 | |
OT - Virginia Tech
Formula 1 Formula 1 motor racing discusions (rec.autos.sport.f1)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#21
 
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
Re: OT - Virginia Tech -
04-17-2007
, 06:06 AM
|
a_Frank <fajp (AT) notthis (DOT) optushome.com.au> wrote in news:luq823dcf30pd811m36p7cjf6q5pgrs51b (AT) 4ax (DOT) com: I think less guns can reduce domestic and hot head deaths, but when fruitcakes go nuts, they can and will find ways to do what they want. How many guns did the guys on the planes on their way to the WTC have ? How many do the suicide bombers carry ? The shoe bomber ? If i flipped, i could find many wonderful ways to take out a bunch of people and i don't currently own a gun. A significant proportion of people who 'crack' do it on the spur of the moment and the smaller the killing capacity of the weapon they have access to the better. Agree with the availability bit, but do you think this guy, carrying |
fired all over the place) did this in a moment of madness ? How about
the Tassie guy wih his three long rifles and the handgun ? Usual
Tasmanian jewellery ?
Nah. Massacres like this are done by people who have been pushed
beyond their edge and want to take down as many people as possible and
probably with them. And they do plan for it and that is why they
usually become so devastating.
Quote:
|
And people who plan and plot would do far less damage if they could not get access to the weapons they use. But we(humans) adapt so well, Brendan. Do you have someone you know in |
found and confescated since the gun control was introduced.
People who do plan for it will find other ways. Can you imagine a
tanker driver getting pissed off with the world ? 30 tonnes of a
vehicle and 100,000 litres of fuel ploughing through into a shopping
center on a Friday night at 60 Mph ? Sounds like fun ?? It would make
the Bali bombings seem like as if a cap gun went off.
Quote:
|
You sanction his right to them - for his protection presumably. Don't twist my words. |
Quote:
|
This isn't black and white, Brendan. Gun control should be enforced, but as long as there *are* guns out there, restricting your right to prepare in defending yourself against one, is totally wrong. You're arguing that it's not fair to reduce the number of guns because you need guns to defend yourself from the guns..? No. What i'm telling you is that it is beautiful to live in hope, but |
Quote:
|
Answer me this simple question: Consider the likelihood of gun deaths and injuries through deliberate and accidental use (outside the legitimate use by police). Does it increase or decrease as the number, availability and killing power of guns increases? So - should we have more or less guns? Less. Reduced by a sane and controlled way. Not by removing it from |
of criminals enabling them to hurt and/or terrorise the same community
you've just disarmed.
As soon as you can post a cop next to every person, i'll say to hell
with it. The cop will look after us, but until then, every incident is
an individual incident and should be treated as such.
When someone's daughter gets raped at gunpoint, knifepoint etc.. we
say "oh shit", when it's your own daughter, again, you will want a
gun.
Quote:
|
I've said this some gun debates ago; If you(being anti-gun) and i(being relatively pro-gun, but wanting much more control) were standing in an alley and facing the gun barrel of a perp, you *would wish* that i've had a gun on me and that i would use it. A convenient situation that has an origin caused by the presence of the weapon in the first place. So no - you'd be shot because not unnaturally he was attacking you with an advantage of surprise and your gun is useless. He expects everyone to have one and plans for it. Escalation doesn't work. Have you ever been in such situations, or just making up stories ? I |
And i'm here to tell about it. Escalation and all..
Quote:
|
I wouldn't have the problem because he wouldn't have a gun. He'd have a crowbar or knife. BUT, he *does* have a gun Brendan. That is the point ! |
Quote:
|
preemptive The "he might let you live if you don't escalate" thing is about as good as a "whoops, he fired" ,so let's not even try that one.  /p As long as you can not disprove that you(and most any sane person) would think that way when being threatened by a weapon, the whole gun banning debate will just always fall down around you. So in your world of everyone having guns I don't have one and get shot, yet in my world of no-one having one I do? Difference is, your world is based on fantasy. |
ignore how the bad side thinks and works.
Quote:
|
We've already made a huge step in our country Frank - yet you'd like to hand everyone a shotgun, just to be safe? No, i want full gun control. We have the technology to finger print |
they can only be fired by their legal owner. We can keep datatases and
redeem the costs of maintaining that and a regular sanity and weapons
check on all gun owners. All that in itself would turn a lot of people
off from buying firearms and those who would choose to do so, would
have to undertake the regular tests and/or inspections, or face
prosecution. And it would be all funded by them. You want a gun, sure,
pay for it, but your choice of owning a firearm should still rest with
you, not some pencil pusher making statistical assumptions about your
chances of being a victim or not.
Quote:
|
Make them illegal, jail people who possess them, make any crime double the penalty if in possession of a gun. Their primary purpose is to kill. No, i'm an open advocate to murder for murder. Premeditated murder |
Crimes, where a firearm or *any other* deadly weapon is used should be
a mandatory minimum of 10 years.
--
Regards, Frank
#22
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
|
|
I think less guns can reduce domestic and hot head deaths, but when fruitcakes go nuts, they can and will find ways to do what they want. No, that just is not true. Without such easy access to a gun who is to say what this person may have done. How much planning went into this? What he started with a gun may well otherwise have started with a knife and never have spread to what became the main killing ground. How many guns did the guys on the planes on their way to the WTC have ? Have you ever looked into the psyche of these people ? Generally they |
and do draw on memories of previous ones to make sure that they will
succeed in what they have planned. You may call it a temporary(or
pemanent) psychopathic behaviour, where they lose all social feelings
and responsibilities towards others, but they know exactly what they
are doing and genrally have otherwise perfectly functioning brains.
Massacres are not the usual gun crime. Even if you could remove all
guns from the public, there would still be these occurances and they
will all follow patterns as set by previous ones and likely escalate
accordingly to cause more deadly damage to people and thus more
satisfaction to the culprit.
Quote:
|
They were not random fruitcakes. Fruitcakes none the less. Just as a guy who lost his girlfriend |
these guys beleive that this is for a good cause and nothing else
matters.
Quote:
|
If i flipped, i could find many wonderful ways to take out a bunch of people and i don't currently own a gun. Chances are you'd fuck up. Don't underestimate me... |
Quote:
|
This isn't black and white, Brendan. Gun control should be enforced, but as long as there are guns out there, restricting your right to prepare in defending yourself against one, is totally wrong. Easy access to guns and defence are not euphemistic. Are you blaming yesterdays dead for not carrying guns into class? This guy had a gun because it was easy to get one. The other students/teachers were defenceless. I can counter that easily. How many people would have been shot, |
on them ? 2 ? 3 ? 5 ? 10 ? 32 ?
However, that is not the point. A massacre is not the usual gun crime.
Quote:
|
It is the situation, which makes a need for everything. Just as you would wish for a parachute when falling off a building, you would wish for a weapon when being confronted by one. Yet having a weapon is what gets most people hurt. If a criminal thinks Irrelevant. If *you* think that it can help you to have one, then it |
This is not unlike when people argue against the dead penalty. When
you are about to be killed your last wish will be for the killer to
die right there and then. But, the bleeding hearts will say, oh we
can't kill him after the fact.
FFS, stop the feel good mantra and think seriously about what you
would do and say in a situation. Then tell me that you would want to
be without a weapon when confronted and you would be happy to die so
your killer won't be hurt and looked after for 25 years.
Quote:
|
preemptive The "he might let you live if you don't escalate" thing is about as good as a "whoops, he fired" ,so let's not even try that one. /p Pulling the rug from underyourself is just as good as someone else doing it. Pretending your arse isn't on the floor will not change the fact that it is. You have failed to provide any argument that you are more likely to get shot if you do not draw a weapon than if you do. Ok, i'll play. If i allow a perp to steady and feel being in power, he |
However, crims are extremely nervous at the time of their act and
their aim will not be good until they are sure to have gained an upper
hand.
You seem to think that a situation may arise where Brendan and i are
walking along in that alley, the guy jumps out with a gun in his hand
and i will freeze where i'm at to discuss our choices with Brendan,
before casually reaching for my gun and probably showing a full front
target with perhaps a couple of circles and spotlights on my chest.
Right ? Try thinking.. but really.
Quote:
|
Not forgetting that you argued to give the "perp" easy access to firearms in the first place. They have and always will. Come by my workshop and i'll spin up a |
polishing and engraving.
Quote:
|
Just what sort of gun control are you in favour of when your argument infers you are happy to let any jack carry a gun in public. I infered nothing of the kind.. See my reply to Brendan. |
--
Regards, Frank
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <6md823lq3o5c0vppnu6kmp72oiv2gn5jvh (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Luigi Topolino <tifoso (AT) mindspring (DOT) com> wrote: On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:23:46 GMT, CatharticF1 <eferrari (AT) heaven (DOT) net wrote: But whatever happens let's hope America doesn't overreact and ban these killing machines their citizens treat as toys. Far better to say, bomb the killer's country of origin. Blaming guns for this shooting, or any other, is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat. And if just one engineering student would have had his Glock 17 on him, the headlines would be much different. |
or anywhere else, come to that.
Sent those papers to my solicitors yet?
--
Paul-B Formula 1 - cheat-free version here now.
#24
| |||
| |||
|
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
We have our mass murderers... You have your hooligans! s/s To View My Web Site Go To: http://home.ptd.net/~salscyn/index.html . |
own mass murderers, a certain medical doctor holds the record, but I'd
sooner have hooligans than Bundys any day.
--
Paul-B Formula 1 - cheat-free version here now.
#26
| |||
| |||
|
| Just a few *facts*, the figures speak for themselves Gun deaths per 100,000 population: Homicide Suicide Unintentional USA 4.08 6.08 0.42 Canada 0.54 2.65 0.15 Switzerland 0.50 5.78 - Scotland 0.12 0.27 - England/Wales 0.12 0.22 0.01 Japan 0.04* 0.04 <0.01 * Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun Source: Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network So it's safer for all the population to have access to firearms is it? |
Fyi, if you watched Moore's Bowling for Columbine, you would know that
guns are just as common in Canada as the US. So what are your figures
trying to show?
Note that I do support more gun control, but your figures don't make the
case for gun control as opposed to other solutions.
#27
| |||
| |||
|
| Just a few facts, the figures speak for themselves Gun deaths per 100,000 population: Homicide Suicide Unintentional USA 4.08 6.08 0.42 Canada 0.54 2.65 0.15 Switzerland 0.50 5.78 - Scotland 0.12 0.27 - England/Wales 0.12 0.22 0.01 Japan 0.04* 0.04 <0.01 * Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun Source: Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network So it's safer for all the population to have access to firearms is it? Well, admittedly, where are the facts here? Fyi, if you watched Moore's Bowling for Columbine, you would know that guns are just as common in Canada as the US. So what are your figures trying to show? Note that I do support more gun control, but your figures don't make the case for gun control as opposed to other solutions. |
available, such as the USA, your average Joe is nearly 35 times more
likely to be killed with a firearm than the same Joe is in a country
where firearm sales to the public are not allowed, such as England.
Nothing more, nothing less.
--
Paul-B Formula 1 - cheat-free version here now.
#28
| |||
| |||
|
|
Mark wrote: Just a few facts, the figures speak for themselves Gun deaths per 100,000 population: Homicide Suicide Unintentional USA 4.08 6.08 0.42 Canada 0.54 2.65 0.15 Switzerland 0.50 5.78 - Scotland 0.12 0.27 - England/Wales 0.12 0.22 0.01 Japan 0.04* 0.04 <0.01 * Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun Source: Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network So it's safer for all the population to have access to firearms is it? Well, admittedly, where are the facts here? Fyi, if you watched Moore's Bowling for Columbine, you would know that guns are just as common in Canada as the US. So what are your figures trying to show? Note that I do support more gun control, but your figures don't make the case for gun control as opposed to other solutions. The figures, quite simply, show that in a society where guns are freely available, such as the USA, your average Joe is nearly 35 times more likely to be killed with a firearm than the same Joe is in a country where firearm sales to the public are not allowed, such as England. Nothing more, nothing less. |
look at Canada? You could then say "The figures, quite simply, show that
in a society where guns are freely available, such as Canada, your
average Joe shows the same rate of killing as a country like
Switzerland, where there is gun control (I presume). Hence, availability
of guns isn't the determinate of killing rate."
#29
| |||
| |||
|
|
Well, if that was a serious post I'm surprised at you, Sal. We have our own mass murderers, a certain medical doctor holds the record, but I'd sooner have hooligans than Bundys any day. Paul-B Formula 1 - cheat-free version here now. |
although, less fatal yet more fre-
quently, hooligans and mass murder-
ers are both reprehensible.
s/s
#30
| |||
| |||
|
|
Paul-B wrote: Mark wrote: Just a few facts, the figures speak for themselves Gun deaths per 100,000 population: Homicide Suicide Unintentional USA 4.08 6.08 0.42 Canada 0.54 2.65 0.15 Switzerland 0.50 5.78 - Scotland 0.12 0.27 - England/Wales 0.12 0.22 0.01 Japan 0.04* 0.04 <0.01 * Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun Source: Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network So it's safer for all the population to have access to firearms is it? Well, admittedly, where are the facts here? Fyi, if you watched Moore's Bowling for Columbine, you would know that guns are just as common in Canada as the US. So what are your figures trying to show? Note that I do support more gun control, but your figures don't make the case for gun control as opposed to other solutions. The figures, quite simply, show that in a society where guns are freely available, such as the USA, your average Joe is nearly 35 times more likely to be killed with a firearm than the same Joe is in a country where firearm sales to the public are not allowed, such as England. Nothing more, nothing less. But they DON'T show that. You are choosing to look at USA. What if you look at Canada? You could then say "The figures, quite simply, show that in a society where guns are freely available, such as Canada, your average Joe shows the same rate of killing as a country like Switzerland, where there is gun control (I presume). Hence, availability of guns isn't the determinate of killing rate." |
rest of Europe.
"Ever since Switzerland's founding in 1291, an armed citizenry has been
a cornerstone of its defense. The Swiss Militia also inspired American
revolutionaries from John Adams to Patrick Henry and served as the
model for the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."
The tradition still lives in Switzerland today. All able-bodied males
from 20 to 42 years of age are required to keep rifles or handguns at
home. Gun shops are everywhere. A Zurich tourist brochure recommends
people visit September's Knabenschiessen (a young person's shooting
contest): "The oldest Zurich tradition . . . consists of a shooting
contest at the Albisguetli (range) for 12 to 16 year-old boys and girls
and a colorful three-day fair."
--
Paul-B Formula 1 - cheat-free version here now.
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.