College & High School Shootings: What Now

[TomOfSweden]

This discussion again. It's bound to be heated so I'm going to make some popcorn and lean back.

[Ozme52]

This discussion again. It's bound to be heated so I'm going to make some popcorn and lean back.

I knew in my heart you would bow out of the automatic v. stick-shift argument. No heart Tom?

Osme: Please tell me, are cars designed to kill, or do they have another purpose?

Actually... laffin... the original purpose and design of wheeled vehicles is to deliver a warrior and arms to the fight (or hunt) and to provide an advantage in speed and power. Mobility.

Much later, a secondary purpose and design was introduced to carry goods to and from market.

Personal transportation was a far distant third... primarily reserved for the gentry and upper classes (who also were often the only ones permitted to own weapons.)

[Ozme52]

To me, it's obvious: if what he did was legal then the laws are wrong. Change them.

We have tried for years to change gun laws in the United States the big probelm we have is the NRA the National Rifle Association has so much power as lobbiests here that no major changes ever make it through congress, they are killed or burned in congress and get nowhere amknig chages is not the issue getting them passed and having a President sign them is the issue 99% of gun law chahges never go anywhere, they get introduced into congress and then just die there or get vetoed with not enough votes to overide a veto

We? Speak for yourself. Let's be real clear. Gun lobby or no... if the clear majority of people were for gun control it would pass. These laws are introduced riht after such incidents and get as far as they do because the liberal press is in favor of them. So the legislators get a lot of publicity for doing so. But the people? I doubt it.

For some it's about liberty. For some it's about the right to protect ourselves as, world-wide, criminals don't have a problem getting guns if they want them, and for some, it's about (perhaps naively) the ability to protect ourselves from an overbearing government. That's what this 'country' did 250 years ago.

The latter is something that is virtually 'bred' into my bones even though I am a first generation 'born in the USA american' on both sides of my family. All too many of us were slaughtered in Nazi death camps. The words 'never again' though never specifically uttered by my father were taught to me in crystal clear language.

A lot of my otherwise liberal acquaintances actually take note of what happened during the era of Viet Nam war protesting... what the US government did to impose "order" on their right to free speech... including a number of deaths... (admittedly few... but none-the-less...) and those liberal friends of mine aren't all that adamently for gun control.

[mkemse]

We? Speak for yourself. Let's be real clear. Gun lobby or no... if the clear majority of people were for gun control it would pass. These laws are introduced riht after such incidents and get as far as they do because the liberal press is in favor of them. So the legislators get a lot of publicity for doing so. But the people? I doubt it.

For some it's about liberty. For some it's about the right to protect ourselves as, world-wide, criminals don't have a problem getting guns if they want them, and for some, it's about (perhaps naively) the ability to protect ourselves from an overbearing government. That's what this 'country' did 250 years ago.

The latter is something that is virtually 'bred' into my bones even though I am a first generation 'born in the USA american' on both sides of my family. All too many of us were slaughtered in Nazi death camps. The words 'never again' though never specifically uttered by my father were taught to me in crystal clear language.

A lot of my otherwise liberal acquaintances actually take note of what happened during the era of Viet Nam war protesting... what the US government did to impose "order" on their right to free speech... including a number of deaths... (admittedly few... but none-the-less...) and those liberal friends of mine aren't all that adamently for gun control.

My "ME" refers to the countless efforts made in congress to pass tighter gun control laws, what Americans need to do is elect Congressmen and Women n And Representtives that will not be beholden to THE NRA, only congress can pass these laws, they are made up of people at WE as citizien elec, if you want your Senator or Represenative to vote against the NRA elected and get into officethose who will fight the NRA lobbiests is what my intent was in say that, we as american decide through election who serves in Wasigngton, wehave a MAJOR Election comingi n November elect those that will support stronger gun laws, all we can do as citizens is elect our officials we do not makethe laws themselves we simply elect thsoe who can and can ass them and pass them all by a wide enough margin that that they are NOT veto proof

[TomOfSweden]

I knew in my heart you would bow out of the automatic v. stick-shift argument. No heart Tom?

I don't think has to do with heart. For me it's simply down to reading statistics and manipulating government policies to minimise violent crime and murder. As long as it's done within a democratic framework, I don't really care how it is achieved.

It's a more complicated issue than just banning guns. But it's painfully obvious that USA's policy it has had sucks monkey balls as far as violent crime and murder is concerned. If I'd be American, (or rather US citizen, WTF do you guys call yourself?)

I'd personally demand political changes to be made to fix the problem, but who cares what I think here in Sweden

There are many roots of the problem and I do think they have been identified. The solutions go something like this:

* Decrease poverty.
* Decrease alienation of the poor.
* Lessen the availability of guns.

I'm convinced of that acting on any of those will lessen the problem. The two first are related, but giving convicted criminals the right to vote would be a good first step. Having affordable and good state sponsored schools on all levels is another one of those fairly cheap ways to raise the poor out of hopelessness. Removing the guns is of course by far the cheapest solution, but not the least complicated and is a very very long term solution.

But USA is very rich which no doubt is the result of having such little aid to the poor. Being poor in USA only sucks slightly less than being poor in the jungles of Africa. They have plenty of reasons to work hard as hell. And they do and USA is rich, so there is obviously a positive pay off.

The important thing to reconcile is that USA has the high-school shootings they do and the high prevalence of murder because that is what the voters have chosen. US voters want this society. They obviously think the heightened chance of getting their kids mowed down in school is a price worth paying for their wealth and right to bear arms. They might not have reasoned just like this on their way to the voting booths, but this is the choice they made.

...and then we've got crazy people. Crazy people without guns are just as crazy as crazy people with guns, the difference is that they can't shoot anybody. But mental care is an extremely expensive solution to this problem.

It's a complex issue with many solutions, and all the solutions costs money and freedoms. The question is simply if you think the price is worth paying?

[Ozme52]

I don't think has to do with heart. For me it's simply down to reading statistics and manipulating government policies to minimise violent crime and murder. As long as it's done within a democratic framework, I don't really care how it is achieved.

um... that was said tongue in cheek. automatic v. stick shift (transmission humor) I wasn't poking at ya.

It's a more complicated issue than just banning guns. But it's painfully obvious that USA's policy it has had sucks monkey balls as far as violent crime and murder is concerned. If I'd be American, (or rather US citizen, WTF do you guys call yourself?)

We call ourselves Americans but it seems to tick off the rest of the western hemisphere....

I'd personally demand political changes to be made to fix the problem, but who cares what I think here in Sweden

There are many roots of the problem and I do think they have been identified. The solutions go something like this:

* Decrease poverty.
* Decrease alienation of the poor.
* Lessen the availability of guns.

I'm convinced of that acting on any of those will lessen the problem. The two first are related, but giving convicted criminals the right to vote would be a good first step. Having affordable and good state sponsored schools on all levels is another one of those fairly cheap ways to raise the poor out of hopelessness. Removing the guns is of course by far the cheapest solution, but not the least complicated and is a very very long term solution.

But USA is very rich which no doubt is the result of having such little aid to the poor. Being poor in USA only sucks slightly less than being poor in the jungles of Africa. They have plenty of reasons to work hard as hell. And they do and USA is rich, so there is obviously a positive pay off.

The important thing to reconcile is that USA has the high-school shootings they do and the high prevalence of murder because that is what the voters have chosen. US voters want this society. They obviously think the heightened chance of getting their kids mowed down in school is a price worth paying for their wealth and right to bear arms. They might not have reasoned just like this on their way to the voting booths, but this is the choice they made.

...and then we've got crazy people. Crazy people without guns are just as crazy as crazy people with guns, the difference is that they can't shoot anybody. But mental care is an extremely expensive solution to this problem.

It's a complex issue with many solutions, and all the solutions costs money and freedoms. The question is simply if you think the price is worth paying?

You've opened up a lot of issues. Some I agree, the ones that address problems without impinging on my rights, I can go along with those. I can even see us paying for them... and it would be cheap if we eliminated waste in our government (but that's another debate,) and some I don't.

But the question 'is it worth a few freedoms...' No, it's not worth the price. Take those away (and I'm not talking about gun rights... but the one thereafter and the one thereafter and the one thereafter...) and eventually the only thing I have to fear is doing anything without prior permission.

You don't think so? It's not just about the American Revolution. Our entire history is about rights. And it's much harder to gain a right than lose it. So every time I see one eroded away it really bothers me.

My father told me I have no idea of the things I'm not allowed to do that he took for granted. As I get older, I see it too, things that were my right to decide about my own conduct as a young adult that I risk arrest and/or fine for doing today.

I can't say for other countries... but it might be an interesting question to pose to your own parents.

[TomOfSweden]

We call ourselves Americans but it seems to tick off the rest of the western hemisphere....

Um...yeah... But pissing people off seems to be some kind of popular national past time for USA so I guess it makes sense.

You've opened up a lot of issues. Some I agree, the ones that address problems without impinging on my rights, I can go along with those. I can even see us paying for them... and it would be cheap if we eliminated waste in our government (but that's another debate,) and some I don't.

But the question 'is it worth a few freedoms...' No, it's not worth the price. Take those away (and I'm not talking about gun rights... but the one thereafter and the one thereafter and the one thereafter...) and eventually the only thing I have to fear is doing anything without prior permission.

You don't think so? It's not just about the American Revolution. Our entire history is about rights. And it's much harder to gain a right than lose it. So every time I see one eroded away it really bothers me.

My father told me I have no idea of the things I'm not allowed to do that he took for granted. As I get older, I see it too, things that were my right to decide about my own conduct as a young adult that I risk arrest and/or fine for doing today.

I can't say for other countries... but it might be an interesting question to pose to your own parents.

This is impossible to argue against. I believe in democracy. This is what you want, and US citizens like voting for, so this is the society you've got. I don't think there's a clear wrong or right here. There are strong arguments for either side. I wouldn't personally agree with your argumentation, but that is my highly subjective opinion. I don't think I'm obviously more right than you.

[spammik]

I don't think has to do with heart. For me it's simply down to reading statistics and manipulating government policies to minimise violent crime and murder. As long as it's done within a democratic framework, I don't really care how it is achieved.

It's a more complicated issue than just banning guns. But it's painfully obvious that USA's policy it has had sucks monkey balls as far as violent crime and murder is concerned. If I'd be American, (or rather US citizen, WTF do you guys call yourself?)

I'd personally demand political changes to be made to fix the problem, but who cares what I think here in Sweden

There are many roots of the problem and I do think they have been identified. The solutions go something like this:

* Decrease poverty.
* Decrease alienation of the poor.
* Lessen the availability of guns.

I'm convinced of that acting on any of those will lessen the problem. The two first are related, but giving convicted criminals the right to vote would be a good first step. Having affordable and good state sponsored schools on all levels is another one of those fairly cheap ways to raise the poor out of hopelessness. Removing the guns is of course by far the cheapest solution, but not the least complicated and is a very very long term solution.

But USA is very rich which no doubt is the result of having such little aid to the poor. Being poor in USA only sucks slightly less than being poor in the jungles of Africa. They have plenty of reasons to work hard as hell. And they do and USA is rich, so there is obviously a positive pay off.

The important thing to reconcile is that USA has the high-school shootings they do and the high prevalence of murder because that is what the voters have chosen. US voters want this society. They obviously think the heightened chance of getting their kids mowed down in school is a price worth paying for their wealth and right to bear arms. They might not have reasoned just like this on their way to the voting booths, but this is the choice they made.

...and then we've got crazy people. Crazy people without guns are just as crazy as crazy people with guns, the difference is that they can't shoot anybody. But mental care is an extremely expensive solution to this problem.

It's a complex issue with many solutions, and all the solutions costs money and freedoms. The question is simply if you think the price is worth paying?

I don't think has to do with heart. For me it's simply down to reading statistics and manipulating government policies to minimise violent crime and murder. As long as it's done within a democratic framework, I don't really care how it is achieved.

It's a more complicated issue than just banning guns. But it's painfully obvious that USA's policy it has had sucks monkey balls as far as violent crime and murder is concerned. If I'd be American, (or rather US citizen, WTF do you guys call yourself?)

I'd personally demand political changes to be made to fix the problem, but who cares what I think here in Sweden

There are many roots of the problem and I do think they have been identified. The solutions go something like this:

* Decrease poverty.
* Decrease alienation of the poor.
* Lessen the availability of guns.

I'm convinced of that acting on any of those will lessen the problem. The two first are related, but giving convicted criminals the right to vote would be a good first step. Having affordable and good state sponsored schools on all levels is another one of those fairly cheap ways to raise the poor out of hopelessness. Removing the guns is of course by far the cheapest solution, but not the least complicated and is a very very long term solution.

Yes we do need to do something about poverty and I see that happening every day in many parts of the country. The US may be viewed as rich however my family and extended family are not rich. We lived in many parts of the US as my father worked for General Motors. Yes there are rich people in the US however there are many many more that are not rich. We work hard, raise our kids, pray and work at improving the world around us. None of my brothers and sisters own guns and we have not voted for the violence or condon it. Yes I vote and hope that the person I voted for will stand behind his/her promises,yes maybe a bit unrealistic, made.
But USA is very rich which no doubt is the result of having such little aid to the poor. Being poor in USA only sucks slightly less than being poor in the jungles of Africa. They have plenty of reasons to work hard as hell. And they do and USA is rich, so there is obviously a positive pay off.

The important thing to reconcile is that USA has the high-school shootings they do and the high prevalence of murder because that is what the voters have chosen. US voters want this society. They obviously think the heightened chance of getting their kids mowed down in school is a price worth paying for their wealth and right to bear arms. They might not have reasoned just like this on their way to the voting booths, but this is the choice they made.

...and then we've got crazy people. Crazy people without guns are just as crazy as crazy people with guns, the difference is that they can't shoot anybody. But mental care is an extremely expensive solution to this problem.

It's a complex issue with many solutions, and all the solutions costs money and freedoms. The question is simply if you think the price is worth paying?

There is violence in the world around us, did they are vote for it? I don't think so. We all have free will and just because I voted one way doesn't mean that it caused someone else to get a gun and shoot people. Look at the middle east, africa, china, south america....I could go on. Yes mental health is way to expensive, I think that issue is just not one in the US. We as human beings must work at ending poverty, violence and making guns less available where ever we are in this world. Yes some countries are better at it and some not if we open our eyes and minds maybe we can learn from each other.........

[TomOfSweden]

Yes we do need to do something about poverty and I see that happening every day in many parts of the country. The US may be viewed as rich however my family and extended family are not rich. We lived in many parts of the US as my father worked for General Motors. Yes there are rich people in the US however there are many many more that are not rich. We work hard, raise our kids, pray and work at improving the world around us. None of my brothers and sisters own guns and we have not voted for the violence or condon it. Yes I vote and hope that the person I voted for will stand behind his/her promises,yes maybe a bit unrealistic, made.

Actually the median US citizen is a lot richer than the median European. So USA is richer than us. But our poorest are in turn a lot richer than USA's poorest. If a countries wealth is measured by the health status of it's poorest, USA is a third world country. It's all in how you measure. And the richest in USA are the richest on the planet. Sweden does have some fantastically rich people for our countries tiny population but if we compare numbers, Sweden is the third world country. Yes, even if you count USA's foreign debt.

You vote for the bed you want to lie in. We have to put up with a slower economic growth for increased safety and peace of mind. If you don't like USA, I'm sure you'd be welcome in Sweden. USA is a much easier country to start companies in, so if you're an entrepreneur I'd stay in USA if I where you.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Yes some countries are better at it and some not if we open our eyes and minds maybe we can learn from each other.........[/I]

Well said, that lady!

[ThisYouWillDo]

This discussion again. It's bound to be heated so I'm going to make some popcorn and lean back.

...

Ozme: So don't act like I started the chariot conversation. I was making a point that there are things in our lives far more dangerous than guns. You wanted to bring the intention of the thing into play... so I pointed out cars were once pure weapons.

You bloody-well did start the chariot conversation, by deliberately misinterpreting my use of the word "car", as you yourself admitted when you said: "I actually said wheeled vehicles... specifically thinking of chariots, which in ancient texts such as the Iliad, are translated (by some) into English as cars. Yeah, I know it wasn't the context you meant the question but I couldn't resist" (emphasis supplied).

I'm not here to knock anyone (as you seem so fond of doing) but if the US acted like Sweden during WWII, would you be speaking German? Russian? Hell man, would the Swedes be speaking those languages?

As a matter of fact, Swedes are a linguistically gifted people and almost all of them speak English better than you or I do. In addition, many also speak German, and, of course can be understood in Norwegian and Danish too. They are not to be blamed for their neutrality during the War any more than Switzerland, Spain, Portugal or Ireland are. <Sigh> I suppose I'm knocking you again, but, as you've brought it up, I feel bound to point out that during WW2, right up to the moment USA was dragged into the war, we in Britain were shitting bricks that you'd join in on the other side! And it was a close call too: Pearl Harbour was, for the Allies, a blessing, because it meant that Germany would declare war on USA in support of the Japanese, and USA would no longer have a choice about which side it was going to fight on. (Oh yes: FD Roosevelt regarded the British Empire as an obstacle to US trade and knew that a Eurpoean war would cripple it, so that America could then move in on the former colonies like carrion crows and take over as primary trading partner.) So, if things had turned out differently, and the only way FDR could see to ruin the British Empire was to fight on the other side, we might very well have been speaking German.

But what we already speak is akin to Frisian because Britons are Germans - Anglo Saxons - and that's where our desire to dominate the world must have come from. And America is also predominently of Anglo Saxon descent ... So now you know where America gets it from. (From your previous postings, Ozme, I guess you're not of Anglo Saxon origin, for which, no doubt, you give much thanks.)

How lovely it must be to be so insular to think you would even have the right to have this conversation if (pick one)

Communism,
Nazi Germany,
The Triple Alliance, or
Napolean Bonaparte had been more successful. (I get hazy thereafter.)

I don't think gun-control was ever an issue regarding any of the above. Certainly, I don't owe my freedom to speak my mind to the right to keep a semi-automatic under my bed and a handgun under my pillow.


But all that is way off point

Gun control isn't. I have no compunction about saying that possession of weapons ought to be subject to tight controls, even if it does affect a freedom you cherish, because I believe that no-one can possibly own a gun without contemplating killing someone, and I think killing is wrong. If I think your reasons against gun-control are stupid, I shall say so, knowing perfectly well that you can, and probably will, defend your position just as vigorously. I have had this debate in other threads and as a result, I have modified my views to the extent that, while I think the gun lobby is still wrong, I understand the opposing views are sincerely held - which is something I couldn't comprehend before. Sincerely held ... but wrong.

If you feel there is no further point in arguing the question, I'm sorry that we'll lose your input. It's been fun.

But, before you go, I would mention that I would ban any offensive weapon - gun, knife or club - and punish people who break that law severely if I could. However, guns are much worse than any other weapon because they can cause so much more carnage in seconds than the others could in a much greater time span, and so they deserve to be made a special case.

J-go: yes we have our lunatics - we have had people shoot kids in school playgrounds in the past. As a result, we did something about it: we tightened our already strict gun controls to make it almost impossible to get hold of a gun legally. Possession of an illegal firearm will, of course, land you in gaol.

There are plenty of illegal firearms around, admittedly. Some are held by teenage "rebels" and most of the rest seem to be held by drug dealers from Jamaica. Fortunately, gunfights and gun deaths are relatively few, and seem to be confined to the circles in which those people move. Generally speaking, they are not the kind of people who would go mad in a university or college.

TYWD

[Thorne]

during WW2, right up to the moment USA was dragged into the war, we in Britain were shitting bricks that you'd join in on the other side! And it was a close call too: Pearl Harbour was, for the Allies, a blessing, because it meant that Germany would declare war on USA in support of the Japanese, and USA would no longer have a choice about which side it was going to fight on. (Oh yes: FD Roosevelt regarded the British Empire as an obstacle to US trade and knew that a Eurpoean war would cripple it, so that America could then move in on the former colonies like carrion crows and take over as primary trading partner.) So, if things had turned out differently, and the only way FDR could see to ruin the British Empire was to fight on the other side, we might very well have been speaking German.

I'm a student of WWII and I've never heard anything like this before. FDR was helping out England long before Pearl Harbor, and against the wishes of Congress and possibly the majority of American people, who wanted to remain out of the war. FDR came up with the idea of Lend/Lease which allowed him to send weapons and supplies to England and later Russia, even though we were not yet in the war. I doubt that there was ever much of a chance of the US joining with Hitler. The Jewish owned banks would not have allowed it, for one thing. And let's not forget, there were Americans fighting WITH the British well before Pearl Harbor, notably in the Eagle Squadron. In fact, there was an American "observer" on Catalina Z of Coastal Command, which located the Bismarck after she'd slipped away from the British cruisers which had been tailing her. ("Pursuit" by Ludovic Kennedy)
As for the Empire being an obstacle to trade, I must admit I'm not very well informed on economic activities of the era, so I can't really comment on that. But this is definitely the first time I've ever heard anything which suggested the possibility of the US joining Germany.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I'm a student of WWII and I've never heard anything like this before. FDR was helping out England long before Pearl Harbor, and against the wishes of Congress and possibly the majority of American people, who wanted to remain out of the war. FDR came up with the idea of Lend/Lease which allowed him to send weapons and supplies to England and later Russia, even though we were not yet in the war. I doubt that there was ever much of a chance of the US joining with Hitler. The Jewish owned banks would not have allowed it, for one thing. And let's not forget, there were Americans fighting WITH the British well before Pearl Harbor, notably in the Eagle Squadron. In fact, there was an American "observer" on Catalina Z of Coastal Command, which located the Bismarck after she'd slipped away from the British cruisers which had been tailing her. ("Pursuit" by Ludovic Kennedy)
As for the Empire being an obstacle to trade, I must admit I'm not very well informed on economic activities of the era, so I can't really comment on that. But this is definitely the first time I've ever heard anything which suggested the possibility of the US joining Germany.

Shall we put this on another thread?

[Thorne]

Shall we put this on another thread?

Works for me. It does stray from the original topic.