I never once said anything utopian. If you're talking to the rest of the forum, talk to the rest of the forum, not to me. Don't discredit what I say for what it isn't.

Trust me, I don't need to discredit what you say.

Then why don't you start feeling different about capital punishment, Darth? It's not very difficult. You just say 'I was wrong, and I am contradicting myself by holding the sanctity of human life foremost and in the same breath saying people are not human if they exceed their ratio of bad deeds and therefore to be put to death by their fellow humans.'

I'm not wrong.  I stated my beliefs.  Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong.

As m0ds said ...

And please do read the rules of every section you plan to post in before posting in them.

Thank you.

It's interesting that an overwhelming majority of americans advocate the second ammendment with the argument "so that the government can be overthrown in case it misbehaves", while not even 50% of the americans go to vote in their elections.
So they are very concerned about being able to change their government with brute force, but no so interested in doing it parliamentarily.

Sad but true.

There's also a problem in the US with people who don't hold anyone's life but those of their family and loved ones in high regard. Don't you think that's a bit of an issue?

Yes, but AGAIN (and again, and again, and again ...) this isn't something unique to the U.S.  Must we keep generalizing?

It's not very often but in the US they decide to take up automatic weapons and go on murdering rampages. I think there's a violent culture issue. And I think it's an availability of weapons issue.

And I think it's naive to think that the availability of weapons is what's causing this violence.  As, again (and again, and again, and again...) there IS a problem in America with violence.  But trying to simplify it by saying, "They can so easily get a gun ... that's what made them violent" is just plain ignorant and dangerous.

Just because one CAN get a gun, doesn't mean they'll go off on a murdering rampage.

There are other [far deeper] issues in play.

You mean like you when you said you didn't care about the execution of that 'douchebag' Stanley Tookie Williams? That sort of disrespect for human life? The way you spoke about something mindblowing as it is to TAKE SOMEONE'S LIFE so casually? The way you stiked him off of the 'human' roster because he was a murderer too?

It might be the case you're no 'good guy' in your video-game, Darth.

Way to quote one particular part of a thread from two years ago!

As I stated very clearly in that thread: I hold human life very dear.  It's something I think no human being has the right to take from another.  However, should a person (man or woman) willingly and intentionally commit a murder than they forfeit their right to their own life.  They've taken somebody elses and thus, don't deserve the right/privelage of their own.  (and I believe the term I used was "scumbag")

Again (and again and again and again ...) you all can keep denying the realities of the world we live in if you want.  That's on you.  I hope (truely) that you never have to eat a reality sandwhich for lunch.

What the...? I'll be the first to underline the atavistic part of the human psyche as existent, important and not to be comfortably ignored, but we're talking about civilization here. Who argues based on human nature in such a conversation? The whole point of human civilization was the attempt to ease one's animalistic instinct to the point where a group of humans can live in relative harmony. Of course we still serve out our prime directives (mate, protect young, live in safety, excert power and control) within the confines of this civilization, and there's constant friction, but to mention 'it's just human nature to kill, bud' just zeroes the whole point of what most cultures are trying to do.

Again (and again, and again, and again...) you're clearly not seeing the [obvious] point I'm trying to make.

I never said it was human nature to kill, so didn't zero out anything.  As I've said (again and again and again...) in this thread I have no intention of taking a human life.  The statement about the first humans wanting the other's rock-pile was to point out that no matter how "cultured" and "enlightened" we become as a society ... there'll be violence present.  There'll always be those that covet what their neighbors have.  Do I like this fact?  No, certainly not.  Do I blindly deny this fact out of some flimsy utopian ideal?  Hell no.

I would love it if it were more difficult to obtain a gun.

I would love it if there were less guns on the street.

I would love it if there were [far] less violent crimes.

I would love it if I didn't have to feel the way I do about capital punishment.

Reality sucks.  I'd love it if I could just burry my head in the sand and deny it, but I can't.

We're not talking about Israel, Bosnia, Japan or Russia here. So why you pull that into it is beyond me. I'm not generalizing - those things are fairly American. Just like dumbass lawsuits.

You say you're not generalizing, then say "those things are fairly American" which IS generalizing.  Violent crime is NOT "fairly American".  That's why I brought those other instances into this conversation.

If you just call everything we say generalizations, mis-informed opionions, of course you're going to come across as a 'typical' American. It's a shame you can't see the points we're trying to make.

I am not saying everything being said against America[ns] is generalization, nor did I call (I don't believe) anybody mis-informed.  I'm merely putting my opinion on the discussion table.  Which is, after all, what a debate is about.

As I've said several times in this thread; I do see the points you're trying to make.  Just because I don't necessarily agree with them doesn't mean I don't see them.  But I guess since I'm a violent, arrogant, gun-toting American I must be blind to logic and reason.

Okay ... I'm growing weary of this debate

Firstly, the second ammendment of the constitution was put in place to ensure that the citizenry of the U.S. would have the arms necessary to over-throw their government should that government begin to resemble the governement they'd just fought and bled for years to defeat.  In modern (contemporary) times that's gotten a bit lost.

Again, I don't own a gun.

Again, YES there IS a problem in America (and the world) with violence and those that don't hold life in high regard.

Again, yes it is rediculously easy to get a gun in America.

I'm not denying any of these things.  I'm simply saying that whether or not people want to admit it there are those that don't give a shit about human life, or your rights, or anything.  There are those that seek advantage over another by violent means.  That's not me giving in to fear and propoganda.  It's a reality that has existed since the first human wanted the other human's rock-pile.

Whenever I see a news item saying "school shooting", it's America. Whenever I see a news item saying "Sniper kills x people", it's America. I find that typical.

Whenever I hear "young boy straps bomb to chest and blows up bus" it's Israel.  Whenever I hear "hundreds found dead in mass grave" it's Bosnia.  Whenever I hear "gas released by religious zealot in subway" it's Japan.  Whenever I hear "group of armed men kill dozens of children in a school after holding them hostage for 3 days" it's Russia.

Would you people please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD stop generalizing the world's problems as American problems?  It's simply ignorant and rediculous.

Please find hosting [for the images] that works...

Thanks.

Screenshots are down again ... find better (more reliable) hosting.

Yes, let's completely nullify this tragedy and ignore the fact that it was the perpetrator of this act, clearly mentally unstable and in need of help, who in the end chose to act out in violence. Rather, it's because of people like you Darth, Geoffkan, RickJ, etc., that this happened. You're the ones with blood on your hands. As for those dead students, what did they think was going to happen to them? It's this poor Seung-hui fellow that's the real victim in all of this. Ah well, those crazy Americans, in the end they're just getting what they deserve, what?

Whatever one's opinions are on gun control, I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit, and sublimely hypocritical if you deem yourself a pacifist.

That is so incredibly stupid I have to assume you're joking?

This debate has gone in the toilet.

Would you mind terribly explaining how/why I have blood on my hands?

Is it perhaps because I'm a realist who knows full well that no matter how enlightened mankind may become there are still going to be those that are going to be violent?

Is it perhaps because I'm willing to protect my friends/family at all costs?

I really don't see why it's so hard to understand that there's violence in the world and there always will be.  If group A disarms, group B will ramp up their guns and destroy group A.  There's always going to be a group B waiting to take control.  Deny it all you want.  Rationalize all you want this is a fact of human existance.  You can live in a pretty little shell and ignore the outside world [reality] ... and I truely hope you never have to experience a violent crime.

But I find these "blinders" people are wearing to the reality of the world FAR more dangerous than a law-abiding citizen who owns a gun for protection reasons.

It's late ... and I didn't read all the replies.  But I still maintain that I have no intention of shooting/killing anybody.  Putting the gun to the back of his head isn't the same as pulling the trigger.  Defending yourself (or more importantly those you love) is not hypocritical in ANY fashion.  And if the "bad" guys are going to use guns (which they are whether or not anybody wants to see this simple fact) then your average citizen needs to have the ability to level the playing field.

I'm not gonna take the time to find out if the guy breaking into my house has violent intentions.  I'm just gonna assume he does.

God forbid anybody with a family is put in the situation of a break-in ... but I'd wager were you the victim of such a crime you'd be whistling a different tune.

It's easy to say "I never think of these things" or "that couldn't happen to me" blah blah blah ... I'd wager the 32 dead VT students thought the same thing right up to the moment the bullet(s) killed them.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem here ... as I said earlier there IS a problem.  But it's not the availability of guns that's causing it.

I don't live in fear of somebody breaking into my house ... just as I suspect those students weren't living in fear of getting executed in class.  But the reality is, it's possible for it to happen.  Maybe not likely, but possible.  I have the philosophy that "it's better to have something and not need it than to need it and not have it."

For the record.  I don't own a gun and don't intend on having one anytime soon.

Should guns be outlawed, not because of what they are, but because American society breeds people crazy enough to use them?

Here we go again :/ Let's just jump on the "america sucks" bandwagon.

Well for the record, guns are designed to kill, and there's no way out of that. And if I had the choise, I'd never touch a gun in my whole life. And the whole fact, that you have a lethal weapon to protect yourself is just hypocrite, and what's more, I find it utterly sickening.

I'm sorry, but no. I am "enlightened" to such a degree where I can honestly say, "I have no intention of shooting another human being."  But I'm the only person I can say that about.

Whether you (or anybody) wants to admit it or not, just because you won't hold a gun, others will.  And there will be others still that don't share the enlightened view or concern for human life that most of us do.  There are those that will harm, hurt, and kill for nothing more than a few dollars.

We live in a world full of people that will own/carry guns whether we want/allow them to (and not just in the U.S. as shocking as that may seem).  As long as that's the case there will be people who own guns for protection reasons.  They own the gun for no other reason than that, whether or not you can accept that.  And there's nothing hypocritical about that.

Bludgeoning, or stabbing someone to death, is a far more up-close and personal experience. It requires time and physical, not to mention mental, effort.

The distance between murderer and victim when a gun is involved more or less allows for a mental buffer zone. Shooting someone across a room is a lot different to feeling their skull crack under your fists.

Point. Pull trigger. Move on. Impersonal and effective. And far too dangerous to be widely available.

I'm going to guess that you've never shot somebody?

If you own a gun it means, on some level, that you are willing to use it. You would kill to "defend". Why else would you own a gun? Potential intruders on your personal property/self won't see it at the bottom of your sock drawer. It doesn't become a deterent until you're waving it in someones face.

That kind of generalization is dangerous.  Just because somebody owns a gun doesn't mean they're willing (or able) to kill somebody with it.  As I stated above, just because we might be enlightened to not want to take human life there are others who aren't.

If I had a family (kids and wife) I would have a hand gun in my house.  The bottom line is ... the guy breaking into my house at 3am isn't there for tea and I won't have anyway to know what he's bringing with him.  Should I be like, "excuse me sir?  I was wondering what your intentions are?" as I hold a baseball bat?  So he can turn towards me with his gun and kill me and then do god knows what with my family?

Good luck with that if that's what you want to do.

I'm gonna pull my hand gun out of the sock drawer and put it to the back of his head and ask him what his intentions are.  Protecting my family is FAR more important to me than some criminal breaking and entering my house or anybody's feelings toward gun laws.

Oh wait ... as long as we ban guns that criminal breaking into my house couldn't possibly have a gun!!  I forgot.  I guess my baseball bat will be enough.

I just don't see the logic in selling guns like TV sets.  You sell a gun to a person, he has one of two things on his mind.
One: It's for his own protection.
Two: He's got a grudge and a great idea to make himself feel better.

I don't think you can so easily narrow a gun purchase down to those two reasons.  I have had a mind to purchase a gun before.  I enjoy target shooting.  I enjoy the feeling of shooting.  It's very relaxing for me.  I'm not violent and have no intention of shooting anybody.  But I wasn't thinking of getting it for either of those two reasons.  (for the record I don't own a gun)

Now ... I don't have the statistic to back this up, but I'd wager that the percentage of violent crimes committed with legally purchased guns is very low compared to the number of violent gun crimes committed with illegal guns.  I think most people that legally own guns do so for other reasons than committing crimes with them.

I look at it like this: If I was disgruntled (or pyschotic) ... and was going to commit a [gun] crime.  I certainly wouldn't go out, register, and obtain the gun I plan to use in a legal manner.  I'd get it from some junky down on 8th and Ocean so it couldn't be traced back to me.  Removing my right to obtain the gun legally isn't going to stop the junky from selling it to me "on the streets".

I think if guns weren't so easily available these kinds of things wouldn't happen so often at least. Because when you're angry or whatever that causes you to do something like this you'll just grab a gun and go. Otherwise you'd had to come with something else and actually PLAN and do stuff before doing anything. And during that time people tend to come down rather than acting on first emotion.

This is another area where I can present both sides of the coin ... yes, you're right, it would seem logical that if it were not so easy to obtain the guns these shooting-sprees would occur less.  However, one could also argue (as I pointed out before) that the violent person might then just lace the cafeteria's soup with cyanide (or some other poison).  Mass murder is mass murder, gun or poison.

I would agree that, in most situations, taking a few minutes to collect yourself could lower the anger enough to stem the desire to commit the crime ... but somebody willing to do what this guy did probably isn't going to take the time to chill.  He's gonna grab the first weapon(s) he can find and do the deed.  If there's no gun at hand, he'll turn to something else.

So yes, if he grabs a knife instead ('cause guns aren't easily available) he might kill less people ... however, it's still a deeper issue at play here than the availability of the guns.

Sorry guys ... again, I see the point(s) you're making.  But I simply don't buy that somebody is sitting around and says, "gosh ... I CAN get a gun, so I'll go kill some folk".  Just simply don't agree with that.  A person that wants to commit a violent crime is going to do it with or without a gun.

Is a person stabbed to death any more/less dead than a person shot and killed?

(the reason I made the point about the poisoning the soup is to counter the rebuttal that it's far harder to kill 33 people with a knife than with a gun)

I do agree that there are WAY too many guns.  I didn't mean to imply otherwise.  I just think there are deeper issues causing these things than the availability of guns.  And again, as I said before, if you remove people's right to own a gun legally, you're simply not going to stop those that want/get them illegally.  I wish it weren't so ... but it is.

This is one of those issues that people tend to stand 100% on the left or 100% on the right.  I'm the odd ball standing in the middle I guess.  I would love to see less guns on the street but I'm enough of a realist to know that removing the legal right to own guns isn't going to lower this number.  At the same time, though I don't personally own a gun, I love to go shooting ocassionally.  I have no intention of ever shooting anybody (and hope I never have to) but I like going to the range with my father and shooting some paper targets.

The very last thing I want to make people think is that I'm a card carrying member of the NRA ... I'm not.  I'm personally sickened by these types of events and would be willing to take a shot at (pun intended) ANY solution that is realistic.  But the sad truth, as I see it, is that removing the second ammendment won't make a damn bit of difference.

Guns, yes, were invented as weapons of warfare.  Those other things I mentioned weren't, true.  However, my point was simply that given enough thought, just about anything can be used to kill (dropping a computer on somebody's head as you mentioned).  A murder is still a murder regarless of the weapon used to commit it.

The 'violent tendencies' aren't going to go away if we throw out the second ammendment.

I'd agree that on some primal level we all have violent tendencies ... but as modern humans we've (most of us) learned to temper them.  These violent criminals don't have that block/control and they act on them.

I don't want to be misunderstood ... I'm not a huge advocate of the second ammendment.  I just don't see it's abolishment as a solution to the problem of violent crimes.  You make good and valid points which I understand, I just don't agree.  I suppose it's probably pointless to debate over it too much ... as this is one of those things that'll most likely never be proven (either way) and be kicked around forever.

See this is where I disagree ...

This guy had violent tendencies (as most of these types do).  The availability of firearms didn't cause these violent tendencies.  If the guy couldn't get his hands on a gun so easily (and wasn't willing to make the few easy steps it takes to get one illegally) he'd just have found another way to commit the crime.  Poisoning food, toxic gas, etc.  Imagine if he'd snuck into the cafeteria and laced all the soup with cyanide?  The death-toll could have, potentially, been FAR worse than 33 (not that this isn't horrible of course).

So ... do we need to outlaw rat poisoning?  Or pesticides?  Or silverware/cuttlery?  Or common household cleaning products which anybody can make a bomb out of?  Where do we draw the line?

Do you really believe that if guns were outlawed that people still couldn't get them?  Do you truthfully think that the black-market availability of illegal guns would simply stop if the second ammendment were done away with?  I just don't see this as the case.

The removal of the second ammendment would, in my opinion, cause more crime.  Your average street-thug wants to break into a house ... as it stands now, he has to wonder if the citizen living in the house has a gun of some kind.  This fact might cause him to change his mind and not commit the break-in.  Take that out of the equation, these criminals (which WILL still have guns) now don't need to worry about it.  Same with muggings, robberies, etc.

The only thing the removal of the second ammendment would accomplish would be taking guns away from people who are responsible and own them legally.  To believe that it would stop the criminal element from having/using them is just naive in my opinion.

You have a great writing style.  Very smooth and easy to read.  I rarely make it through the first paragraph(s) of most blogs I read but I read yours top to bottom.

I say keep it going [public].

It actually made me remember the old days when I first got going with my career ... the youthful excitement of nothing but opportunity and prospects of the future to come.  Now I'm just an old man

Rock on.

It is incredibly easy to get a gun in the U.S.  I could, were I so inclined, have one by lunch time.

I do not, however, consider that fact to be the problem here.  It certainly isn't the cause of these types of shootings.  Most of these sprees are committed with illegally obtained weapons (not sure yet in this case as they're not releasing full details yet).  Were guns outlawed in the U.S. (bye-bye 2nd ammendment) it wouldn't stop [most of] these events.

The shootings are the sad result of much deeper issues that should be addressed first.  I don't think we should focus on the fact that guns are easy to obtain, but why the fellow felt inclined to do what he did.

Anyone else care to say hello?

Hello.

Ummmm ... yeah, it's apparent you read the rules.

[Not the hints & tips board]

Not the hints & tips board

Take it in there, or to PMs