- This topic has 39 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 10 months ago by
Lingster.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 19, 2007 at 5:50 pm #50474
Chuck
ParticipantIt's a conspiracy!!!
April 19, 2007 at 6:00 pm #50475cpbell0033944
ParticipantMore evidence of British perfidy. When will it stop!?
British food companies have been doing this to British consumers for years – one major crisp (potato chip) manufacturer has a habit of keeping the bag the same size, but putting fewer crisps in. >:( I try not to eat too much chocolate (bad for my waistline ;), but this begs the question – are the creme eggs made for the home market also shrinking? Kulli? Fett? Any thoughts?
April 19, 2007 at 6:05 pm #50476JimmyDimples
ParticipantA couple weeks ago, Ma sent me a 4-pack of Creme Eggs for Easter this year… and I noticed they were smaller. >:(
Better than nothing, though… and at least we're both safe and sound. :-
April 19, 2007 at 6:43 pm #50477David C. Matthews
ParticipantWell, the real question is, will gun control laws really be reinforced now…or will there be more bans or what?
Gun control laws will only be obeyed by law-abiding citizens. It sounds like a cliche, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", but it's true.
VT was proud of its status as a "gun-free zone"; when a bill in the Virginia legislature that would have allowed college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus was killed in committee, VT spokesman Larry Hincker responded by saying, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." (Wonder how "safe" they feel now?)
So it was already illegal for Cho to bring the guns he bought on campus. What will even more gun bans and gun control laws accomplish?
April 19, 2007 at 6:47 pm #50478Lingster
KeymasterOK, didn't have time to reply seriously 'til now.
First off, the U.S. doesn't claim to be the world's only true democracy – in fact we don't even really claim to be a democracy. If you look at the CIA Factbook, you'll see that the U.S. government classes itself as a "constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition". The UK is described as a "constitutional monarchy", and France is classed as a "republic". Canada is described as a "constitutional monarchy that is also a parliamentary democracy and a federation", and Japan is a "constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government".
We have 50 states and numerous indian reservations, all of which enjoy a fair amount of sovereignty and independence from the federal government. These entities and their sub-divisions (counties, cities, towns, townships, boroughs, etc.) are responsible for their own daily operations and are answerable to their constituents, not to the federal government or federal officialdom. Louisiana is responsible for Louisiana. When disaster strikes the federal government has the ability to respond within a few days to a week, but during that time the local authority is in control. It's their show.
Normally this works pretty well, but Louisiana is a special case. Louisiana was a French colony acquired after the formation of the United States. It has parishes, not counties, and its state law is more strongly influenced by French and Napoleonic code than English common law, which the other 49 use as the basis for their civil code. Its citizens are highly tolerant of political corruption, and large government projects there typically suffer enormous waste from corruption. Louisiana is a political basket case, and always has been.
Regardless, in the late 1960s the federal government's Army Corps of Engineers set out to build a massive hurricane protection system for New Orleans. It was opposed locally in Louisiana, especially by local environmental groups. After a string of court decisions the plan was scrapped in the early 80s. Instead of building a new levee and drainage system, the old one was upgraded. Even with the upgrades, the system was not built to withstand a category 5 hurricane, which is what Katrina was when it hit New Orleans.
With my own eyes I have seen a house under construction disintegrate in a category 3 hurricane, chunks of the roof spinning off down the road. A category 5 hurricane is a vastly worse thing.
There are still a lot of Americans who expect people to be able to do for themselves – that's part of what gun ownership and teaching kids to hunt is about. The idea that some Americans would live below sea level in a coastal flood zone in houses without pilings, and without at least inflatable boats at the ready, is astonishing to me. It is not something I would ever do.
Anyway, the point is that there are 50 states in the Union. Some of them are run very well, some of them very poorly. None of them are at present run by George W. Bush, and blaming him, or Americans in general, for the failure of one state is just ignorant.
And finally, in defense of Louisiana, the extent of failure there was vastly overstated by both the US and European media. There were "Lord of the Flies" type horror stories being reported at the Superdome which turned out to be completely spurious. There were casualty numbers of 10,000 to 20,000 being floated, which were likewise absurdly overstated. There was also a common theme in European coverage that suggested the U.S. Government was withholding support because most of the victims were black. However, the death tallies from Katrina in the New Orleans area show that marginally more whites than blacks were killed. So not only did European media misrepresent the role and responsibility of the U.S. Government, it also very quickly made very dark assertions about motives and intent.
The European coverage of Virginia Tech is very similar in character to the Katrina coverage.
April 19, 2007 at 7:46 pm #50479Tigersan
ParticipantSorry Lingster, that argument doesn't wash. I also like the way that, according to you, the Independant, one of the UK's most respected broadsheets, is anti-US (like seemingly all of the UK in your eyes) and has the nerve to suggest that US culture might be partly responsible for this. I've just read the offending article, and found it very balanced and considered. To my unenlightened, wishy-washy liberal eyes ( ::)), the equation is simple:
Easy availability of firearms (if not in one state, then a couple of hour's drive to take someone into a neighbouring state will find guns readily available) + a culture that still hasn't COMPLETELY left-behind the "pioneer fighting the Indians" mentality + Hollywood films with bullets flying everywhere = Columbine, the Amish schoolhouse, now Virginia Tech, and how many more?
In the UK, we had two big instances of this sort of thing happening. In 1987 we had the Hungerford massacre. One guy killed 16 and wounded another 15 on a sunny summer's day in a picture-postcard English village. Then in 1996 a guy walked into a primary school in the Scottish village of Dunblane and killed 16 children and one teacher. As a result of these tragedies, our gun laws were tightened considerably, and we haven't had anything like that since (pray to God we never do again). How bloody hard can it be to kock some sense into people's heads? Either you have a country in which this sort of thing is vanishingly unlikely, but has some people grumbling about restrictions, or you let people buy one gun a month for as many months as they damn well like, and accept that this sort of thing will just keep on happening, time after time. >:(
IT'S A NO BLOODY-BRAINER! ::)Well i kinda agree, but only kinda. Take into consideration how many ppl live in UK and how many ppl live in USA. Considering that usa has ALOT more citizens UK shootings are MUCH MUCH worse… thats just my go on that subject. Nevertheless i agree posession of guns in USA is very easy. Gun license is "almost" like getting a fishin license. No backrgound checks, no psychological evaluation whatsoever. So some normal looking schizo can go make a license and buy a gun then kill 50 ppl and himself. Thats stupid.
April 19, 2007 at 7:56 pm #50480KeymasterWell, there are background checks. There is a federally-mandated background check on all gun buyers in the U.S., which can take up to three business days to complete.
The shooter at VT had no criminal record, therefore he was able to buy a gun.
There are crazy, evil people in the world. We can't always control them, and we don't always spot them before they act.
There's a great opinion piece in the New York Times today, by a college professor in Michigan: Here.
April 19, 2007 at 8:02 pm #50481ParticipantMaybe i was uninformed about the background check. But the psychological evaluation is a must in every european country. In Poland for example, they just simply ask you:"why do you need a gun for?" If you say "for my protection" theyll tell you: "Leave that to the police" and thats it. Unless you are some kind of a guard, or security person. Plus even if they see a reason to give you a weapon permit, you are being tested by a psychiatrist, + the background check… Thats how it supposed to be IMHO.
It is a fact that people living in USA are more stressed out than in other countries. Everything revolves around money here. Work->sleep, work->sleep and so on, and so on.
so ppl simply get frustrated, even crazy. But thats their own choice. Pace of life is too high in my opinion.April 19, 2007 at 8:07 pm #50482KeymasterYou don't think that every human being has the right (and responsibility) of self-defense? A free society can only last as long as people are able to defend their freedom, because it's socially hygienic for political elites to fear the people they govern.
April 19, 2007 at 8:18 pm #50483
TC2ParticipantWhat I'm most curious in seeing here is if when they run a background on the student they find the following:
– Head Injury from the past
– Traumatic Childhood Experience
– Ted Bundy lack of human empathy.I'm betting that it's going to be number 3, where the guy just simply didn't care about how other people felt or reacted and could just easily and coldly kill everyone. If that's so, then the guy must have been born that way and if he was it would be almost impossible to predict this type would have gone out to shoot people.
Now it's possible that his writings would have been a huge clue that he might be going off the deep end or already was off the deep end, but you know what they say about hindsight.
Thinking about all the disturbing things that you might have read, would you really have assumed that the person you read the letter from would go psycho and start shooting everyone?
How can you honestly tell when someone is disturbed enough that they might go on a killing spree? It's total possible for someone to pass a background check, a psychological check, and then suddenly the person once having his gun finally decides to go berserk.
I'm really curious to see what his background turns up to be, because if it ends up being number 3 then there's really no way you can tell someone like that is going to go shoot somebody.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.