Cleveland school shooting

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Guns have always been secure in a gun safe.

Many people believe that is not the correct place for them though, since they should be readily available should a home invasion take place.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Perfect.


As a responsible gun owner, none of my weapons have EVER been freely accessible to anyone other than myself.

I raised three beautiful daughters that had no interest in guns. Guns have always been secure in a gun safe.

Good for you.

I am sure we will find out the details of how the nutter got the gun in due course. I see no value in speculation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

That's twice you've called him that in this thread. Just because he's a lawyer, doesn't mean he's a shyster. Shame on you for characterizing him like that. And that's a personal insult too, which is forbidden by the rules. We even have a moderator commenting in the thread, so we know he must have seen this. And yet no action is taken - why is that moderator?

Yet you have no problem with calling people gun-o-phobes when they don't agree with you. You really should look up that definition of hypocrite.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sounds like the kid "borrowed" the weapon from his uncle.
Children do pay a very heavy price for our right to own weapons.

I'm sure the uncle was a "responsible" gun owner too.

as always, we can depend on you to leap to conclusions...negatively when it's a citizen, defensively when it's a bad cop.

The only leap I've made is how this will be spun by the pro-gun side. The uncle will be portrayed as a responsible gun owner who rightly kept a weapon for home defense (which, BTW I agree a responsible person has a right to) and it was the crazed lunatic nephew who stole it.

"spun by the pro-gun side." Right after you, the anti-gun side, spun it the other way without even bothering to find out the facts. You made a clear implication in your statement.

It may be true. He may have given to him, or in the past taught him to use it, believing that the boy would use good judgement, or at the least not take it without supervision. Or perhaps it was locked up, but the uncle told the family members where the key was should there be an intruder.

We have clear laws spelling out the duty of gun owners to prevent children from getting and accidentally firing weapons, but it's a more difficult matter to prevent a determined teenager from doing wrong. I do wonder about the SSRIs - is it a coincidence that teen violence (seems to be) is up?

[quade 4]

Quote

What christelsabine and so many others don’t understand (which is understandable, as well) is that America was built on a distrust of government.

Nonsense.

The Revolutionary war was fought because King George was thousands of miles away, taxed the colonies and yet wouldn't give them a voice. Does "Taxation without representation" sound familiar? Not distrust. Taxes and no say in the process.

We wrote King George and said, fuck you. You don't rule us any more.

King George wasn't even upset enough to send his own guys to fight us. He hired some "Prussian" mercenaries.

We killed them.

We set up our own government. We trusted it and continued to trust it pretty fucking well doing everything it said until Nixon.

THEN all this bullshit about not trusting the government came into play.

Ironically, it's been the "conservatives" who keep trying to push government distrust.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But even you tried hard, we never ever reached the(*your*) level of (mass/school) shootings over the past 40 yrs

Kinda strange that the last forty years is when the gun control laws started taking effect. And as more control is put on the laws, we end up with more and more of these incidents.

Hence I have concluded that gun control laws are misanthropic. Notice how many of these occur at schools? First, they are kids. Understandable. But second, schools are where one find sitting ducks. If a person wants to go on a spree homicide, it is rare that they go where the guns are.

Even in the Army, weapons are strictly controlled. Hence a mass murder at Ft. Hood can occur because there are no defense resources available.

So tell me, why is it that you want to ensure people are defenseless against those who wish to do harm and kill them? As gun controls increase, the mass murders increase. That is not arguable. There is a correlation here.

Maybe that works in Germany, where there's a rich history of headlong belief in government policy. If Germany could go for a century without starting world wars and without committing genocide, then perhaps there could be some moral superiority. Same with the US.

We're in twelve years into this century and Germany has behaved itself nicely. It just boggles my mind how any German citizen can trust their government at all. "Nein. You won't need your guns. We're the government, and we won't hurt anybody."

Seriously - how the hell could a German ever trust his or her government again?

I am more interested in finding out why Americans are more likely to go on mass murder shooting sprees. What makes American society that much more violent?

It is just far far easier in the USA for nutcases to get hold of guns than it is elsewhere in the developed world.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It is just far far easier in the USA for nutcases to get hold of guns than it is elsewhere in the developed world.

That can't be it though, since the availability of guns is also supposed to prevent it from happening.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If you want to contend that european societies are more violent than US society. Fine, whatever makes you sleep better at night. But when looking at things like intentional homocide rates per capita, it isn't overly supportable.

I'm not contending that at all. We're talkign about school shootings and it's been suggested that strict gun control stops it.

I mention 33 deaths in two separate incidents over the last ten years in Germany (the most recent on in 2009, I think) and look at infamously gunslinging Texas and compare.

My point is that if strict gun control doesn't work where it's tried then why are people advocating more of it?

Quote

Americans like to be violent and clearly have some self control problems.

Some Americans do. Take a look at John Rich and his things about guns. Think he's violent? In America we recognize that there is violence and that we should have the opportunity to protect ourselves from this violence.

So if America is violent, then on that basis we'd think that the Europeans would cut some slack and say that perhaps their system won't work here.

Note - Americans don't riot nearly as much as Europeans do. We view that as violent.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Go back 100 years ago and you don't see a lot of gun slingers in most European lit, but in the US it's far more frequent.

120 years ago, America had a frontier. It's been much longer since Europe had places where a man had to take care of himself. You don't need nor can have self determination - you have a King. And in that medievil era, there was no train or telegraph to quickly spread news. Wasn't even a press yet. Their literary and cultural heroes of violence were the ones that rebelled against authority or were involved in wars.

Yet, consider the popularity of movies like Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or further back A Clockwork Orange. Not convinced that there's that big a difference, other than a greater level of trust in the police.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I think most countries have national violence in the form of wars and while the US certainly has that, the US especially has and celebrates individual violence.

I'm going to take the view we can see this reflected in our respective literature. Nobody told the authors what to write about, they simply were reflecting the values of their respective cultures.

Go back 100 years ago and you don't see a lot of gun slingers in most European lit, but in the US it's far more frequent.

Here's an idea for you. America was founded at a time when the invention and improvement of guns was in its heyday. We had to fight the Brits, French, Spaniards, Indians, Mexicans and ourselves, before our nation and it's borders were settled. Europe accomplished all that long before America was settled, and they did it with the weapons of their time, like swords, pikes and bows. So, perhaps the only reason that guns are so prominent in American history is because of the coincidence of the rise of guns at just the right time when we needed them to fight our wars. A coincidence of time and technology. In much the same manner, the Japanese are in love with their swords, which were prominent in their own samurai history, and the British with their long bows which gave them military superiorty over their enemies.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Some Americans do.

Interesting how you were fine with generalizations until that point.

Quote

Take a look at John Rich and his things about guns. Think he's violent?

Don't know him enough. But based on ethnicity he is more likely to murder some one than if born and raised in Europe.

Quote

Note - Americans don't riot nearly as much as Europeans do. We view that as violent.

True, though I will take riot over murder. ymmv

Quote

I mention 33 deaths in two separate incidents over the last ten years in Germany (the most recent on in 2009, I think) and look at infamously gunslinging Texas and compare.

My point is that if strict gun control doesn't work where it's tried then why are people advocating more of it?

Yet it seems to "work" for murder rates, since you are about 6 to 7 times more likely to be murdered in Texas compared to Germany.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

We set up our own government. We trusted it and continued to trust it pretty fucking well doing everything it said until Nixon.

Paul - ever hear of the Anti-Federalists? Patrick Henry? Thomas Jefferson? Ever read the Anti-Federalist Papers which EXPLICITLY argued that a government without stated limits will restrict freedoms?

The Bill of Rights was put there because so many people distrusted a document that did not explicitly limit what it could do to individuals.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

We set up our own government. We trusted it and continued to trust it pretty fucking well doing everything it said until Nixon.

that skipped a few steps. We formed a doomed government under the Articles of Confederation that couldn't even quell a minor squabble because we didn't trust a government with any power. That required a second take with the Constitution which only went through because of the explicit protections under the Bill of Rights.

Lawrocket had it dead on - we did not trust our government with power and do so very reluctantly. 200 years later - some are content to give it full reign - be it the Patriot Act or the TSA or what have you. Many are not so content and may express it in support for the ACLU or militia groups.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Nice cherry picking.

If you want to contend that european societies are more violent than US society. Fine, whatever makes you sleep better at night. But when looking at things like intentional homocide rates per capita, it isn't overly supportable.

Americans like to be violent and clearly have some self control problems.

Is it cherry picking when you ignore murder by the government and only look at murder by individuals?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote
Some Americans do.

Interesting how you were fine with generalizations until that point.

I pointed to specifics that countered generalizations. My generalizations were, I believe, more specific. I was specifically general and generally specific, to counter generalized generality, for the specifics specified could not explicitly be broad. To be precise in a universal sense would widely narrow.

Quote

I will take riot over murder.

I'll take neither. But that's just me.

Quote

Yet it seems to "work" for murder rates, since you are about 6 to 7 times more likely to be murdered in Texas compared to Germany.

Hey, no problem there. And European people have a history of complying with commands of their governments. Not here.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

That's twice you've called him that in this thread. Just because he's a lawyer, doesn't mean he's a shyster. Shame on you for characterizing him like that. And that's a personal insult too, which is forbidden by the rules. We even have a moderator commenting in the thread, so we know he must have seen this. And yet no action is taken - why is that moderator?

Yet you have no problem with calling people gun-o-phobes when they don't agree with you. You really should look up that definition of hypocrite.

I can't help it if you refuse to accept my explanation for what I mean when I use that term.
If you choose to presume that it's meant as an insult, that's your doing, not mine.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And European people have a history of complying with commands of their governments. Not here.

Please you have Americans invading countries all over the place. Further, most pay their taxes, pay fines and live within the letter of the law. Many had no problem putting Japanese in camps, or blindly believing that when the government said somebody was a communist, they were a communist.

You may trust your government less, but you have no recent history to indicate Americans do not comply to the commands of their government.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I can't help it if you refuse to accept my explanation for what I mean when I use that term.
If you choose to presume that it's meant as an insult, that's your doing, not mine.

Ah yes, your insults are fine, other's are not.

That definition would come in mighty handy.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Shyster, you're lost here. I love my peaceful little country.

What do they teach you about the period from 1935 - 1945 in your schools? What do they teach you about 1972?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

What do they teach you about the period from 1935 - 1945 in your schools? What do they teach you about 1972?

Probably something very close to the truth.

What do they teach in US schools about the incredibly high murder rate compared to other civilized societies?

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]Please you have Americans invading countries all over the place.[\reply]

Yep. Guess why so many don't trust the government. Think the Japanese have forgotten? Or Native Americans - the ones whose ancestors we didn't kill?

We Americans know our government's history. You know Americans have people who even protest the death penalty? We do! People who join with Europeans in condemning actions of our governments.

Strange how we Americans are. Touy think you don't trust our government you should see how we are.

[Reply] you have no recent history to indicate Americans do not comply to the commands of their government.

[quade 4]

Quote

John Welch.

I see your John Welch and raise you John Hinckley Jr. who thought the best way to impress the girl he was stalking was to try to kill the President.

Ok, sure, he's crazy . . . but . . . can you think of any other country where anything like that has ever happened?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

John Welch.

I see your John Welch and raise you John Hinckley Jr. who thought the best way to impress the girl he was stalking was to try to kill the President.

Ok, sure, he's crazy . . . but . . . can you think of any other country where anything like that has ever happened?

You want a incident where a national leader was attacked by a crazy person that was stalking a starlet? That's a pretty narrow set of criteria...have there been any other matching events in history?

Europe has seen a rather healthy number of assassinations since 1981, and not just in the troubled nations. The Pope was shot just a couple months later at the Vatican. Meanwhile, assassinations in the US seem to have become rather unusual.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

John Welch.

I see your John Welch and raise you John Hinckley Jr. who thought the best way to impress the girl he was stalking was to try to kill the President.
Ok, sure, he's crazy . . . but . . . can you think of any other country where anything like that has ever happened?

You want a incident where a national leader was attacked by a crazy person that was stalking a starlet? That's a pretty narrow set of criteria...have there been any other matching events in history?
Europe has seen a rather healthy number of assassinations since 1981, and not just in the troubled nations. The Pope was shot just a couple months later at the Vatican. Meanwhile, assassinations in the US seem to have become rather unusual.

Oh we've certainly had our number of assassinations, but that was hardly the point. Pretty much any other assassination attempt you care to look at was done for political reasons. In the case of John Hinckley Jr. it had nothing to do with the politics, but rather extreme violence against the leader of the country was seen as a solution to the problem of being love sick.

We in the US see extreme violence as a solution to things that to other people the idea would never even occur to.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Gee, Paul. Where else has anybody ever attempted to assassinate a political figure. With a gun?

I mean, sure, Hinckley was just a nutter who tried to assassinate Reagan. Such killings have always been senseless when a nutter does it. I mean, one can look at Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination and say, “Yep. Maybe misguided but certainly not nuts.” I thought that those who slayed Benatir Buzzo were fucking nuts, but hey, only in the US would one find a bad reason to try to kill somebody.

The rest of the world would never have a nutter kill a political leader for nutty reasons. Look at Oswald? A mental midget commie who killed Kennedy because his prior assassination attempt of Edwin Walker didn’t work. Oswald had great reasons to kill Walker and Kennedy as opposed to Hinckley’s reason for shooting Reagan. Killing for love? Ha! Next thing you know they’ll be glorifying disfigured extortionist stalker jealous kidnappers who really aren’t that bad once they get some affection as a standing-room-only Broadway show. (what a piece of shit story that is.)

But I see your point, Paul. Killing people for political, military or financial gain is good reason. Maybe even slaying a religious infidel is a good one. But killing for love? WOW! Only in America...

My wife is hotter than your wife.