Jump to content
Eternal Lands Official Forums
shanglo

Yet another school shooting

Recommended Posts

{from a co-worker of Moebird who had received it by email, so not sure how trustworthy these data are:}

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

 

The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,

{more similar figures}

 

Just to stay on the statistics side, at this Wikipedia article there is a list of countries listed by homicide rate (the scalable map is particularly nice).

 

The U.S. are at ~6 murders per 100.000 inhabitants; Western Europe is around 1 per 100.000, which is more or less the same as in Canada. I suspect availability of firearms does not play a major part in explaining the difference, with other factors being more important (e.g., how badly important is money in people lives, to afford basic services), but I would dare to say that there is little support for the idea that arming the population does something to reduce the murder rate.

 

As for Australia, for sure reducing an armed population to an unarmed one (the legal principle being that the State has a monopoly on violence) is a difficult process. We have seen similar things in Ireland and Spain, where in certain areas large sectors of the population had firearms; it takes on average 20 years before the situation stabilizes. Still, the available data (from official UN reports) for Australia tell a different story:

 

Year, murders/100.000

2000, 1.57

2003, 1.53

2004, 1.28

2006, 1.28

 

So it may be worth to review the sources of that email...

In the short run, criminals will keep the guns and law-abiding citizens will turn them on, which is a rather unpleasant situation. In the long run, our experience in Italy is that after a century with no firearms and no death penalty, the crime rate is certainly not particularly high -- and this is even considering Mafia in the statistics :) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.. my arm only reaches so far. Any run of the mill pistol is going atleast 700 feet without petering out. And most of the time, you aren't going to be shot at point blank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys want more guns on the street to defend yourself? o.O

 

really, i'd rather hand over my wallet then shoot someone and be a murderer.

 

The only reason to carry a weapon is to hurt or kill another person and that's not ok with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a tragic event, I couldnt believe it was happening, almost reminded me of 9-11 while i was watching the news.

 

But all in all, if a person is willing to sacrifice their own life to put harm onto others, then there is no way to stop them.

 

If a person has their mind set to kill others, then people will die no matter what the situation, its the simple law of human nature in my opinion.

Cho was a disturbed man, and its absolutly horrible what happened, but now hopefully this should shed some light onto us, to open our eyes to others around and to be able to prevent such occasions in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm.

 

After reading this thread, i find it really funny, how some ppl can argue, that allowing weapons for everyone would be more secure than forbidding weapons for most ppl.

 

I find it really funny, why it looks like that everyone in the states needs a weapon to protect its life while we here in europe, germany can live without it.

 

Yes, we had some shootings at schools over here too, with the same stupid reactions. "COUNTERSTRIKE" "CASTLE WOLFENSTEIN" "BURN HIM ALIVE!" "oh, nvm, he shot himself...."

 

It is not, that we dont have weapons over here. We have hunters too who own guns and such. All you have to do is to take some lessons over here that you can assure that you can differ an animal from a car and that you can make sure that you can still aim at a pig instead of a person walking by after drinking 3 bottles of red wine at night and you can get a license to own up to 5(??) weapons.

 

You can even own some kinds of weapons over here without a license, if theyre using black powder for fireing the bullet. Which leads to the interesting result, you can even own cannons over here, but they must use black powder to fire their bullets.

 

But why, why, why are here so much less ppl killed than in the states?

 

May it be related that here not every idiot is running around with an automatic weapon? Do you need a machine gun or a nuclear bomb if you just wanna go hunting some deers or protect yourself?

 

And the argumentation about the jews is somehow lame. It wasnt like the police in the Nazi age went to them and said "Good evening, Mr. Jew. We will transport you now to Auschwitz and gas and burn you within the next 3 days.". They were a little bit more tricky.

 

Well, my 2 cents.

 

Piper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

couple of points

 

 

1. Die with dignity, in a relatively painless death.

2. Take some motherfuckers with you.

3. Make them think twice before they come to get you.

 

The jews owning guns hell after the first couple of times that what u segested happens they'd just throung in a granade in and bom they're all dead.

 

 

 

"Year, murders/100.000

2000, 1.57

2003, 1.53

2004, 1.28

2006, 1.28"

 

that low realy low like hell most of these whould have happend in the gang land wars that are going on at the moment, not all of couse.

 

in the NT where i live u hardly every hear about any murders the most exsiting you genraly get is some croc try to eat some one.

 

 

hell im 14 and i own a compound bow :P u can all tease me about that but up here peaple use them to drop buffilos and hell guns even have trouble doing that though bows do to there about the same. To get it all i need to do is fill in a form and send it of to the ABA (Australian bowhunters Assosation) and then go to you lokal out door rec and buy a bow hell if i wanted to go on a killing spree id at lest get one or to peaple the point is wepons are easy to come by if you want to fix this problem you need to make ALL wepons harder to come by.

 

buff1.jpg

Edited by ervak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as there is one gun on the street all men and woman should have the right to bare arms also,regardless of having felon record (can get a felon just for kicking some ass holes ass) does this mean you should get shoot in head and robed and not be aloud to protect yourself? and if they take the guns out of bad people hands i feel sorry for future victims getting killed by harmers and baseball bats ,that being more painful then just getting shot to death.No one thinks about that.I sure rather be shot in face then stabed 31 times(GUNS DONT KILL -PEPOLE KILL)

 

LOL, thats just stupid. How many people would the Korean have killed if he was armed with a baseball bat? Probably 0, maybe 1 or 2 if he was lucky.

 

The problem is that there are already that many guns around. If guns were, from the beginning, only limited to members of the police or army, there wouldnt be gangs with every member being armed to the teeth. I live in Holland, we dont have guns. Well, i am sure *some* people got guns, but not anyone i know of. I also have no need for a gun, nor have i ever felt the need to own one.

 

What if someone tries to rob someone in the streets. If he expects the one he is going to rob has a gun, will it stop him? I don't think so. If he really wants to rob someone now, its probably easier to shoot the victim first, then rob him. If nobody owns a gun on the other hand, but the robber does, you just give him your money instead of your life.

 

Perhaps the killer in Virginia would have killed some people anyway if it was harder to get a gun, because he obviously prepared his killing spree. In other cases, where somebody suddenly gets a blur in his eyes and decides he wants to kill people, it might be sorta nice if he had no easy access to a gun. Or an arsenal that would make Rambo look like a sissy, for that matter.

 

I also think the media has some fault to shootings like these. The killers are usually sensation seekers. They wanna get their point known to the world. This killer already knew in advance that he would be on every channel in every country for the next 2 weeks. But yeah, what you gonna do... not reporting about is probably isnt an option either. But the next killer will have to kill more than this one to get his point through...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was that n00b from china ?China man ?Or what .....if he is american he should die on the lighting chair , anyway i heard he is a china man , and they are not allowed to kill him.....

 

 

he wasnt chinese he was korean, a seriously f'ed up korean. This guy shudda been in like a mental hospital in a rubber room. I mean he though he was WAAY more important than he really was

 

and another thing... this pisses me off about the Virginia Tech shooting. The whole east coast like stopped when it happened, but in Baltimore(where i live close to) a person is killed at least every day, but jack shit isnt done about that

Edited by spade66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys want more guns on the street to defend yourself? o.O

 

really, i'd rather hand over my wallet then shoot someone and be a murderer.

 

The only reason to carry a weapon is to hurt or kill another person and that's not ok with me.

 

If I live in a state where you can shoot someone who is a threat (like Florida, for example), then I would rather kill a person than give him my wallet, for two reasons:

1. It is better for the society (then people will be less likely to rob you), and no time in jail means more tax money for other things.

2. It is better for me. My wallet is mine, and mine alone. No one has the right to take it (except for the federal, state and local governments, which take 30+% of your money).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, thats just stupid. How many people would the Korean have killed if he was armed with a baseball bat? Probably 0, maybe 1 or 2 if he was lucky.

 

Then you say:

 

Perhaps the killer in Virginia would have killed some people anyway if it was harder to get a gun, because he obviously prepared his killing spree. In other cases, where somebody suddenly gets a blur in his eyes and decides he wants to kill people, it might be sorta nice if he had no easy access to a gun. Or an arsenal that would make Rambo look like a sissy, for that matter.

 

If someone is willing to give his own life in order to kill people, he or she can do so without a gun.

For example, there are ways to make explosives out of commonly available stuff. Fill a bag with explosive and nails, go in a crowded place, and boom.

 

On the other hand, if you allow law abiding citizens to own guns, they can stop a bad person that has a gun before he has a chance to use it.

 

Some idiot wanted to rob a gun store... and the second after he pulled the gun and demanded money, he got shot by 7 people. Now imagine if no one else had a gun; he could have taken the money then decide to kill all the withnesses.

BTW, read thiss tory too: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=55288

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you give them your money, and don't try to follow, you're generally going to be safe. if you make a fight of it, and firearms are involved, someone is probably going to get seriously injured or killed... and the chances it's you are... 50/50? somewhere between 30-70%? I don't know about you, but I'd rather give up $50 than have a chance of having to lose out a lot more from a hospital (or worse) stay...

and while I agree with the ends (not the means) of improving society and reducing crime, I find the idea of people who think more of money than human life to be scary and disturbing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and while I agree with the ends (not the means) of improving society and reducing crime, I find the idea of people who think more of money than human life to be scary and disturbing...

 

Who said anything about the money? It is not about the money at all, it's about someone trying to vilolate you, trying to show you that HE can TAKE stuff from you, or else.

Since HE intiates that action, then it's fair game, the society is much better off without people like that.

 

And FYI, I value the human life more than money, I donated 1K USD (500 a year, for 2 years) to doctors without borders, and it is safe to say that my money, thorugh them, helped saving many lives. And I will continue to donate money to them. But I don't think someone who wants to rob you qualifies as a human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I live in a state where you can shoot someone who is a threat (like Florida, for example), then I would rather kill a person than give him my wallet

I think to shoot someone to defend yourself is legal almost everywhere.
1. It is better for the society (then people will be less likely to rob you), and no time in jail means more tax money for other things.
Well, the best for the society would be to have a decent citizen, instead of a robber or a dead robber. So i think the society should do something for their citizens to not become robbers, in the first place.

 

But i agree that a dead robber is arguably better for the society than an alive one. So, if the only alternative to defend yourself or your property is to kill someone, i doubt that a judge would send you to the jail for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some idiot wanted to rob a gun store... and the second after he pulled the gun and demanded money, he got shot by 7 people. Now imagine if no one else had a gun; he could have taken the money then decide to kill all the withnesses.

 

That is a good point. Not that an idiot wants to rob anything, but why is there a gun store?

 

No gun store, no way to get easily weapons by just buying them or just by robbing a gun store.

 

Maybe i live on a very different planet or even in a very different universe, but when i read this thread and see ppl arguing to have *MORE* weapons owned by ppl instead of *LESS*, that that would be more safe, since you can shoot everyone on sight, who *MAY* cause a crime, sounds very strange for me.

 

But thats maybe the reason why i am not in Bagdhad and get shot, but others are.

 

Live with it, i dont understand it.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Piper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ban guns and I'll move somewhere where they're not banned. I'm not giving up my right to defend myself against an armed criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, if you allow law abiding citizens to own guns, they can stop a bad person that has a gun before he has a chance to use it.

 

Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Who determines if someone is a "good citizen"? Everybody thinks they are the good guys, and if they don't think so, they will definitely not tell.

 

Reasoning like this makes it seem only logical that countries like Iran and North Korea develop nuclear weapons. The bad guys (they will see US as the bad guys) got nuclear weapons, we need a way to defend ourselves.

And looking at it objectively, why shouldnt they? If the US has a 'right' to own nuclear weapons, why wouldnt other countries as well? Because US has 'democracy'?

 

I definitely wouldnt feel any safer if Holland started to develop nuclear weapons just for the sake of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone a weapon to defend yourself isn't likely to reduce crime. It will only give a false feeling of safety. A determind person will always find a way to kill as many as possible. They just take in account that so many people have weapons and find a way around them.

If everyone had a weapon the temptation to use it would be greater and acces to weapons would be alot easier.

 

IMHO the US is a lot closer to a form of anarchy then they realise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO situations like Virginia Tech are not the norm. Neither is Kennesaw, Georgia.

Cho was way off the scale in his motives to satisfy himself, and unpredictable in his actions. Same with all people who pull off similar acts. The only way to avoid these situations is to literally 'be thy brothers keeper'. That guy needed either some friends or a rubber room....

 

A small town where everyone respects firearms and keeps them responsibly is fine. I wouldn't move there since I would rather not be armed. Remember that there are places (particularly in the diversified US) that can handle such a situation, and other places that would turn into bloody brutal turf gang wars over who has the shiniest legal Glock. In my county I can think of villages of equal size as Kennesaw that would show the same statistics, and those that would fill hospitals no end; all with the same program as Kennesaw.

 

Isn't it just a little simpler to regulate weaponry on a national scale with thorough records of all firearms sold than to find out where they came from after the fact?

 

Isn't enough to have a swift piece, take it to the range and show the gang how to hit the bullseye, but you have no ammo at home? Look at it this way: the headlines read: "Homeowner Beats Intruder to Death With Stale Loaf of Pumpernickel".... isn't that more macho than a bullet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

blaming it on violent video games?

but but... i wanted to serp the asshole who shook my beer!! >.<

 

but seriosly though, if you dont have the distinction between reality and a video game... you should be removed from society. shot, maybe even... serped

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO i think if every1 in the country (US) had a gun, there would be a huge spike in crime for the first 15-25 years, but once people finally realize that if they pull out a gun, 3 more people will in a moment, no one is going to use them anymore, same thing with nukes, why did the US use nukes on the japanese, because they knew no one else could do it back to them, why doesnt the US use nukes on Iraq and afganistan? because they know there will be similar reprecusions...like a nuke in NYC/LA or a chem. bomb. in the suppliers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i live in Canada and the closest thing in my school to a shooting is a big fight (upwards of 50 people) with the school down the street, now not many people in Canada have guns and this fight was ended by the cops in a few minutes, but if people are allowed to carry guns on the street im willing to bet someone would have died instead of just a few broken bones

 

kids drop the guns and pick up a guitar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×