Jump to content
Eternal Lands Official Forums
Sign in to follow this  
sparhawk

School Shooting

Recommended Posts

Ok, let's say for a moment the limitation of guns (even just assault weapons, per se) DOES reduce the number from 100 to 1 - when you meet that one, one might as well be 1000.

 

Let's say "assault weapons" are held only by governmental forces - 90% in the military, and 10% in police-type forces. It takes not that much more to conceive that one gun (one is all it takes, although more than likely, if one can go "missing", more WILL) may end up "missing", and as such, in the hands of some rather unsavory person. Again, one is all it takes. Granted, more guns means more chances, but one is all it takes.

 

Laws only control those who follow them. Again, my earlier analogy - for anyone who drives, how often do you pass the speed limit signs (when there are such), and even casually notice that you're going faster than you should (or slower, if a minimum is posted)? If you are willing to be so flippant about a minor law as such, what makes you think there won't be people who act similar about major ones (like gun control)?

 

Then, you have to consider - few guns (if any) used in crimes have a fully "legal" chain of custody to them (meaning, somewhere along the line, someone stole/illegally sold that gun). So we remove legal guns from the scene - doesn't mean we've removed ALL guns, just "simplified" the issue into one where just the criminals have them. So, it's open season on unarmed civilians - oh what fun.

 

One of the founding tenets of the USA is that the population has the right to overthrow a tyrranical government that doesn't operate in the interests of the people. This is why the 2nd Amendment was written in the US Constitution - and to this day has not (and likely cannot) be stricken. Part of the "right to bear arms" is a reminder to the politicians that they are not above the law - even though they try to be.

 

Another tenet the USA was founded on is a strong sense of our independence from the world. Just because Canadian deaths may be linked to American guns being taken doesn't mean (to us, anyway) that we should give up our guns. In fact, quite the opposite - Canadian (or any other nation's) attempts to get Americans to give up their right to guns will backfire, for the most part. (On a similar note, this also happened in 2004 - addresses of "undecided" voters in some Ohio communities were obtained by a British newspaper, which in turn delivered messages persuading the voters to vote for Kerry. By and large, it backfired - the foreign support of Kerry only garnered more votes for Bush.)

 

Again, as I've been saying - take your chances and make them 1000, 100, 10, or 1; this will mean little to anyone who this really impacts unless the chances become 0. The ONLY way to work this is not to limit the weapons, but to get people simply not wanting to use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick snapshot of US history:

 

During the creation of the Constitution of the United States of America and our Declaration of Independence for that matter, the creators were profoundly aware that government itself was dangerous. That it is within nature of government to is strip away the rights from its citizens. To limit this new governments ability to subjugate us, they added a few safeguards. One of those was how carefully and clearly they stated that this government was to serve the people and not the other way around.

 

You mean the founding fathers of USA were suffering from an advanced form of paranoia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick snapshot of US history:

 

During the creation of the Constitution of the United States of America and our Declaration of Independence for that matter, the creators were profoundly aware that government itself was dangerous. That it is within nature of government to is strip away the rights from its citizens. To limit this new governments ability to subjugate us, they added a few safeguards. One of those was how carefully and clearly they stated that this government was to serve the people and not the other way around.

 

You mean the founding fathers of USA were suffering from an advanced form of paranoia?

Well, considering that was about the same time as the French Revolution, and - this is the part we modern day people who don't live under monarchs often forget - for most nations, one person was literally the entire effective government in many cases. Most of the framework of the US Government is a direct response to that - an attempt to make sure that no part of the government may grow stronger than the others, and that all parts remain true to the law and the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, considering that was about the same time as the French Revolution, and - this is the part we modern day people who don't live under monarchs often forget - for most nations, one person was literally the entire effective government in many cases. Most of the framework of the US Government is a direct response to that - an attempt to make sure that no part of the government may grow stronger than the others, and that all parts remain true to the law and the people.

 

OK, but that was more than 200 years ago. Even monarchies changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, but that was more than 200 years ago. Even monarchies changed.

How many changed willingly?

 

Also, our democracy has changed - however, it's very difficult to change the Constitution because of another "safeguard" built in by the founders - a passing fad shouldn't merit a full rewrite of law, necessarily. So, what has been important enough to change the US government in 200 years? Abolition of Slavery, Women's Suffrage, Voting Rights to age 18+, Direct Election of Senators, and several more changes - in fact, not counting the Bill of Rights, there are 17 changes to the US Constitution.

 

If guns are important enough to merit a change in the law to repeal the right to have them, then someone should convene a Constitutional Convention over it, and have it ratified by 3/4 of the states - wait, no one is trying to. Guess it's not that important to Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick snapshot of US history:

 

During the creation of the Constitution of the United States of America and our Declaration of Independence for that matter, the creators were profoundly aware that government itself was dangerous. That it is within nature of government to is strip away the rights from its citizens. To limit this new governments ability to subjugate us, they added a few safeguards. One of those was how carefully and clearly they stated that this government was to serve the people and not the other way around.

 

You mean the founding fathers of USA were suffering from an advanced form of paranoia?

 

 

LOL... That is definitely one way to look at it.

 

If you look at the entire history of government very few had attempted to allow the people to govern themselves. And those that had, at that point, were not yet proven over time or had failed. So they set up a document that would be difficult to change from it's original intent, and give people the explicit right to overthrow their government if someone or some group in power tried to abuse the people.

 

They felt, and I believe that they were right, that if the people didn't have a way to seize power from the government that the government would eventually have all the power. You are more than welcome to disagree with that assertion, I'm just grateful there hasn't been a need for Proof of Concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the entire history of government very few had attempted to allow the people to govern themselves. And those that had, at that point, were not yet proven over time or had failed. So they set up a document that would be difficult to change from it's original intent, and give people the explicit right to overthrow their government if someone or some group in power tried to abuse the people.

 

They felt, and I believe that they were right, that if the people didn't have a way to seize power from the government that the government would eventually have all the power. You are more than welcome to disagree with that assertion, I'm just grateful there hasn't been a need for Proof of Concept.

 

Well, I can give you a number of examples of countries where firearms are banned and yet people don't feel oppressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I can give you a number of examples of countries where firearms are banned and yet people don't feel oppressed.

 

Great! I'll be happy to look at your examples... Please include how long they have not felt oppressed and how long they actually have not been oppressed (those can be two totally different things). Oh, and what safeguards they have against someone bad stepping in and taking freedoms away.

I think it's wonderful that different countries develop different solutions. Every country should choose their own solutions, with minimal interference from outside forces.

 

Just for clarification, I don't think that any system of government is more or less evil than any other, but rather that some are more open to tyranny than others.

 

 

 

ttlanhil - I'm very sorry, I neglected to respond to one of your replies. I think you may be right in a way. That a media (movies, music, games, as well as 'News') that is full of violence and glorifies it, without the constant guidance and counterpoint from caring responsible adults, probably does negatively affect our young people. That is really sad, isn't it?

Would you agree that we should all step and care more about each other... and that might help things? Or do you have another solution in mind to reduce the violent feelings in young people.

I think that is the real cause of school violence, guns just magnify the problem.

 

 

EDIT -- spelling errors ... sorry everyone.. lol

Edited by Kenneth916

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ttlanhil - I'm very sorry, I neglected to respond to one of your replies. I think you may be right in a way. That a media (movies, music, games, as well as 'News') that is full of violence and glorifies it, without the constant guidance and counterpoint from caring responsible adults, probably does negatively affect our young people. That is really sad, isn't it?

Would you agree that we should all step and care more about each other... and that might help things? Or do you have another solution in mind to reduce the violent feelings in young people.

I think that is the real cause of school violence, guns just magnify the problem.

glorification of violence may be one of the causes. firearms are one of the methods.

both are problems that should be tackled (unfortunately it's hard to do. try to stop the first and people will cry freedom of speach or whatever. try the second, and... well... debates like this one)

 

you're probably right about the counterpoint to the glorified violence as well. simply banning all violence from where impressionable youths can see it, even were it possible, would not be enough(ratings and some level of censorship is still required, but we generally have that already. ramping it up probably won't help that much). the human competative urges, and escalating responce to conflicts that can start from almost nothing mean that we would have to remove violence from ourselves, not our environment, for it to work

 

unfortunately, I don't see good ways to bring these change upon society... there's bad ones, though... removing large cities (and the big-city way of living) would probably do a fair bit of this :P

 

in case there's anyone who might think that it should only be up to US citizens to be discussing this... you may make that arguement only when it does not affect people in other countries. if weapons travel your borders illegally, or it influences the highly-violent (compared to from other places) entertainment/media exported to other places in the world, then anyone else affected has as much right to argue the point

Edited by ttlanhil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a gun freak... so all someone would have to do to win me over is say "insted of trying to ban, lets have BIG penalties"

 

5 years minimum for haveing an unsecured loaded weapon in a household or vehicle when there are children

15 years if it results in their injury

Life if it results in death

 

In California we have a 3 strikes law.. if you commit 3 violent felonies, life automatically. I would like to count two strikes for any felony that included the use of a firearm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a gun freak... so all someone would have to do to win me over is say "insted of trying to ban, lets have BIG penalties"

 

5 years minimum for haveing an unsecured loaded weapon in a household or vehicle when there are children

but that's the thing. the arguement isn't to ban nonautomatic weapons(which are the ones that a civilian can justify having), just to make sure those who have one are responsible.

getting a firearms license shouldn't be hard, just make sure you don't have a serious criminal record, and attend a firearms safety course(which can include firearms maintenance, so you'll get plenty out of going to it) that lasts an afternoon, a weekend, whatever appropriate

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to stop criminals from getting firearms(I expect only the criminals would argue with this one :P ), nor forcing people to take a basic safety course(consider how long it takes to get a drivers license, with the training and all. it varies from place to place, but it's probably still a good example)

 

the sticking point is more the (semi)automatic weapons. civilians have no real need for these, and they weren't even around when the right to bare arms was made law, but some people will still argue that they should be able to get them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! ttlanhil, I think that you and I are really close to agreeing on all of this.

 

My only problem is I don't trust the US government to administer such a program...

I don't have a better process in mind yet, but I'm still thinking about it and will post when I have something. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that firearms in normal homes starts a vicious circle... But getting out of that vicious circle cannot be easily solved, and definately not by just banning firearms. One can just be grateful to live in a country where firearms never were allowed (with exception of hunting and people in the civilian defense force) and where murders are rarely done using firearms.

However we have a huge problems with young people carrying knives, and this causes quite a few stabbings to happen in town by people intoxicated by alcohol or drugs.

Edited by Wytter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not always. Sometimes they attack when not under the influence of achahol. I knew a friend who got stabbed in the leg for "initiation". That i find is aweful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I can give you a number of examples of countries where firearms are banned and yet people don't feel oppressed.

 

Great! I'll be happy to look at your examples... Please include how long they have not felt oppressed and how long they actually have not been oppressed (those can be two totally different things). Oh, and what safeguards they have against someone bad stepping in and taking freedoms away.

I think it's wonderful that different countries develop different solutions. Every country should choose their own solutions, with minimal interference from outside forces.

 

 

Safeguards? Why safeguards? In democratic countries people trust governments - after all, it's themselves who have chosen them. The best safeguard is the constitution or the legal system in general (the UK doesn't even have a constitution and it's doing fine).

 

And a few examples - the British (since loooong time - magna charta, habeas corpus etc.), the Belgians (since 1830), the Dutch (since 1648... i think, I can't remember when it was exactly that the Independent Provinces separated from Spain), the Germans (since always, since it's usually been the oppressing side), the French (since 1830, probably, with brief pauses for wars), the Swedish (since long, can't remember since when exactly), the Danish (since always), the Norwegians (since 1905, I think), the Swiss (again, since long, probably 16th century, but I wouldn't bet on it)...

 

I can also give you examples of peoples who ARE oppressed and LIKE it- like Belorussians or the Chinese. Russians also in general don't mind that they live in a "regulated democracy", as Putin put it..

Edited by Mireille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In democratic countries people trust governments - after all, it's themselves who have chosen them.

:) if that works where you are, consider yourself lucky. around here, voting is a matter of pick the lesser of the two evils... we know whoever gets elected will do things we don't like, it's just a matter of what and how much they do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In democratic countries people trust governments - after all, it's themselves who have chosen them.

:) if that works where you are, consider yourself lucky. around here, voting is a matter of pick the lesser of the two evils... we know whoever gets elected will do things we don't like, it's just a matter of what and how much they do

 

Of course things are not perfect here. But if a government is breaking the law or loses the popular legitimacy, it loses. That's what democracy is all about and what makes advanced societies different from those in many African countries, where governments are abolished by rebellions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but that's the thing. the arguement isn't to ban nonautomatic weapons(which are the ones that a civilian can justify having), just to make sure those who have one are responsible.

getting a firearms license shouldn't be hard, just make sure you don't have a serious criminal record, and attend a firearms safety course(which can include firearms maintenance, so you'll get plenty out of going to it) that lasts an afternoon, a weekend, whatever appropriate

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to stop criminals from getting firearms(I expect only the criminals would argue with this one :hug: ), nor forcing people to take a basic safety course(consider how long it takes to get a drivers license, with the training and all. it varies from place to place, but it's probably still a good example)

 

the sticking point is more the (semi)automatic weapons. civilians have no real need for these, and they weren't even around when the right to bare arms was made law, but some people will still argue that they should be able to get them

 

This is exactly the point. Most military grade weapons are either too light in calibre to kill cleanly, or are too big and heavy to carry around. The standard calibres of most western countries' military firearm is a small round that is designed to tumble and wound. This is ONLY useful for hurting people. Get rid of the military grade weapons on the open market and you solve a whole lot of issues, including that of police being afraid to patrol for fear of ambush.

 

A basic course that involves safety, care and proper operation of the firearm will do a huge amount to stop accidental deaths as well. Almost all of the Americans I know who own firearms have never been taught how to shoot. A fair number of them have never fired the weapons they own. Some of them didn't even know how to disassemble them for cleaning. For them it was a magic sheild that would protect them from things that go bump in the night. That to me is a lot scarier than a possible mugger / murderer that might be out there somewhere.

 

As for the arguement that reducing the number of deaths from 1000 to 1 is meaningless, I can only assume you have not thought it through. By that statement, you have just called into question any and all safety measures put into practice in the workplace to stop injuries. You are saying that laws against drunk driving don't matter. Or that because people still die in car accidents, seatbelts and airbags are useless. ANY reduction in the number of dead should be celebrated, not brushed off because it isn't a total solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the arguement that reducing the number of deaths from 1000 to 1 is meaningless, I can only assume you have not thought it through. By that statement, you have just called into question any and all safety measures put into practice in the workplace to stop injuries. You are saying that laws against drunk driving don't matter. Or that because people still die in car accidents, seatbelts and airbags are useless. ANY reduction in the number of dead should be celebrated, not brushed off because it isn't a total solution.

If you had read what I said AND taken it in context, you would have noted that if YOU are the victim, 1 or 1000 IS meaningless - you are still dead.

 

Yes, looking at it generally and just numbers, less deaths are better than more. BUT when it's you or somoene close who dies, a number is a pointless figure. People still die in auto accidents, but seat belts do help keep MORE people from dieing - still, that reduction means nothing for the people who still die.

 

Agreed, any reduction should be celebrated, but YOU try to comfort the the grieving mother whose son dies in an auto accident that less people die. A death is a death - and to someone dying, or someone who is coping with someone else's death, numbers mean little.

 

The argument has been made that more guns means more gun-related deaths, so guns should be banned. Hmm, on the same note, we should ban cars, because more cars has led to more car crashes! Or ban alcohol because more alcohol consumption leads to more alcohol-related deaths. Or let's go all out and ban life, because life ultimately leads to death.

 

Or, we can do to guns what we've done with factory equipment, cars, alcohol, and such - keep it coming, but make it safer, and teach people how to use it PROPERLY. Inform people of the dangers, and build on safety features, and then let them know what can happen if they misuse it. Then, ultimately, when people have all the knowledge, they HAVE to take responsibility for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to hear some _SERIOUSLY_ good reasons as to why, in all of the outskirts of hell, would any citizen of a western country need a gun?

 

Seriously, come on.

 

 

No really, shoot

 

(excuse the pun)

 

[EDIT]

Please don't insult me by giving answers such as "sports" or "environment". If your honest about things, the only need for guns in a normal society is the defence against others with guns...and well, i'll give you credit to work this one out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to hear some _SERIOUSLY_ good reasons as to why, in all of the outskirts of hell, would any citizen of a western country need a gun?

 

Seriously, come on.

 

 

No really, shoot

 

(excuse the pun)

 

[EDIT]

Please don't insult me by giving answers such as "sports" or "environment". If your honest about things, the only need for guns in a normal society is the defence against others with guns...and well, i'll give you credit to work this one out...

Placid:

 

I can tell from your info that you are from the UK - urban, suburban, or rural (or is rural an option in the UK?)

 

Here's the reason I ask - As an American, I am aware of more than just cities. Much of what you know as the United States of America is quite sparcely populated, and there is a MASSIVE paradigm shift in thinking from urban "city dwellers" to rural "country folk".

 

In the cities, if you have a gun, more than likely, you may hit a person if you fire it random. Unfortunate, but it happens. Now, if everyone has a gun, you have a similar situation to if everyone has a nuclear bomb - the world's about to explode, or so it seems. For some people, they feel that a weapon is a legitimate tool of defense - IMO, this argument holds water if you know how to use it.

 

Outside of cities (and the suburbs), you have wide open spaces - and not many people living there. Here, "sport" is perfectly legitimate for some people. (I, myself, do not agree with killing for sport, myself - it's wasteful.)

 

There's also the problem where some bleeding heart environmentalist desides that, despite the fact the human populace doesn't want an animal in their area, and the animal only caused problems before it "left" the area, it should be "reintroduced". This has caused SEVERE problems, in particular with bears in the Rocky Mountain states of the USA. Often, in the clashes of animal vs. human, only the destruction of the animal is possible (unless you actually feel letting a bear walk onto someone's ranch and devouring them is perfectly fair). In such cases, only a powerful weapon of range is effective - if they get too close, it's too late, and if you don't use something for a clean kill, you just piss off the animal and speed up your own demise. So, a gun is a perfectly humane option, both to animal (quick end) and human (continued existence).

 

Then, there are some who hunt spall game (raccoons, opossum, squirrel) for food - either for a supplemental source of nourishment, or for actual liking of the flavor of the meat. Not exactly something I'm familiar with, myself, but still, it's there.

 

Lastly, the Constitution of the United States provides that, for the support of an armed militia (to defend the nation), all citizens shall have the right to bear arms. Certainly, the days of Indian attacks and invading British are in the past. However, what's to say there isn't someone preparing to invade the USA? Certainly, if we have the responsibility as citizens to defend our nation, we should have the right to provide for that defense? (Before you argue this should be the job of the military, you should also take note that the Constitution ALSO states that the military has no power in the United States itself, except in time of war or extreme emergency, or under the invitation of the governor of whatever state troops wish to act in. Also should be noted that we still have the proud recollection of 50 militia "minutemen" standing up to 800 British regulars.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to hear some _SERIOUSLY_ good reasons as to why, in all of the outskirts of hell, would any citizen of a western country need a gun?

 

Seriously, come on.

 

 

No really, shoot

 

(excuse the pun)

 

[EDIT]

Please don't insult me by giving answers such as "sports" or "environment". If your honest about things, the only need for guns in a normal society is the defence against others with guns...and well, i'll give you credit to work this one out...

Placid:

 

I can tell from your info that you are from the UK - urban, suburban, or rural (or is rural an option in the UK?)

 

Here's the reason I ask - As an American, I am aware of more than just cities. Much of what you know as the United States of America is quite sparcely populated, and there is a MASSIVE paradigm shift in thinking from urban "city dwellers" to rural "country folk".

 

 

In Poland, from where I am from, 20% of population makes their living off farming (arguably, the highest percentage in EU). And we also don't need guns to feel happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Poland, from where I am from, 20% of population makes their living off farming (arguably, the highest percentage in EU). And we also don't need guns to feel happy.

how many coyotes/bears/etc. wander Poland outside of your cities and maul people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Poland, from where I am from, 20% of population makes their living off farming (arguably, the highest percentage in EU). And we also don't need guns to feel happy.

how many coyotes/bears/etc. wander Poland outside of your cities and maul people?

 

We have wolves. And other things. The police and professional, licensed hunters (who have the permit) take care of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, we can do to guns what we've done with factory equipment, cars, alcohol, and such - keep it coming, but make it safer, and teach people how to use it PROPERLY. Inform people of the dangers, and build on safety features, and then let them know what can happen if they misuse it. Then, ultimately, when people have all the knowledge, they HAVE to take responsibility for themselves.

 

Now we are getting somewhere. This is exactly what I am saying (and I think ttlanhil is) as well. I gave some solutions. At least you have started really reading the posts and not just using the NRA talking points.

 

 

I would like to hear some _SERIOUSLY_ good reasons as to why, in all of the outskirts of hell, would any citizen of a western country need a gun?

 

Seriously, come on.

 

 

Go up to Canada. Not too far, just about an hour or two north of the border. There is a huge number of break-ins, vandalisms, thefts and sometimes even the odd murder. All done, not by people but by wild animals. Would you beleive that the people who own the firearms legally are generally the ones who live out in the sticks and who will see bear on a pretty regular basis? Is it really possible to think that these people depend on their firearms to keep themselves and their property safe? But wait! The folks dont use machine guns or RPGs! They use single action hunting rifles. They usually manage to kill what they are shooting for with one or two shots.

 

This is one of the reasons that the US was so keen on firearms even 100 years ago. Now they have the same problems, but instead of wild animals, it is their own citizens (who are even better equipped that most of the police).

 

There is also a significant number of people who depend on hunting to supplement their food. Again, these people usually dont take more than one shot at an animal. Their weapon of choice is a hunting rifle.

 

You can't deny that firearms are useful and even fun. What you can do is restrict the types of firearms available to the general public and have people trained in safe operation before they can purchase them.

 

I will assume that neither of us are talking about police / military type citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×