Who did the killing is VERY important. What his nationality was, not so much in the sense that you seem to be posting on. But people are trying to figure out why and what made this sicko snap, not an inanimate gun.
The fact that he’s not a citizen can bring some question into play; should you be required to be a citizen to buy and own a gun? Then his nationality could become an important factor. I’m not sure about the specifics, but there was something tossed out there earlier involving gun ownership and legal immigrants that was brought up for some reason.
Though, in short his nationality isn’t going to make anyone feel any better about what happened.
And just for sanity’s sake: Unless you personally knew him or someone wrote a report on it, how would you even begin to know how “Americanized” he was? Would it make YOU feel better if he was 100% Americanized?
EDIT: It's not so much of an issue of HOW he did it now since that was pretty much old news since last night, at least. Now people are wanting to know WHY.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited April 2007
You're making allegories without really addressing the differences. What would happen if we ban every sort of transportations? I don't know exactly, but it will no doubt be negative. Banning guns doesn't have that negative impact (or atleast I haven't seen it argued), and thus your argumentations falls. If we would somehow arrive to the point that banning transportations would be more beneficial than it's negative impact, by all means let's do that as well..
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What's this? The state attourney vs Mr. Gun? That quote so misplaced by miles it's not even funny. This is an argument about what degree of lethality should be placed in the hands of the people-killing people. Explosives, rocket setc.. are all banned from private hands, now tell me why or why not we should place the line at firearms.
It falls back onto how much banning firearms would help gun violence, which is a more reasonable debate than citing such bullish quote.
<!--quoteo(post=1621686:date=Apr 18 2007, 04:39 PM:name=Shoot_me)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shoot_me @ Apr 18 2007, 04:39 PM) [snapback]1621686[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Let us all hope that when the details about the contents of his computer are released, that he didn't have Counter-Strike installed on it.... <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> On the other hand, should he have DVDs with "Killing Gore Gutsplosion Bloodshower 3: Now With a Thirty Minute Rape Scene in the Middle," he'll be a completely normal young man with a "healthy interest in movies..."
<!--quoteo(post=1621700:date=Apr 18 2007, 11:28 AM:name=Epidemic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Epidemic @ Apr 18 2007, 11:28 AM) [snapback]1621700[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You're making allegories without really addressing the differences. What would happen if we ban every sort of transportations? I don't know exactly, but it will no doubt be negative. Banning guns doesn't have that negative impact (or atleast I haven't seen it argued), and thus your argumentations falls. If we would somehow arrive to the point that banning transportations would be more beneficial than it's negative impact, by all means let's do that as well.. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's an enormous difference between 'privately owned car' and 'bullet train' (and a multitude of other transportation vehicles), and the simplified way you're trying to derail my abstract (already self-imposed label) comparison would require transportation vs implements that kill. Or, in the opposite direction: a Glock 17 versus a '96 Ford Contour. The whole point is that car isn't that much like a gun, but it's more deadly, and there are fewer of them than guns in the US. The point wasn't "cars are bad too, we can't ban guns" it was notice the fact that between to luxury commodities, one is actually more dangerous (ie, the car). I assure you, you don't need a gun to survive, but you also don't need a car (and thus, getting rid of them 'because we don't really need them' isn't necessarily an effective argument, no matter how much you want to guilt people into admitting 'I just like to shoot at targets').
<!--quoteo(post=1621703:date=Apr 18 2007, 07:01 PM:name=UltimaGecko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(UltimaGecko @ Apr 18 2007, 07:01 PM) [snapback]1621703[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> There's an enormous difference between 'privately owned car' and 'bullet train' (and a multitude of other transportation vehicles), and the simplified way you're trying to derail my abstract (already self-imposed label) comparison would require transportation vs implements that kill. Or, in the opposite direction: a Glock 17 versus a '96 Ford Contour. The whole point is that car isn't that much like a gun, but it's more deadly, and there are fewer of them than guns in the US.... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A car beeing more deadly than a gun?
Ever thought about the fact, that you can kill people using a gun witheout harming yourself, while running people over with a car always carries the danger of the driver beeing injured (pedestrians falling through the windshield etc)
Everything can be used as a weapon. (Yes, I could kill you with a newspaper in 5 by hammering a fingertip wide hole in your skull, and so can everyone else) But objects designed as weapons have usually several abilitys, that make them more effective at killing than non-weapons. Range comes to my mind, as well as durability (although most cars a durable, they get heavily damaged, when you are trying to run people over. This also means that a hummer is more of a weapon, than a geo) Objects designed not as weapons usually have a purpose other than killing (reading the newspaper instead of crusing peoples heads in with it sounds reasonable)
When you compare a glock 17 against the 96 ford contour you will sooner or alter notice, that the glock can kill from afar, that you can kill lots of people more reliable and more quickly as well as in a much more rapid succession than with a car. Hence I can savely proclaim, that a glock 17 is a objects, designed as a weapon, while a 96 ford contour is a object not desgined as a weapon.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited April 2007
Alright, I made a generalisation! But I still think it holds true in varying degrees. Even banning privately owned car would have a very negative consequence that's definitely not in the same ballpark as banning guns.
Cars may be dangerous, but they serve an important function, same can't be said for the Guns IMO.
If you're not in the US, why do you give a f*** about gun control laws inside the US? You have your own country to safeguard against, we'll tend our own patch and you to yours.
This is what aggravates me. That everybody from Western Europe or some other post-industrial country that's not the USA jumps into everything about this nation. I've read countless ignorant ###### remarks and snipes at our culture, our community, our government, and I'm tired of how many foreigners on just about any forum think that because they read biased news about America (your news corporations are not holier than ours, they've got big time bias as well) that they feel educated and well-informed to make comments concerning events taking place in a country who most people get their information about in the movies and on tv.
Americans in America can't even agree on gun control. The Northeast have laws almost as strict as those in Europe. The southeast and southwest have looser laws in general. Gun control is regulated primarily at the state level and each state will decide what is the optimal amount of gun control needed. Personally, I think even background checks are stretching it. They cost a lot of money, in fact, a case was taken to the Supreme Court in which a sheriff's office sued the state for requiring background checks because the cost was prohibitively expensive. And there's no guarantee that a quiet person with no criminal background will stay that way. It might take just a flare of passion and emotion and BOOM, dead people.
Sometimes I feel that in general, regulation at the Federal level is just too broad and will definitely trample over regional interests from time to time. Gun control falls in this sort of situation.
The possession of guns is an equalizer, because no matter how strong or tall or fast you are, a bullet to any heart is going to make it stop beating.
Oh, and guns serve an incredible purpose. They can kill people. They can coerce people. They can defend people. They can influence people to a much greater degree than any car could. But at the end of the day, it's the PERSON who decides what purpose his or her gun is going to be used for. So you might as well give up on regulating human thought.
I fully understand your annoyance Rapier7. Specifically, I agree that a lot of the "outsiders" are obnoxious, rude, sensationalist and blindly anti-american. Their arguments are laughable, not because of the stance they represent but because of the way they're presented. A post that boils down to "lol americans suck" is a waste of space, is a waste of the time it took to write it and a waste of the time it takes others to read it.
But while you can certainly demand quality from us, you can't demand that we "mind our own business" (in my words). Your country is the biggest military superpower. Your country has enough nuclear weapons to end civilisation as we know it (and yes, that applies to several other countries too). Your country uses its military to actively promote its own agenda in the rest of the world. Furthermore, your country is a financial superpower, one of the driving and deciding forces in the global economy. A depression in the United States would not go unnoticed in the rest of the world. In short, anything your country does has the potential to drastically affect the rest of the world as well.
Therefore, your business is our business as well. Maybe not as far as gun control laws are concerned, but allow me the assumption that you were not only remarking on this specific case. I share your annoyance at the populistic "lol americans suck" posts that are all hyperbole and no substance, but I reserve the right to speak on internal U.S. matters.
TheAdjHe demanded a cool forum title of some type.Join Date: 2004-05-03Member: 28436Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
edited April 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1621677:date=Apr 18 2007, 09:45 AM:name=wankalot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wankalot @ Apr 18 2007, 09:45 AM) [snapback]1621677[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> why? I mean obviously if there were better background checks (such as a mental evaluation for example) this "whacko" in virginia would not have been able to get a gun so easily.
wholesale death is often a cause of reform in other matters that concern public safety.. why should gun laws be any different? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually you can't be deemed mentally incompetent or mentally retarded in many states and own a gun. I guess your wonderful euro news media left that out. "Better" background checks will do nothing, as all you can do is prohibit people from owning guns based on actualities, not things you imagine they "might" do. Are you going to pay for all of this? I didn't think so.
To lolfighter: you reserve a right that you do not possess. While it's fine and dandy to discuss this on an internet discussion board, I seriously hope you don't actually believe what you just typed, that you can speak on <b>internal</b> U.S. matters. We run our own country, we don't run yours (anymore), and that's how it is. You might have a vested interest, but it stops there.
<!--quoteo(post=1621749:date=Apr 18 2007, 11:17 PM:name=TheAdj)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheAdj @ Apr 18 2007, 11:17 PM) [snapback]1621749[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> We run our own country, we don't run yours (anymore), and that's how it is. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does Iraq have a say in how your country should be run? I count having ~145,000 forces in your country running it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The possession of guns is an equalizer, because no matter how strong or tall or fast you are, a bullet to any heart is going to make it stop beating.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Someone tries to kill you in the street with a gun, you're dead - got it. At least being attacked with a knife you'd have MORE of a chance to defend yourself as they're going to have to get up a lot closer to you than someone with a gun would.
<!--quoteo(post=1621720:date=Apr 18 2007, 02:32 PM:name=Faskalia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Faskalia @ Apr 18 2007, 02:32 PM) [snapback]1621720[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> A car beeing more deadly than a gun?
Ever thought about the fact, that you can kill people using a gun witheout harming yourself, while running people over with a car always carries the danger of the driver beeing injured (pedestrians falling through the windshield etc)
Everything can be used as a weapon. (Yes, I could kill you with a newspaper in 5 by hammering a fingertip wide hole in your skull, and so can everyone else) But objects designed as weapons have usually several abilitys, that make them more effective at killing than non-weapons. Range comes to my mind, as well as durability (although most cars a durable, they get heavily damaged, when you are trying to run people over. This also means that a hummer is more of a weapon, than a geo) Objects designed not as weapons usually have a purpose other than killing (reading the newspaper instead of crusing peoples heads in with it sounds reasonable)
When you compare a glock 17 against the 96 ford contour you will sooner or alter notice, that the glock can kill from afar, that you can kill lots of people more reliable and more quickly as well as in a much more rapid succession than with a car. Hence I can savely proclaim, that a glock 17 is a objects, designed as a weapon, while a 96 ford contour is a object not desgined as a weapon. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You’re missing the point. It’s not about what the car is designed to do. How effectively it can be used to kill people, or the intent behind the driver. It’s about the sheer numbers. Or is this all something more along the lines of you just don’t like guns so you don’t care.
It’s time we all stop trying to push for the government to protect people from themselves. Nearly EVERY time they do (here in the US at least) it breeds complacency, mediocrity, strips us of our rights, stagnates society, and all around lowers standards of living for everyone for the far and few between.
I would rather go to a college where people with a concealed-carry license can bring guns onto campus. It has NOTHING to do with any type of fascination with guns, complex, or mental disorder, which seems to be a prerequisite for gun ownership in some of your eyes. I would rather live in a society where everyone doesn’t fall into the category of “helpless sheep”.
I like thinking for myself, I like being able to make decisions on my own (without the governments help), I am willing to take responsibility for my choices, and I’m willing to fight for the ability to continue doing so.
“Savely” claim whatever you want. But regardless of what something is said to be built for, IT WILL NEVER HAVE INTENT ON IT’S OWN!! UNTIL THE PERSON USING IT APPLIES THEIR INTENT TO SAID OBJECT, it won't do ANYTHING.... Why is this, of all things, such a hard concept? Isn’t thought-policing supposed to be BAD anyway?!
EDIT: I’ve had my say. There’s no use in posting more. If you don’t like how we handle internal US affairs, like gun control, all I have to say to you is this:
If you don’t like it, that’s fine, but don’t expect us to take any of your advice. We’re not forcing anyone to come over here, and quit frankly, to anyone that’s going to be a busy-body International back-seat driver: we don’t want you over here in the first place then.
… You’d think that all the US-haters would be pleased that we’re supposedly killing each other hand over fist…
I'm done. I'm getting back to more important things than another Intarweb argument.
<!--quoteo(post=1621754:date=Apr 19 2007, 12:51 AM:name=Shoot_me)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shoot_me @ Apr 19 2007, 12:51 AM) [snapback]1621754[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It’s time we all stop trying to push for the government to protect people from themselves. Nearly EVERY time they do (here in the US at least) it breeds complacency, mediocrity, strips us of our rights, stagnates society, and all around lowers standards of living for everyone for the far and few between.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like when?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would rather live in a society where everyone doesn’t fall into the category of “helpless sheep”.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1/5th of Americans does not not make them "helpless sheep". It makes them "virtually helpless, armed sheep". Why the ###### can't you let the damn'd police protect you? Are you that arrogant that you think you'll do a better job of protecting society than them? Or are you that unpatriotic that you believe the Government can't protect you?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like thinking for myself, I like being able to make decisions on my own (without the governments help), I am willing to take responsibility for my choices, and I’m willing to fight for the ability to continue doing so.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has NOTHING to do with guns and/or gun control. Although you may be willing to "take responsibility" for your choices, just because you take responsibility for them doesn't necessarily make them the right choices. You could go murder a lot of people and "take responsibility" for it. Doesn't make it right.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Isn’t thought-policing supposed to be BAD anyway?!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most crimes that involve guns and are not performed by "professionals" tend to happen spontaneously. E.g someone gets angry about a more or less unimportant thing, overreacts and grabs a gun, because it was just easy to get. I do think that a ban could prevent a large number of these kind of crimes.
Referring to the "I need guns to defend myself" point: You want to defend your house etc... -> thats the job of the police. You want to defend your country.... -> thats the job of the military.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're not in the US, why do you give a f*** about gun control laws inside the US? You have your own country to safeguard against, we'll tend our own patch and you to yours. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And that's just pathetic, because especially the USA are involved in political discussions (and more) all over the world.
I’m not so unpatriotic that I don’t BELIEVE the government can protect me from everyone. I’m just not so unbelievably STUPID to believe they can. Police officers I have talked to AGREE with me on this to boot (see below).
They sure were a shining example of protection for those 32 students. Those 32 UNARMED students. Not that they don’t do a good job, they do... but THEY CANNOT BE EVERWHERE at once. *THAT* is a pipe-dream. If you don't live here, have someone else from the USA explain to you how our cities, towns, and overall country is spread out.
Thinking for myself has everything to do with gun control. You are wanting to take away my ability to make the decision to buy or not to buy one, even own one. You obviously don’t think people can make sound decisions with guns so you want to take them away. That simple. You’re trying to prevent people from having to make those decisions (to buy one? What to use it for? To keep it?). Cut and dry. And what gives you the authority or credibility in this topic to do so?
As for making said decisions and taking responsibility for them; You just going to have to trust my judgment as there isn’t anything you can do to take my guns away from me or prevent me from purchasing any more. And who’s to say your judgment is sound to begin with?
It’s legal here, and it will most likely continue to be LEGAL. Take it or leave it, hell you can sit down and rotate for all I care, that’s just the way it’s gong to be. Having a mindless discussion where you cut and past, dissect, change context, and otherwise puke out demands for banning of this and that because, well because you feel or think so or won’t look at anyone else’s argument or data without first deeming it false is pointless. You’ve made up your mind and are going to blindly romp about pushing your ideals without seemingly even considering the consequence WE, OVER HERE, in the USA would have to deal with if we did follow your advice. Advice that I am inclined to decline. Thankyouverymuch.
Cut and past, reply to separate paragraphs, leave out points you don’t want to deal with, whatever… I am thoroughly disgusted and done here.
Theres basically 2 arguments for us keeping our guns: the legal argument, and for lack of a better term, the moral argument.
The legal argument doesn't address whether it is "good" or "bad" that we have a right to own guns. It simply describes the process necessary to remove that right: You need a constitutional amendment, which requires a large majority of the American populace to be in support. This isn't likely to happen any time soon, so legally, we will retain our right to bear arms completely regardless of whether or not its a "good" right, and completely regardless of anything Europe says to complain about it.
Then there's the moral argument--is it "good" that we have liberal access to firearms? I believe that it is. And self defense plays a big part in my thinking here. Of course, obviously many people disagree...
<!--quoteo(post=1621768:date=Apr 18 2007, 07:10 PM:name=Razagal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Razagal @ Apr 18 2007, 07:10 PM) [snapback]1621768[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Referring to the "I need guns to defend myself" point: You want to defend your house etc... -> thats the job of the police. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, the police have neither the responsibility nor the power to protect me and my house from criminals. They have a generalized responsibility to protect <i>society</i>, but they cannot protect me personally. This has been established through many court cases where the police power proved insuficient to help individuals requesting protection from specific dangers. The responsibility to protect me and my family falls to ME alone. And for that, there is no better tool than a gun.
That's exactly right. I used to work in a theater and during Friday and Saturday nights (rush nights), and we would hire out an off duty cop. I talked with this guy (we stood together at the door) and I learned a lot about what he did. 16 years on the force, and he kept telling me that the police are not there to protect people.
The police aren't going to protect you because the police aren't going to follow you around and live in your house just in case. Defense of yourself and your family relies on yourself and nobody else.
<!--quoteo(post=1621749:date=Apr 19 2007, 12:17 AM:name=TheAdj)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TheAdj @ Apr 19 2007, 12:17 AM) [snapback]1621749[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]To lolfighter: you reserve a right that you do not possess. While it's fine and dandy to discuss this on an internet discussion board, I seriously hope you don't actually believe what you just typed, that you can speak on <b>internal</b> U.S. matters. We run our own country, we don't run yours (anymore), and that's how it is. You might have a vested interest, but it stops there. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I meant every single word. I'm going to speak up whether you like it or not, on any matter I feel like. If you want to prevent me from doing so, try.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-"Cxwf"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Cxwf")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--> regardless of anything Europe says to complain about it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate how some of the people I know online from Europe heavily stereotype all Americans. It's the same with Americans towards other nations in different ways. (ie: Middle East) Everyone is entitled to their opinions but there is a lot of stereotyping on this board from the majority towards all kinds of things.
Liberal, Conservative, ignorant, Can't Play NS well enough, Pubers, Clanners, Highflautin developers, pro gun, anti-gun, pro-life, pro-choice, atheist, extremist christian, racist, sexist, homophobic, anime junkie, people who say that others "don't have a real life" BS, noob mappers, etc.
You name it. It runs rampant on this board.
So Puzl and lolfighter, Rapier7 and Cxwf, all of us need to THINK BEFORE GOD DAMN POSTING.
You have a right to your opinion. You don't have a right to order others how to think. There's a difference between debating and sharing opinion and telling others what to think and stereotyping.
What Cxwf meant Puzl is that US will do what the US will do ultimately and your nation will do what your nation will want to do. He didn't say it all that well.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited April 2007
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> What Cxwf meant Puzl is that US will do what the US will do ultimately and your nation will do what your nation will want to do. He didn't say it all that well. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If only it stopped there. Funny how you get annoyed off when someone comments on your internal affairs. Take a bit of criticism. Nobody is inciting rebellion here, they're simply posting their perspective on the issues. Stop being so defensive and get on with the discussion. They are just points in a discussion, deal with it and move on. "Screw you guys I'm going home" doesn't actually win the argument.
<!--quoteo(post=1621855:date=Apr 19 2007, 04:53 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Apr 19 2007, 04:53 AM) [snapback]1621855[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If only it stopped there. Funny how you get annoyed off when someone comments on your internal affairs. Take a bit of criticism. Nobody is inciting rebellion here, they're simply posting their perspective on the issues. Stop being so defensive and get on with the discussion. They are just points in a discussion, deal with it and move on. "Screw you guys I'm going home" doesn't actually win the argument. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True points old friend. My only point above was that I wish we would all try better listen and think before talking. If it only stopped there is correct. It is a common hubris on this board to get carried away. Were you offended by what Cxwf said Puzl?
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited April 2007
There are sites with much higher levels of moderation on the method of discussion ( e.g. k5 ).
No, I wasn't offended by what cxwf said, I just wanted to highlight that this has nothing to do with Europe vs US. The debate is just as lively within the US, with *IDENTICAL* arguments being framed by US citizens, so anyone who wishes to dismiss a criticism as 'Euro inteference' is just sidestepping the issue as that person will find the same argument from within the US too.
For the record i never used the phrase "you Americans" once, and if i sounded like i was generalising all americans into one category than i apologise.
And if i wanna have an opinion on what goes on in a country besides my own then i damn well have the right to! Dont give me this "you dont live here.. so SUYF" crap. My argument were not based on cultural aspects or the "American" psyche, they were based on logical arguments and can be applied to anywhere in the world with easy access to guns.
Im not trying to change your opinion , im just taking part in a disscussion. Dont get all antzy and ultra defensive just because my opinions differ from your own.
My point is simple: Guns make it easy for anyone to kill. Yeah sure you may be responsible for your own decisions. Capabable of deciding whether you buy a gun and what you do with it. But what if you decide to kill someone? the person you killed didnt get to decide whether or not he would die? No.
Sure people who die in motor accidents, pub brawls etc dont decide either.. But id address both these examples by saying a) a person wounded by a bullet is more likely to die than a person wounded in a brawl or a car accident b) Guns, unlike a punchup, can make people vent aggression in a far more lethal way than they intended. There can be cases where a fatal gun wound would be nothing more than a blackeye had the aggressor not had a gun.
And about objections to background checks because they may be too expensive etc. Wouldn't it be worth it? your tax money goes into other things designed to save lives...
By the way, before i get flamed to hell just for having an opinion, i have no doubt that the gun proponents in here are responsible people capable of owning a gun. But guys! This world contains idoits as well as evil/very disturbed people. These sorts of people should not be able to own a gun.
And shoot_me.... WTH... give me another purpose a gun may possibly have besides shooting hunting/ target shooting or killing people. Saying guns are designed to discharge projectiles is like saying paint is designed to dry. How something does something is different to its purpose
ultimate gekko.... ANY there you go ANY <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> far out so childish correcting online spelling. its like playing counterstrike and someone says "leet", but then you get upset and say "you silly boy! Its spelt 'elite'".
I know im not going to change your minds... i was just taking part in a disscussion. you know? Those things where people have different opinions?
its a sad state of affairs to see so many americans still hanging on to the "us versus them, lets shoot every last one of those ###### indians" mentality that was responsible for the genocide of the native american population.
as an european i am sincerely proud that these rejects had the sense to get the ###### out of our continent
btw: shoot_me, nothing in this thread is annoying you more than jimmeh's avatar and signature. its like waving a red cloth in front of a bovine animal
<!--quoteo(post=1621917:date=Apr 19 2007, 02:14 PM:name=TOmekki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TOmekki @ Apr 19 2007, 02:14 PM) [snapback]1621917[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> btw: shoot_me, nothing in this thread is annoying you more than jimmeh's avatar and signature. its like waving a <i>cloth of any colour</i> in front of a bovine animal <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
fixed.
Its about the movement, not the colour <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
There seems to be an abundance of people who think that guns just make it easier to kill people, and while that's inherently true in some respects (you can be further than 1m away), many of these 'rage' murders that everyone keeps going on about ("He wouldn't have killed his wife, he would have just given here a blackeye") are often nonsense. It is very (exceedingly) rare to hear about a domestic dispute that degenerate into someone taking out a gun and shooting someone. Off the top of my head I can't even remember a case that involved 'heat of the moment' shootings that are continually brough up in here.
wankalot, I know you're most likely responding to someone else specifically with <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And if i wanna have an opinion on what goes on in a country besides my own then i damn well have the right to! Dont give me this "you dont live here.. so SUYF" crap. My argument were not based on cultural aspects or the "American" psyche, they were based on logical arguments and can be applied to anywhere in the world with easy access to guns.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> this, but I'm still going to ask that you look over the specific (not necessarily globally) unique American aspects that involve firearm tradition in the US. As an addendum: the US is huge. Police attempting to protect everyone or (as the prohibition of guns may necessitate) making sure no one has guns just wont work. It wont work in Russia, it wont work in Canada and it wont work in the US. Almost every rural family has some sort of rifle or shotgun (again, people that will not be 'going crazy and shooting up their neighbors' as some would like to imagine), and they live kilometers and kilometers apart. Beyond that, there's the other extreme, which is over population in small areas, which is going to make it impossible for cops to disperse all of the weapons in NYC or somewhere, it's infeasible, and ultimately (not to hop on that bandwagon) would just result in legitmate gun owners from being able to do things with their guns.
There's more to just shooting guns at targets. That's like saying the only thing blades are for is 'cutting stuff', but you still have sword enthusists (rare how often they go around getting all crazy). Or computers 'compute stuff'. That they do, but there's more depth to it than you're willing to admit. Some people like the craftmanship, some people like the design, some people like to shoot holes in paper, some people like to shoot animals 'for food'.
Also, a great many of you are way, way, way overanalyzing my car example (whose point I, and ...coincidentally... others, have already illustrated) and imagining that debunking one completely valid part of my post somehow devalues the rest...so less focus on just the cars, and a little more attention the remainder of my posts (I know they're long, I apologize, I'm wordy).
<!--quoteo(post=1621871:date=Apr 19 2007, 05:15 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Apr 19 2007, 05:15 AM) [snapback]1621871[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> There are sites with much higher levels of moderation on the method of discussion ( e.g. k5 ).
No, I wasn't offended by what cxwf said, I just wanted to highlight that this has nothing to do with Europe vs US. The debate is just as lively within the US, with *IDENTICAL* arguments being framed by US citizens, so anyone who wishes to dismiss a criticism as 'Euro inteference' is just sidestepping the issue as that person will find the same argument from within the US too. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was intentionally separating my arguments into 2 categories: the moral "should we have guns" side, and the procedural "what do you have to actually do to take our guns away" side. That argument fell on the procedural side, where 99% of Europe could agree that Americans should never have guns again, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. We'd still have them. Sure, you may get <i>some</i> americans to agree and frame those same arguments, but the legal process says you need enough of a majority to pass a constitutional amendment to get your desired result. And you don't have that.
I don't mean to suggest you have no standing to frame moral arguments, I was just pointing out that <i>even if you are morally correct</i>, I still have a legal right to carry guns anyway.
TheAdjHe demanded a cool forum title of some type.Join Date: 2004-05-03Member: 28436Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
edited April 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1621874:date=Apr 19 2007, 06:32 AM:name=wankalot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wankalot @ Apr 19 2007, 06:32 AM) [snapback]1621874[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> By the way, before i get flamed to hell just for having an opinion, i have no doubt that the gun proponents in here are responsible people capable of owning a gun. But guys! This world contains idoits as well as evil/very disturbed people. These sorts of people should not be able to own a gun. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aye the world does contain idiots, disturbed folks, etc. You are not going to design a system that removes weapons from the hands of people that would use them on others unlawfully, even if you remove weapons from everyone's hands. That's what is at the heart of the issue, many European countries are willing to do this. The US is not. The police are not going to protect me at 4AM if Mr Home Invader decides he likes my big screen TV and computers, then decides he wants my wife's jewelry and doesn't want to spend the time waiting for her to hand it to him. The M4 carbine that's in my closet about 5 feet away from my bed will protect me, however. Personal protection is a personal responsibility, and it is not the government's place to restrict that, especially as it will not really serve the greater good of the public (that is, what public need does this fulfill? Are people getting gunned down in the streets daily en masse?)
<!--quoteo(post=1621753:date=Apr 18 2007, 07:21 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jimmeh @ Apr 18 2007, 07:21 PM) [snapback]1621753[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Does Iraq have a say in how your country should be run? I count having ~145,000 forces in your country running it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is this relevant in any fashion? My statement was that Germany (lolfighter's country) is sovereign, the United States (my country) is sovereign, and they have no jurisdiction over each other. I have no say in his country's business, and he has none in mine. You missed the point.
Comments
The fact that he’s not a citizen can bring some question into play; should you be required to be a citizen to buy and own a gun? Then his nationality could become an important factor. I’m not sure about the specifics, but there was something tossed out there earlier involving gun ownership and legal immigrants that was brought up for some reason.
Though, in short his nationality isn’t going to make anyone feel any better about what happened.
And just for sanity’s sake: Unless you personally knew him or someone wrote a report on it, how would you even begin to know how “Americanized” he was? Would it make YOU feel better if he was 100% Americanized?
EDIT: It's not so much of an issue of HOW he did it now since that was pretty much old news since last night, at least. Now people are wanting to know WHY.
Banning guns doesn't have that negative impact (or atleast I haven't seen it argued), and thus your argumentations falls. If we would somehow arrive to the point that banning transportations would be more beneficial than it's negative impact, by all means let's do that as well..
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's this? The state attourney vs Mr. Gun? That quote so misplaced by miles it's not even funny.
This is an argument about what degree of lethality should be placed in the hands of the people-killing people. Explosives, rocket setc.. are all banned from private hands, now tell me why or why not we should place the line at firearms.
It falls back onto how much banning firearms would help gun violence, which is a more reasonable debate than citing such bullish quote.
Let us all hope that when the details about the contents of his computer are released, that he didn't have Counter-Strike installed on it.... <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the other hand, should he have DVDs with "Killing Gore Gutsplosion Bloodshower 3: Now With a Thirty Minute Rape Scene in the Middle," he'll be a completely normal young man with a "healthy interest in movies..."
You're making allegories without really addressing the differences. What would happen if we ban every sort of transportations? I don't know exactly, but it will no doubt be negative.
Banning guns doesn't have that negative impact (or atleast I haven't seen it argued), and thus your argumentations falls. If we would somehow arrive to the point that banning transportations would be more beneficial than it's negative impact, by all means let's do that as well..
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's an enormous difference between 'privately owned car' and 'bullet train' (and a multitude of other transportation vehicles), and the simplified way you're trying to derail my abstract (already self-imposed label) comparison would require transportation vs implements that kill. Or, in the opposite direction: a Glock 17 versus a '96 Ford Contour. The whole point is that car isn't that much like a gun, but it's more deadly, and there are fewer of them than guns in the US. The point wasn't "cars are bad too, we can't ban guns" it was notice the fact that between to luxury commodities, one is actually more dangerous (ie, the car). I assure you, you don't need a gun to survive, but you also don't need a car (and thus, getting rid of them 'because we don't really need them' isn't necessarily an effective argument, no matter how much you want to guilt people into admitting 'I just like to shoot at targets').
There's an enormous difference between 'privately owned car' and 'bullet train' (and a multitude of other transportation vehicles), and the simplified way you're trying to derail my abstract (already self-imposed label) comparison would require transportation vs implements that kill. Or, in the opposite direction: a Glock 17 versus a '96 Ford Contour. The whole point is that car isn't that much like a gun, but it's more deadly, and there are fewer of them than guns in the US....
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A car beeing more deadly than a gun?
Ever thought about the fact, that you can kill people using a gun witheout harming yourself, while running people over with a car always carries the danger of the driver beeing injured (pedestrians falling through the windshield etc)
Everything can be used as a weapon. (Yes, I could kill you with a newspaper in 5 by hammering a fingertip wide hole in your skull, and so can everyone else) But objects designed as weapons have usually several abilitys, that make them more effective at killing than non-weapons. Range comes to my mind, as well as durability (although most cars a durable, they get heavily damaged, when you are trying to run people over. This also means that a hummer is more of a weapon, than a geo) Objects designed not as weapons usually have a purpose other than killing (reading the newspaper instead of crusing peoples heads in with it sounds reasonable)
When you compare a glock 17 against the 96 ford contour you will sooner or alter notice, that the glock can kill from afar, that you can kill lots of people more reliable and more quickly as well as in a much more rapid succession than with a car. Hence I can savely proclaim, that a glock 17 is a objects, designed as a weapon, while a 96 ford contour is a object not desgined as a weapon.
Cars may be dangerous, but they serve an important function, same can't be said for the Guns IMO.
This is what aggravates me. That everybody from Western Europe or some other post-industrial country that's not the USA jumps into everything about this nation. I've read countless ignorant ###### remarks and snipes at our culture, our community, our government, and I'm tired of how many foreigners on just about any forum think that because they read biased news about America (your news corporations are not holier than ours, they've got big time bias as well) that they feel educated and well-informed to make comments concerning events taking place in a country who most people get their information about in the movies and on tv.
Americans in America can't even agree on gun control. The Northeast have laws almost as strict as those in Europe. The southeast and southwest have looser laws in general. Gun control is regulated primarily at the state level and each state will decide what is the optimal amount of gun control needed. Personally, I think even background checks are stretching it. They cost a lot of money, in fact, a case was taken to the Supreme Court in which a sheriff's office sued the state for requiring background checks because the cost was prohibitively expensive. And there's no guarantee that a quiet person with no criminal background will stay that way. It might take just a flare of passion and emotion and BOOM, dead people.
Sometimes I feel that in general, regulation at the Federal level is just too broad and will definitely trample over regional interests from time to time. Gun control falls in this sort of situation.
The possession of guns is an equalizer, because no matter how strong or tall or fast you are, a bullet to any heart is going to make it stop beating.
Oh, and guns serve an incredible purpose. They can kill people. They can coerce people. They can defend people. They can influence people to a much greater degree than any car could. But at the end of the day, it's the PERSON who decides what purpose his or her gun is going to be used for. So you might as well give up on regulating human thought.
But while you can certainly demand quality from us, you can't demand that we "mind our own business" (in my words).
Your country is the biggest military superpower. Your country has enough nuclear weapons to end civilisation as we know it (and yes, that applies to several other countries too). Your country uses its military to actively promote its own agenda in the rest of the world.
Furthermore, your country is a financial superpower, one of the driving and deciding forces in the global economy. A depression in the United States would not go unnoticed in the rest of the world.
In short, anything your country does has the potential to drastically affect the rest of the world as well.
Therefore, your business is our business as well. Maybe not as far as gun control laws are concerned, but allow me the assumption that you were not only remarking on this specific case. I share your annoyance at the populistic "lol americans suck" posts that are all hyperbole and no substance, but I reserve the right to speak on internal U.S. matters.
why?
I mean obviously if there were better background checks (such as a mental evaluation for example) this "whacko" in virginia would not have been able to get a gun so easily.
wholesale death is often a cause of reform in other matters that concern public safety.. why should gun laws be any different?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually you can't be deemed mentally incompetent or mentally retarded in many states and own a gun. I guess your wonderful euro news media left that out. "Better" background checks will do nothing, as all you can do is prohibit people from owning guns based on actualities, not things you imagine they "might" do. Are you going to pay for all of this? I didn't think so.
To lolfighter: you reserve a right that you do not possess. While it's fine and dandy to discuss this on an internet discussion board, I seriously hope you don't actually believe what you just typed, that you can speak on <b>internal</b> U.S. matters. We run our own country, we don't run yours (anymore), and that's how it is. You might have a vested interest, but it stops there.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does Iraq have a say in how your country should be run? I count having ~145,000 forces in your country running it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The possession of guns is an equalizer, because no matter how strong or tall or fast you are, a bullet to any heart is going to make it stop beating.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Someone tries to kill you in the street with a gun, you're dead - got it. At least being attacked with a knife you'd have MORE of a chance to defend yourself as they're going to have to get up a lot closer to you than someone with a gun would.
A car beeing more deadly than a gun?
Ever thought about the fact, that you can kill people using a gun witheout harming yourself, while running people over with a car always carries the danger of the driver beeing injured (pedestrians falling through the windshield etc)
Everything can be used as a weapon. (Yes, I could kill you with a newspaper in 5 by hammering a fingertip wide hole in your skull, and so can everyone else) But objects designed as weapons have usually several abilitys, that make them more effective at killing than non-weapons. Range comes to my mind, as well as durability (although most cars a durable, they get heavily damaged, when you are trying to run people over. This also means that a hummer is more of a weapon, than a geo) Objects designed not as weapons usually have a purpose other than killing (reading the newspaper instead of crusing peoples heads in with it sounds reasonable)
When you compare a glock 17 against the 96 ford contour you will sooner or alter notice, that the glock can kill from afar, that you can kill lots of people more reliable and more quickly as well as in a much more rapid succession than with a car. Hence I can savely proclaim, that a glock 17 is a objects, designed as a weapon, while a 96 ford contour is a object not desgined as a weapon.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You’re missing the point. It’s not about what the car is designed to do. How effectively it can be used to kill people, or the intent behind the driver. It’s about the sheer numbers. Or is this all something more along the lines of you just don’t like guns so you don’t care.
It’s time we all stop trying to push for the government to protect people from themselves. Nearly EVERY time they do (here in the US at least) it breeds complacency, mediocrity, strips us of our rights, stagnates society, and all around lowers standards of living for everyone for the far and few between.
I would rather go to a college where people with a concealed-carry license can bring guns onto campus. It has NOTHING to do with any type of fascination with guns, complex, or mental disorder, which seems to be a prerequisite for gun ownership in some of your eyes. I would rather live in a society where everyone doesn’t fall into the category of “helpless sheep”.
I like thinking for myself, I like being able to make decisions on my own (without the governments help), I am willing to take responsibility for my choices, and I’m willing to fight for the ability to continue doing so.
“Savely” claim whatever you want. But regardless of what something is said to be built for, IT WILL NEVER HAVE INTENT ON IT’S OWN!! UNTIL THE PERSON USING IT APPLIES THEIR INTENT TO SAID OBJECT, it won't do ANYTHING.... Why is this, of all things, such a hard concept? Isn’t thought-policing supposed to be BAD anyway?!
EDIT: I’ve had my say. There’s no use in posting more. If you don’t like how we handle internal US affairs, like gun control, all I have to say to you is this:
If you don’t like it, that’s fine, but don’t expect us to take any of your advice. We’re not forcing anyone to come over here, and quit frankly, to anyone that’s going to be a busy-body International back-seat driver: we don’t want you over here in the first place then.
… You’d think that all the US-haters would be pleased that we’re supposedly killing each other hand over fist…
I'm done. I'm getting back to more important things than another Intarweb argument.
Like when?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would rather live in a society where everyone doesn’t fall into the category of “helpless sheep”.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1/5th of Americans does not not make them "helpless sheep". It makes them "virtually helpless, armed sheep". Why the ###### can't you let the damn'd police protect you? Are you that arrogant that you think you'll do a better job of protecting society than them? Or are you that unpatriotic that you believe the Government can't protect you?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like thinking for myself, I like being able to make decisions on my own (without the governments help), I am willing to take responsibility for my choices, and I’m willing to fight for the ability to continue doing so.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has NOTHING to do with guns and/or gun control. Although you may be willing to "take responsibility" for your choices, just because you take responsibility for them doesn't necessarily make them the right choices. You could go murder a lot of people and "take responsibility" for it. Doesn't make it right.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Isn’t thought-policing supposed to be BAD anyway?!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stricter gun control != thought policing.
E.g someone gets angry about a more or less unimportant thing, overreacts and grabs a gun, because it was just easy to get.
I do think that a ban could prevent a large number of these kind of crimes.
Referring to the "I need guns to defend myself" point:
You want to defend your house etc...
-> thats the job of the police.
You want to defend your country....
-> thats the job of the military.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're not in the US, why do you give a f*** about gun control laws inside the US? You have your own country to safeguard against, we'll tend our own patch and you to yours.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that's just pathetic, because especially the USA are involved in political discussions (and more) all over the world.
I’m not so unpatriotic that I don’t BELIEVE the government can protect me from everyone. I’m just not so unbelievably STUPID to believe they can. Police officers I have talked to AGREE with me on this to boot (see below).
They sure were a shining example of protection for those 32 students. Those 32 UNARMED students. Not that they don’t do a good job, they do... but THEY CANNOT BE EVERWHERE at once. *THAT* is a pipe-dream. If you don't live here, have someone else from the USA explain to you how our cities, towns, and overall country is spread out.
Thinking for myself has everything to do with gun control. You are wanting to take away my ability to make the decision to buy or not to buy one, even own one. You obviously don’t think people can make sound decisions with guns so you want to take them away. That simple. You’re trying to prevent people from having to make those decisions (to buy one? What to use it for? To keep it?). Cut and dry. And what gives you the authority or credibility in this topic to do so?
As for making said decisions and taking responsibility for them; You just going to have to trust my judgment as there isn’t anything you can do to take my guns away from me or prevent me from purchasing any more. And who’s to say your judgment is sound to begin with?
It’s legal here, and it will most likely continue to be LEGAL. Take it or leave it, hell you can sit down and rotate for all I care, that’s just the way it’s gong to be. Having a mindless discussion where you cut and past, dissect, change context, and otherwise puke out demands for banning of this and that because, well because you feel or think so or won’t look at anyone else’s argument or data without first deeming it false is pointless. You’ve made up your mind and are going to blindly romp about pushing your ideals without seemingly even considering the consequence WE, OVER HERE, in the USA would have to deal with if we did follow your advice. Advice that I am inclined to decline. Thankyouverymuch.
Cut and past, reply to separate paragraphs, leave out points you don’t want to deal with, whatever… I am thoroughly disgusted and done here.
The legal argument doesn't address whether it is "good" or "bad" that we have a right to own guns. It simply describes the process necessary to remove that right: You need a constitutional amendment, which requires a large majority of the American populace to be in support. This isn't likely to happen any time soon, so legally, we will retain our right to bear arms completely regardless of whether or not its a "good" right, and completely regardless of anything Europe says to complain about it.
Then there's the moral argument--is it "good" that we have liberal access to firearms? I believe that it is. And self defense plays a big part in my thinking here. Of course, obviously many people disagree...
<!--quoteo(post=1621768:date=Apr 18 2007, 07:10 PM:name=Razagal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Razagal @ Apr 18 2007, 07:10 PM) [snapback]1621768[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Referring to the "I need guns to defend myself" point:
You want to defend your house etc...
-> thats the job of the police.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, the police have neither the responsibility nor the power to protect me and my house from criminals. They have a generalized responsibility to protect <i>society</i>, but they cannot protect me personally. This has been established through many court cases where the police power proved insuficient to help individuals requesting protection from specific dangers. The responsibility to protect me and my family falls to ME alone. And for that, there is no better tool than a gun.
The police aren't going to protect you because the police aren't going to follow you around and live in your house just in case. Defense of yourself and your family relies on yourself and nobody else.
[...]To lolfighter: you reserve a right that you do not possess. While it's fine and dandy to discuss this on an internet discussion board, I seriously hope you don't actually believe what you just typed, that you can speak on <b>internal</b> U.S. matters. We run our own country, we don't run yours (anymore), and that's how it is. You might have a vested interest, but it stops there.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I meant every single word. I'm going to speak up whether you like it or not, on any matter I feel like. If you want to prevent me from doing so, try.
regardless of anything Europe says to complain about it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excuse me?
Liberal, Conservative, ignorant, Can't Play NS well enough, Pubers, Clanners, Highflautin developers, pro gun, anti-gun, pro-life, pro-choice, atheist, extremist christian, racist, sexist, homophobic, anime junkie, people who say that others "don't have a real life" BS, noob mappers, etc.
You name it. It runs rampant on this board.
So Puzl and lolfighter, Rapier7 and Cxwf, all of us need to THINK BEFORE GOD DAMN POSTING.
You have a right to your opinion. You don't have a right to order others how to think. There's a difference between debating and sharing opinion and telling others what to think and stereotyping.
What Cxwf meant Puzl is that US will do what the US will do ultimately and your nation will do what your nation will want to do. He didn't say it all that well.
What Cxwf meant Puzl is that US will do what the US will do ultimately and your nation will do what your nation will want to do. He didn't say it all that well.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If only it stopped there. Funny how you get annoyed off when someone comments on your internal affairs. Take a bit of criticism. Nobody is inciting rebellion here, they're simply posting their perspective on the issues. Stop being so defensive and get on with the discussion. They are just points in a discussion, deal with it and move on. "Screw you guys I'm going home" doesn't actually win the argument.
If only it stopped there. Funny how you get annoyed off when someone comments on your internal affairs. Take a bit of criticism. Nobody is inciting rebellion here, they're simply posting their perspective on the issues. Stop being so defensive and get on with the discussion. They are just points in a discussion, deal with it and move on. "Screw you guys I'm going home" doesn't actually win the argument.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True points old friend. My only point above was that I wish we would all try better listen and think before talking. If it only stopped there is correct. It is a common hubris on this board to get carried away. Were you offended by what Cxwf said Puzl?
No, I wasn't offended by what cxwf said, I just wanted to highlight that this has nothing to do with Europe vs US. The debate is just as lively within the US, with *IDENTICAL* arguments being framed by US citizens, so anyone who wishes to dismiss a criticism as 'Euro inteference' is just sidestepping the issue as that person will find the same argument from within the US too.
And if i wanna have an opinion on what goes on in a country besides my own then i damn well have the right to! Dont give me this "you dont live here.. so SUYF" crap. My argument were not based on cultural aspects or the "American" psyche, they were based on logical arguments and can be applied to anywhere in the world with easy access to guns.
Im not trying to change your opinion , im just taking part in a disscussion. Dont get all antzy and ultra defensive just because my opinions differ from your own.
My point is simple: Guns make it easy for anyone to kill. Yeah sure you may be responsible for your own decisions. Capabable of deciding whether you buy a gun and what you do with it. But what if you decide to kill someone? the person you killed didnt get to decide whether or not he would die? No.
Sure people who die in motor accidents, pub brawls etc dont decide either.. But id address both these examples by saying
a) a person wounded by a bullet is more likely to die than a person wounded in a brawl or a car accident
b) Guns, unlike a punchup, can make people vent aggression in a far more lethal way than they intended. There can be cases where a fatal gun wound would be nothing more than a blackeye had the aggressor not had a gun.
And about objections to background checks because they may be too expensive etc. Wouldn't it be worth it? your tax money goes into other things designed to save lives...
By the way, before i get flamed to hell just for having an opinion, i have no doubt that the gun proponents in here are responsible people capable of owning a gun. But guys! This world contains idoits as well as evil/very disturbed people. These sorts of people should not be able to own a gun.
And shoot_me.... WTH... give me another purpose a gun may possibly have besides shooting hunting/ target shooting or killing people. Saying guns are designed to discharge projectiles is like saying paint is designed to dry. How something does something is different to its purpose
ultimate gekko.... ANY there you go ANY <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> far out so childish correcting online spelling. its like playing counterstrike and someone says "leet", but then you get upset and say "you silly boy! Its spelt 'elite'".
I know im not going to change your minds... i was just taking part in a disscussion. you know? Those things where people have different opinions?
its a sad state of affairs to see so many americans still hanging on to the "us versus them, lets shoot every last one of those ###### indians" mentality that was responsible for the genocide of the native american population.
as an european i am sincerely proud that these rejects had the sense to get the ###### out of our continent
btw: shoot_me, nothing in this thread is annoying you more than jimmeh's avatar and signature. its like waving a red cloth in front of a bovine animal
btw: shoot_me, nothing in this thread is annoying you more than jimmeh's avatar and signature. its like waving a <i>cloth of any colour</i> in front of a bovine animal
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
fixed.
Its about the movement, not the colour <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
wankalot, I know you're most likely responding to someone else specifically with
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And if i wanna have an opinion on what goes on in a country besides my own then i damn well have the right to! Dont give me this "you dont live here.. so SUYF" crap. My argument were not based on cultural aspects or the "American" psyche, they were based on logical arguments and can be applied to anywhere in the world with easy access to guns.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> this, but I'm still going to ask that you look over the specific (not necessarily globally) unique American aspects that involve firearm tradition in the US. As an addendum: the US is huge. Police attempting to protect everyone or (as the prohibition of guns may necessitate) making sure no one has guns just wont work. It wont work in Russia, it wont work in Canada and it wont work in the US. Almost every rural family has some sort of rifle or shotgun (again, people that will not be 'going crazy and shooting up their neighbors' as some would like to imagine), and they live kilometers and kilometers apart. Beyond that, there's the other extreme, which is over population in small areas, which is going to make it impossible for cops to disperse all of the weapons in NYC or somewhere, it's infeasible, and ultimately (not to hop on that bandwagon) would just result in legitmate gun owners from being able to do things with their guns.
There's more to just shooting guns at targets. That's like saying the only thing blades are for is 'cutting stuff', but you still have sword enthusists (rare how often they go around getting all crazy). Or computers 'compute stuff'. That they do, but there's more depth to it than you're willing to admit. Some people like the craftmanship, some people like the design, some people like to shoot holes in paper, some people like to shoot animals 'for food'.
Also, a great many of you are way, way, way overanalyzing my car example (whose point I, and ...coincidentally... others, have already illustrated) and imagining that debunking one completely valid part of my post somehow devalues the rest...so less focus on just the cars, and a little more attention the remainder of my posts (I know they're long, I apologize, I'm wordy).
There are sites with much higher levels of moderation on the method of discussion ( e.g. k5 ).
No, I wasn't offended by what cxwf said, I just wanted to highlight that this has nothing to do with Europe vs US. The debate is just as lively within the US, with *IDENTICAL* arguments being framed by US citizens, so anyone who wishes to dismiss a criticism as 'Euro inteference' is just sidestepping the issue as that person will find the same argument from within the US too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was intentionally separating my arguments into 2 categories: the moral "should we have guns" side, and the procedural "what do you have to actually do to take our guns away" side. That argument fell on the procedural side, where 99% of Europe could agree that Americans should never have guns again, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. We'd still have them. Sure, you may get <i>some</i> americans to agree and frame those same arguments, but the legal process says you need enough of a majority to pass a constitutional amendment to get your desired result. And you don't have that.
I don't mean to suggest you have no standing to frame moral arguments, I was just pointing out that <i>even if you are morally correct</i>, I still have a legal right to carry guns anyway.
By the way, before i get flamed to hell just for having an opinion, i have no doubt that the gun proponents in here are responsible people capable of owning a gun. But guys! This world contains idoits as well as evil/very disturbed people. These sorts of people should not be able to own a gun.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aye the world does contain idiots, disturbed folks, etc. You are not going to design a system that removes weapons from the hands of people that would use them on others unlawfully, even if you remove weapons from everyone's hands. That's what is at the heart of the issue, many European countries are willing to do this. The US is not. The police are not going to protect me at 4AM if Mr Home Invader decides he likes my big screen TV and computers, then decides he wants my wife's jewelry and doesn't want to spend the time waiting for her to hand it to him. The M4 carbine that's in my closet about 5 feet away from my bed will protect me, however. Personal protection is a personal responsibility, and it is not the government's place to restrict that, especially as it will not really serve the greater good of the public (that is, what public need does this fulfill? Are people getting gunned down in the streets daily en masse?)
<!--quoteo(post=1621753:date=Apr 18 2007, 07:21 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jimmeh @ Apr 18 2007, 07:21 PM) [snapback]1621753[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Does Iraq have a say in how your country should be run? I count having ~145,000 forces in your country running it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is this relevant in any fashion? My statement was that Germany (lolfighter's country) is sovereign, the United States (my country) is sovereign, and they have no jurisdiction over each other. I have no say in his country's business, and he has none in mine. You missed the point.