Another shooting - 20 children killed

And this didn't address what I said. It just ignored the facts that refuted his comment without addressing them.
Gregory Hines got nothin' on you, perfessor. Let's try this again. My construct is a reasonable and predictable result of your proposed policy. Do you agree or not?

Since you can do nothing but agree, that undercuts your argument about irrational responses, since your "rational" response is in fact a non-response and also a non-solution.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
Obviously you need to repossess weapons. The constitution? Are you kidding me? When was that formed again?

We're talking about a cultural change - not a mild suggestion.

If you have a brain, you hold on to traditions or ancient outdated rules if they help you and the society at large. If they prevent you from saving innocent lives - then you're a moron if you hold on to it.

Question is simple enough, do you really want to be a moron?

I'm talking about the nation as a whole. You have to choose between changing words or ending more lives.

Just because they shove the constitution down your throat in school, it doesn't mean everything about it is perfect or sacred.
You're getting sloppy. He gave you evidence from your enlightened ivory tower types that taking away the guns DOESN'T WORK. Even this event occurred in a state with rigorous gun control laws. DIDN'T WORK.

Your response is "it's obvious you take away the guns, moron." Now, exactly who is the moron here?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
Obviously you need to repossess weapons.

Which simply isn't feasible. Again, we can't control the flow of drugs in and around this country, how are we going to control guns?

The constitution? Are you kidding me? When was that formed again?

And it has served us well for over 2 centuries. It's held up longer and better than anything Europe has put together.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,354
Location
Austin, TX
My construct is a reasonable and predictable result of your proposed policy. Do you agree or not? Since you can do nothing but agree, that undercuts your argument about irrational responses, since your "rational" response is in fact a non-response and also a non-solution.

I disagree due to the argument stated;
1. People in general do not act according to how they believe they act
2. Many are uncomfortable with guns and may not be able to fire at a human being even when trying to save themselves
3. Since 1 and 2 refute your (and Sams) proposed solution (it only helps killers, no one else), we need another solution. I gave a solution and that is to attempt to stop the crime before it happens. This alternate solution have been proven successful in many nations which statistics show.

This is based on facts. Facts about behavior tested and reproduced in research and statistical success of social campaigns meant to address the problem.

What you did was to just ignore 1 and 2. You both actually begun to blame me for not being a killer and accepting I am not. Like that's a bad thing. Look at you.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
You're getting sloppy. He gave you evidence from your enlightened ivory tower types that taking away the guns DOESN'T WORK. Even this event occurred in a state with rigorous gun control laws. DIDN'T WORK.

Your response is "it's obvious you take away the guns, moron." Now, exactly who is the moron here?

I wouldn't be talking about being sloppy if I were you. You're completely in tirade-mode and you have nothing useful to add. That's because your position is laughably weak and you know it - you're just too thickheaded to keep quiet.

As for your claim, CrazyIrish said this:

Any gun control short of total repossesion by the state will have little appreciable effect on gun violence in the US

I responded with the obvious - and that's that you HAVE to repossess weapons.

I didn't call him a moron - I said you were a moron if you held on to something without a good reason, which is what's not here.
 
What are you talking about? Are you seriously saying the entirety of Europe has a terror complex because those of us with experience with strict gun laws are suggesting it for the US?
No, I'm saying that y'all have a culture based on pissing down your leg at the mere thought of violence. Probably a result of having recent significant combat on your own soil. We don't have that sort of culture, so your cut-n-paste imposition of a Euro solution simply isn't applicable. I believe I mentioned rainbows and unicorns earlier.

To state that I don't wish for a solution to this problem is rather insulting and tremendously false. I just want a solution that will actually work, rather than some cut-n-paste Euro bullshit that attempts to treat the symptoms (and won't work, to boot) rather than the actual disease.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
Which simply isn't feasible. Again, we can't control the flow of drugs in and around this country, how are we going to control guns?

All you can do is the best you can do. We who already have very strict gun laws can't prevent people from gaining access to guns - but we can minimise it. What's EXTREMELY obvious is that it's working.

And it has served us well for over 2 centuries. It's held up longer and better than anything Europe has put together.

Europe? Could you be more specific.

How about you investigate Denmark or Sweden and our violent crimes before you talk nonsense.

Nothing is perfect, and Denmark certainly isn't. But in terms of violence and crime, we're so far ahead of you that I lack the words. In fact, in terms of standard of living, social security, economic stability and so on - you haven't got a chance.

That said, I'm not interested in a competition. If you really think your constitution has served you well, then I don't know what to say. Maybe it has - but it's still not perfect and it's preventing your from progressing like the rest of us.
 
No, I'm saying that y'all have a culture based on pissing down your leg at the mere thought of violence. Probably a result of having recent significant combat on your own soil. We don't have that sort of culture, so your cut-n-paste imposition of a Euro solution simply isn't applicable. I believe I mentioned rainbows and unicorns earlier.

All of Europe has a culture of pissing their legs at the thought of violence?

Does that mean that the US adores the thought of killing people or what?

You sound like a 12-year old with no knowledge of anything that has happened in history.

You're not making any sense whatsoever. Where do you think the people who formed America came from?

The fact that you've had access to a ridiculous amount of resources and let everyone settle means you have the means to kill people with fancy weaponry. How impressive.

Do I need to remind you that people from all other countries have fought and died in war? Obviously, that's not important to you. But I guess you take pride in the war machine your resources have made possible. Except, I doubt you're that crude and I doubt you'd be much of an opponent in war with that attitude.

If you want to take pride in something, take pride in what America used to be - and how you used to be a positive for the rest of the world. Don't take pride in your ability to kill or your capacity to do so on a much larger scale than smaller countries. That's not very impressive, that's repulsive.

You're still human beings and human beings without access to guns kill each other with a lower frequency and collateral damage is insignificant without them or weapons of similarly deadly capacity.

To state that I don't wish for a solution to this problem is rather insulting and tremendously false. I just want a solution that will actually work, rather than some cut-n-paste Euro bullshit that attempts to treat the symptoms (and won't work, to boot) rather than the actual disease.

Of course you want a solution, you just value your own pride far more than you value an actual solution. You're being willfully stupid - and your tirade here is a clear sign of that.
 
So then, you're calling people morons for not applying a Euro bandaid (that's been shown NOT TO WORK) to a problem with American culture. And I'm the one on a tirade? OK.

You're generalizing a nation to make your points, but you're complaining about me generalizing a region to make mine. OK.

You're gleefully treating symptoms (with a medicine THAT DOESN'T WORK) rather than attacking the problem, but I'm the one that's willfully stupid. OK.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
I disagree due to the argument stated;
1. People in general do not act according to how they believe they act
2. Many are uncomfortable with guns and may not be able to fire at a human being even when trying to save themselves
3. Since 1 and 2 refute your (and Sams) proposed solution (it only helps killers, no one else), we need another solution. I gave a solution and that is to attempt to stop the crime before it happens. This alternate solution have been proven successful in many nations which statistics show.

This is based on facts. Facts about behavior tested and reproduced in research and statistical success of social campaigns meant to address the problem.

What you did was to just ignore 1 and 2. You both actually begun to blame me for not being a killer and accepting I am not. Like that's a bad thing. Look at you.
So then, you feel having no options but really, really strong hope (one might call that faith, ya know, but I wander...) during a stressful situation is preferable to having multiple options to choose from, even if the choice must be made during an irrational moment. Put down the textbooks for a moment and answer the simple question. Have I misrepresented the reasonable and expected result of your proposed solution?

Really, the whole irrational behavior angle is a red herring to main discussion anyway, but it led into a meaningful, real world repudiation of your position so I played along.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
So then, you're calling people morons for not applying a Euro bandaid (that's been shown NOT TO WORK) to a problem with American culture. And I'm the one on a tirade? OK.

Bandaid? You're being funny. Let me guess, you're ignoring what I'm saying about repossession, right?

I'm calling people morons if they let their pride or tradition stand in the way of saving lives, yeah.

But maybe moron is not the right word. Cruel or fanatically selfish, perhaps.

Well, just being human will suffice. Unfortunately, human beings are ignorant - and in this case, it means a lot of people are dying because they won't enlighten themselves with obvious ways of avoiding it.

You're generalizing a nation to make your points, but you're complaining about me generalizing a region to make mine. OK.

I'm talking about the nation when I'm talking about the nation, and you seem to be talking about the worst examples when you talk about all countries.

You're gleefully treating symptoms (with a medicine THAT DOESN'T WORK) rather than attacking the problem, but I'm the one that's willfully stupid. OK.

No, I'm talking about using your brain to realise something that works because there's no way it couldn't work. You don't need studies or "ivory tower" support to realise that. You just need to process some very simple concepts, like how having much fewer guns means fewer guns will be used. Net result? Fewer people will die.

That's a logical certainty.
 
All you can do is the best you can do. We who already have very strict gun laws can't prevent people from gaining access to guns - but we can minimise it. What's EXTREMELY obvious is that it's working.

Is it the gun controls or the cultural difference? Norway's strict gun laws did nothing to stop Anders Behring Breivik because he was someone that was mentally ill and slipped through the cracks (as you said, you can minimise it, but you can't eliminate it). We have a rampant untreated mental illness problem in the US more than we have a gun problem. Solve the first (which is much more feasible anyway) and if that doesn't work THEN we can start talking about guns.

Europe? Could you be more specific.

The continent to the left of Asia.

How about you investigate Denmark or Sweden and our violent crimes before you talk nonsense.

Neither Denmark nor Sweden has enjoyed the freedoms that the US has for as long. The Constitution of the United States has served us well.

Nothing is perfect, and Denmark certainly isn't. But in terms of violence and crime, we're so far ahead of you that I lack the words.

Again, its more cultural than anything else.

In fact, in terms of standard of living, social security, economic stability and so on - you haven't got a chance.

It's to achieve those things in a small economy in a small country. A better comparison is all of western Europe vs the US. And on that, given the problem with the PIIGS and how it is now invading France, your supposed superior system is on the brink of collapse.

That said, I'm not interested in a competition. If you really think your constitution has served you well, then I don't know what to say. Maybe it has - but it's still not perfect and it's preventing your from progressing like the rest of us.

I never said it was perfect, but I'll take it over anything else out there. It's a living breathing document. As for progressing, well if we ever 'progress' the way Europe has, I'll be looking for a new place to live. No thanks.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,354
Location
Austin, TX
No, I'm talking about using your brain to realise something that works because there's no way it couldn't work. You don't need studies or "ivory tower" support to realise that. You just need to process some very simple concepts, like how having much fewer guns means fewer guns will be used. Net result? Fewer people will die.

That's a logical certainty.
See, that's where you completely miss the mark. I'm going to do this slowly.
1) A person that will use a gun to kill another person (ignoring self defense, war, yadda yadda) is a criminal.
2) Criminals do not follow laws, by definition.
3) Use laws to limit the guns available to criminals???

I feel like I should put "4) Profit!!!"

The only people that will follow your gun control laws are people that follow the law. It's basically an identity equation. People that follow the law were never the problem in the first place. Proposing a legal solution (that's easily circumvented by criminals) to deal with people that don't follow legal strictures is just plain silly.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
Is it the gun controls or the cultural difference? Norway's strict gun laws did nothing to stop Anders Behring Breivik because he was someone that was mentally ill and slipped through the cracks (as you said, you can minimise it, but you can't eliminate it). We have a rampant untreated mental illness problem in the US more than we have a gun problem. Solve the first (which is much more feasible anyway) and if that doesn't work THEN we can start talking about guns.

No one is talking about eliminating violent crimes and you know it. Gun control and cultural differences go hand in hand. While you're working on solving a problem that you could never solve, people are being killed - and you have the means to physically prevent a lot of that from happening.

The continent to the left of Asia.

I'll take that as a no.

Neither Denmark nor Sweden has enjoyed the freedoms that the US has for as long. The Constitution of the United States has served us well.

What does the past matter now? People are dying NOW. The reason we're so far ahead of you today, is that we've been able to progress. The Constitution was great when it was formed - and the core is still solid. But if you refuse to change it out of pride or tradition, you're only holding yourself back.

Again, its more cultural than anything else.

Yes, it's cultural - and that's what I'm proposing you change. We're a less violent culture, and there are many reasons for that. One reason is that we don't have guns as an integral part of our culture, and another reason is that we don't let people suffer in poverty.

It's to achieve those things in a small economy in a small country. A better comparison is all of western Europe vs the US. And on that, given the problem with the PIIGS and how it is now invading France, your supposed superior system is on the brink of collapse.

No, because I'm not talking about all of western Europe. We don't have a shared constitution or shared background. We're all individual countries with an invididual history. You can't lump us together - even if it makes it easier for you to dismiss the good parts of us.

Remember, I consider all human beings equal - and americans are no different. So, we're talking about culture - and our economies interact to a much larger extent than our internal policies. The entire economy of the world is collapsing - and I'm not here to say I think capitalism is a good system, because I don't.

I never said it was perfect, but I'll take it over anything else out there. It's a living breathing document. As for progressing, well if we ever 'progress' the way Europe has, I'll be looking for a new place to live. No thanks.

You sound like a fanatic here. You sound like a religious nut holding on to the Bible. If you really think you understand progress in every European country and you can proclaim it all as inferior to what has happened over the past 50 years in the US - then you're being delusional.
 
Two more pages of posts?

Okay, I'll make just one more post and then I'm gone from this thread for good.

According to wiki, Australia had years of mass murders and then made a restrictive law about guns. Since that law, no more massacres happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

There some more posts all over internet about this, for example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021983592


I admit I didn't hear about this before and perhaps only Corwin can confirm if it is true or not. But it's good enough for me.
Dear USA friends, do what Australia did. Please. It works.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
See, that's where you completely miss the mark. I'm going to do this slowly.
1) A person that will use a gun to kill another person (ignoring self defense, war, yadda yadda) is a criminal.
2) Criminals do not follow laws, by definition.
3) Use laws to limit the guns available to criminals???

Again with absolutely no understanding of human beings.

Do you think that 20-year old kid was a murdering criminal when he was 19? Do you think his mother was criminal and would have illegally gotten a gun in a world with strict gun control?

Sigh.

What's so hard to understand about guns not being easily accessible? It's an incredibly simple concept. You minimise the amount of guns - and you enforce gun control - and you end up with a LOT less violent crimes.

I know you think people are born criminals or saints - but they're not. People develop according to what happens to them - and if they have a breakdown, you will get a better result if you don't shove a gun down their throat so they have it available.

The only people that will follow your gun control laws are people that follow the law. It's basically an identity equation. People that follow the law were never the problem in the first place. Proposing a legal solution (that's easily circumvented by criminals) to deal with people that don't follow legal strictures is just plain silly.

It doesn't matter if they follow the law or not. YOU don't follow èvery single law yourself - and if you claim otherwise, I'll know you're a liar so don't even try. That means you're a criminal.

What matters is that gun control is enforced throughout the nation - and as such, a lot of POTENTIAL criminals will not have easy access to guns.

It's so, so very simple.

Even in Denmark we have a few gun-related violent crimes. They can never be entirely eliminated. We're talking about minimising.

I could get myself a gun if I tried hard enough, but I have no use for it. Most people around here are like that - which is why there are much fewer people with the potential to kill each other with a gun. We still have lots of criminals, however.
 
No one is talking about eliminating violent crimes and you know it. Gun control and cultural differences go hand in hand. While you're working on solving a problem that you could never solve, people are being killed - and you have the means to physically prevent a lot of that from happening.

You keep saying that, but it simply isn't true. Even if you could magic away the existing gun supply in the US, they'd just pour in across the Mexican borders. It would be the best gift anyone has ever given the Mexican cartels.


[quoteI'll take that as a no.[/quote]

Given how many governments just about every western Europen country has gone through in the past 200 years, its a bit hard to narrow it down.

What does the past matter now? People are dying NOW.

That same attitutde is why Japanese Americans got internned during WWII just for being of Japanese decent. Advanced societies don't succumb to knee jerk reactions.

The reason we're so far ahead of you today, is that we've been able to progress.

Except that you're really not ahead of us today. Western Europe's social system is crumbling under back breaking debt from the social promises you think everyone is entitled too. We certainly have issues there, but I'd take ours over yours any day of the week.

The Constitution was great when it was formed - and the core is still solid. But if you refuse to change it out of pride or tradition, you're only holding yourself back.

The right to bear arms is part of that core. We don't refuse to change it, we change it when it is necessary. As horrible as this tradegy is, even if you total up all the school shootings that have ever occured in American history, the death toll is less than the number of people that die in one year in the state of Texas in highway accidents. To the individuals directly affected, it is obviously a horrible, unfathomable tradegy, but statistically, its not even a blip.

Yes, it's cultural - and that's what I'm proposing you change. We're a less violent culture, and there are many reasons for that. One reason is that we don't have guns as an integral part of our culture, and another reason is that we don't let people suffer in poverty.

One can own guns and not be violent. As for poverty rates, umm, yes you do. Poverty rates vary from 10-23% (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081031102640.htm).

No, because I'm not talking about all of western Europe. We don't have a shared constitution or shared background. We're all individual countries with an invididual history. You can't lump us together - even if it makes it easier for you to dismiss the good parts of us.

The point is that what works in a small country such as Denmark doesn't necessarily work in a large country like the US. Just as the countries of Europe have individual histories and cultures, so does the United States. As someone who grew up in Texas, I can tell you that moving to New York was as much of a shock as if I had moved to another country in many ways.


You sound like a fanatic here. You sound like a religious nut holding on to the Bible. If you really think you understand progress in every European country and you can proclaim it all as inferior to what has happened over the past 50 years in the US - then you're being delusional.

No more delusional than you thinking you can understand the culture and problems of the United States.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,354
Location
Austin, TX
Two more pages of posts?

Okay, I'll make just one more post and then I'm gone from this thread for good.

According to wiki, Australia had years of mass murders and then made a restrictive law about guns. Since that law, no more massacres happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

There some more posts all over internet about this, for example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021983592


I admit I didn't hear about this before and perhaps only Corwin can confirm if it is true or not. But it's good enough for me.
Dear USA friends, do what Australia did. Please. It works.

I'm not aware of Australia having a massively pourus border with a neighbor that would love nothing more than to have another illegal market to exploit.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,354
Location
Austin, TX
What matters is that gun control is enforced throughout the nation - and as such, a lot of POTENTIAL criminals will not have easy access to guns.

Which isn't even remotely feasbile, so what's your next solution.

Even in Denmark we have a few gun-related violent crimes. They can never be entirely eliminated. We're talking about minimising.

It's funny, I was in Copenhagen in May for work and the head of our office related there that a massive gun smuggling operation had been busted in the basement of the building where our office is. These guys had an insane amount of fire power and were apparently selling it to some gangs of immigrants that have plagued Denmark in recent years. Additionally they were shipping them to other countries.

Now granted, they did eventually bust it, but it had been operating for at least 2 years before that. So with Denmarks strict gun laws unable to prevent that from starting, how is the US supposed to?

I could get myself a gun if I tried hard enough, but I have no use for it. Most people around here are like that - which is why there are much fewer people with the potential to kill each other with a gun. We still have lots of criminals, however.

So basically you admit that it is cultural, not the fact that guns are around. While you may not believe it, its not the easiest thing in most states in the US to get a gun. I'm applying for a permit for a handgun as we speak. Its a 6 month process in NYC as NYC has super strict laws on gun ownership.

Or I could walk a few blocks into Bed-Stuy and buy one on the corner for a few hundred bucks, despite the laws of NYC.

The law is not the issue, the culture and mental illness issues are and until you can grasp that, you will no grasp the problem the US faces.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,354
Location
Austin, TX
Liberty isn't a stupid, outdated idea. That I hold it more important than safety is merely a philosophical difference. I assure you, I am not a moron. I am capable of engaging in intelligent conversation with nearly anyone of any education level.

Saddest part about this conversation Dart, is that you are clearly an intelligent and well spoken individual. But your choice of language actually reinforces the resolve of your opponents, even though the substance of your argument might otherwise sway people. And in turn that reinforces your decision to use such language. Just another vicious cycle of non-discussion, that takes everyone involved nowhere.

If changing the world is so incredibly important to you, then you should really reassess your communication methods. Do they really serve your arguments and purpose? Or merely your ego?
 
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
615
Back
Top Bottom