Consider This

[Cranberry]

We all know what happened at Virgina Tech University. Tragic for sure. The worst non-military shooting in USA history.

This isn't the first time someone has walked into a school with a gun and opened fire. It's always horrible when it happens. But consider this.

Just about, if not every school in the US has a strict no weapons policy. What this effectively does is ensure that every student at every school is virtually defenseless should someone attack. Think about it, if ye want to kill people what better place than a school to do it? No one has any weapons, no one can really fight back. The teachers are unarmed, the students are unarmed, most of the time even the security guards are unarmed.

Is it time to consider re-evaluating the no weapons policy at school? If the students and/or faculty at universities were able to carry weapons, might this type of trajedy have been avoided or lessened? Or would ultimately this do more harm than good? What do ye think?

[Stormsworder]

Huh... I guess my school violates that policy then. We have a couple of air rifles with enough power to kill a person if used right back in NJROTC's armory... If someone came to our school with a gun, we'd probably grab those... Or the security officers would just use their guns they have with them when they're on campus.

[DikkyRay]

Valid points. But there are flaws with it.
If every student teacher had a gun, they would certainly be misused.
A student forgets to type a paper.
Break ups
Drunk at parties......
etc etc. I say just tighten up on security. Im not in collegeyet, but i definitly do not want people to have guns. Would scare the hell outta me

[Sinue_v2]

I don't think it would really do a whole lot of good to allow students to carry guns, simply because as Dikky said, not a lot of people know how to use them properly. They would certainly be abused, and probably lead to more one-off shootings than prevented mass-shootings.

If the shooter was willing to end his own life, I think it's safe to assume that they didn't just want to kill people for the fun of it - and they certainly had no reguard for their own saftey. Armed students would not have been much of a deterant, and probably only would have served to take him down quicker. He most likely would have still been able to kill quite a few students reguardless. If anything, they should allow campus security to carry guns, but that's it.

I fully believe in the rights of gun owners, but there are some places where gun just should not be carried. Churches, Government Buildings, Schools... ect.

Besides, if the killer was that hell-bent on killing themselves, and taking as many people out with them - they could find other ways besides guns. Suicide Bombers have proven that with Lethal efficency for quite a number of years now. There's little a gun can do to prevent such a means of murder.

[Cranberry]

Based on the people that have responded so far, it seems that the idea of students being armed is not a popular one.

But what about teachers? One might say that teachers would be more properly trained and responsible with such a thing. Do ye believe it would be a good idea for teachers to be armed?

[DizzyDi]

Teachers can be just as crazy as students sometimes.

[Sinue_v2]

I don't like the idea of guns in a school at all. Though if it were to come down to it, I would be a helluva lot more open to the idea of properly trained and licenced teachers carrying weapons over students.

[UnderscoreX]

This entire thread is LOL and even more LOL that people have replied to it seriously.
The idea of guns reducing violence is awesome and I love that it's still kept alive, it provides years of material for satire comedy shows (which are awesome).

[Sinue_v2]

Guns do reduce violence.

If two violent people have guns, the number will soon be reduced to one.

Simple, no?

[DikkyRay]

Teachers are the same thing Cran. As Dizzy said, Some are very crazy.
And UnderscoreX, this is kinda serious if you think about it.... no need to post like that

[UnderscoreX]

COMPELLING LOGIC!


On 2007-04-17 16:45, DikkyRay wrote:
And UnderscoreX, this is kinda serious if you think about it.... no need to post like that

No, it's actually even more hilarious that you think about it seriously.

[Cranberry]

It is a serious subject. If ye are not going to take this topic seriously, it may be adviseable to look for another topic that ye would enjoy more. This topic isn't a joke, and treating it like one will probably only lead to unnecessary conflicts among the posters.

[DikkyRay]

On 2007-04-17 16:56, UnderscoreX wrote:
COMPELLING LOGIC!


On 2007-04-17 16:45, DikkyRay wrote:
And UnderscoreX, this is kinda serious if you think about it.... no need to post like that

No, it's actually even more hilarious that you think about it seriously.

Ok smart one. Three students have guns.
A person comes in with the intent to kill He fires on several students. The three armed students go, shoot, and disarm The killer.
Now they are heroes!
THAT is what Cran was trying to get at.

[UnderscoreX]

http://macrochan.org/source/F/M/FMAJYWSZEIEGQSL5DJJZRLAKFS7ZF2I2.gif

[UnderscoreX]

Why don't we look at the flip side of your argument.
Lets say that NONE of them have guns.
Exactly.

We should do what Chapelle said, instead of ruling out firearms just raise the price of bullets to ridiculously high, then you know they're only going to fire them when they have to.
Also I don't mean to take sides here, i'm very apathetic about this. I just think it's funny that people still preach that adding more weapons will reduce violence. Guns in general are fun. I have a friend ona ranch and i've fired a few rounds off before, it's a nice feeling. http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w165/TheUnderscoreX/thumbup.gif

[Sinue_v2]

Why don't we look at the flip side of your argument.
Lets say that NONE of them have guns.

What, you don't think it's possible to procure an item that's supposedly illegal? I guess potheads all across america are just a figment of our imagination huh? You realize that the Mayor of Nagasaki was shot twice in the back the other day right? Aren't guns STRICTLY forbidden in Japan? Apperantly they still find they're way in, though not often used. Of course, the kid in this instance wouldn't have to fear anything from being caught with a gun... he had already planned to be long dead by the time anyone got close to stopping him.

The problem isn't guns Underscore - the problem is that people want to fucking kill other people. Banning guns won't stop this, just make it more of a pain in the ass to pull off.

[Cranberry]

Raising the price of bullets may be difficult. The problem being that America is a free market and prices are based on what the population will pay. A mandatory price increase will have a significant impact on business that manufacture bullets. It would also greatly increase the cost of police agencies that have to train their officers with firearms and the cost of ammunition used there. Also consider the increased cost for the military to operate and train its troops. There are consequences to raising the price of ammunition.

"Well only raise it for citizens and not for police officers and military personnel."

I'm not sure exactly how that would work or if its legal to do that or not. But one can assume such a measure would be fought by the citizens that would feel their rights were being violated. Hunting ranges would suffer decreased business. Recreational shooters at a targetting range would be upset. Is the potential increased saftey worth the economic effects?

In school shooting incidents, many times guns and ammo are stolen. In this particular case it wasn't, but many times it is. Would high ammo prices prevent such incidents when stolen guns and bullets are used? Would such high prices lead to more theft or even a black market for ammo?

What do ye think?

[UnderscoreX]

HEY LETS ALL TOTALLY MISS THE POINT OF MY POST.
I know very well that it's beyond impossible to rule out anything, ever.
But if students were allowed to carry guns in school, something like the Vtech incident wouldn't happen every decade or so, but every other week. Crazy people are crazy, why add fuel to the fire ?

[DikkyRay]

On 2007-04-17 18:22, UnderscoreX wrote:
HEY LETS ALL TOTALLY MISS THE POINT OF MY POST.
I know very well that it's beyond impossible to rule out anything, ever.
But if students were allowed to carry guns in school, something like the Vtech incident wouldn't happen every decade or so, but every other week. Crazy people are crazy, why add fuel to the fire ?

Ok. If that were true, then why havent hunters killed each other?
Crazy people my ass. My dad hunts. I hunt. We go to clubs and shoot. Yet no one dies....
Oh, but cause we have guns, automatically shoot at each other.
Would i feel safer with a gun? Yes.
Would i BE safer though? Not necessarily.

[UnderscoreX]

Wow DRay.
I don't even know how to say this without sounding like a dick, but what the hell.
Are you acting stupid or just really tired or something ? Cause when I say crazy people I mean people like the dude who shot up the University, you know, people who are crazy. Hunters don't shoot each other because they're not crazy, see the pattern there.
I also like how you just natural assumed that I think people who have guns shoot eachother when I already said I've fired one, and my friend owns one.

In bold for you
I do not want guns outlawed, but adding more guns will not solve any problems.
Get it ?

[Cranberry]

Alright so I have Underscore down as a defenite no for arming students or teachers. Lets not spend the topic attacking Underscore's view but remain focused on the topic at hand. This is a contraversial issue and we'll never come to a common ground that everyone agrees on. But lets try to avoid focusing too much on changing 1 specific person's mind.

For those that believe weapons should not be allowed in a school:

How would you make the schools safer? What types of things can be done to prevent instances like this? Try to keep things such as cost and effects on students in mind as ye answer. Or do we just accept that in a free society, sometimes things like this happen and we shouldn't do anything at all?

For those that feel weapons should be allowed in school:

What steps could be taken to prevent abuse? Should only specific types of personel have weapons? How do ye ensure a school doesn't become a war-zone?

[DikkyRay]

On 2007-04-17 18:51, UnderscoreX wrote:
Wow DRay.
I don't even know how to say this without sounding like a dick, but what the hell.
Are you acting stupid or just really tired or something ? Cause when I say crazy people I mean people like the dude who shot up the University, you know, people who are crazy. Hunters don't shoot each other because they're not crazy, see the pattern there.
I also like how you just natural assumed that I think people who have guns shoot eachother when I already said I've fired one, and my friend owns one.

In bold for you
I do not want guns outlawed, but adding more guns will not solve any problems.
Get it ?

Alright. That doesnt mean you have to sound like a dick with you previous LOL AT THIS THREAD.
jesus, if yoou said that before, we wouldnt have this arguement

[UnderscoreX]

Are school's really not that safe ? How about bumping up the security if anything, hell even giving them more...GUNS.
And I think I see the light now, and I hope I can get a shiny new 9mm for my birthday.
Then I can bring it to school and show it to all my buddies, I might even name it Todd.

[McLaughlin]

Removing firearms from the equation is really the only viable option. As long as even a Teacher carries one, the temptation will be there. you're simply giving the nutbars a means to their ends. I really don't see how adding MORE things would reduce the violence at all. Would it reduce the number of insane people? Yeah, but you're also reducing the number of people PERIOD, as well as increasing the already startling frequency of these occurrences.

We have regulations and rules in place NOW, but obviously those aren't adhered to. What makes you think different rules would produce a different outcome?

This whole idea seems poorly thought out to me. And I believe it was Chris Rock who suggested raising the price of bullets to "five thousand dollars."

I'm with UnderscoreX.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Obsidian_Knight on 2007-04-17 19:08 ]</font>

[Ma_Navu]

Simple: test the security guards, their mental stability, etc., extensively. Figure out which ones are more prone to misusing the weaponry, to break down and go postal, and such. Afterwards, the ones who are the best candidates for using weapons should be thoroughly trained, no matter how long it takes, to use the weapon properly and professionally to prevent any mistakes (AKA, "lulz i has a gun waanna luk in teh barel? BLAM lulz ur missing ur fayce").

Also, have you heard of fire drills? Have similar drills to prepare the students for any kind of threat that a killer might pose. For example, after the siren sounds, the students and teachers turn their lights out and hide the fuck away from the doors. Wanna take it a step further? Train the teachers to disarm people with guns. So, when they hide in the dark classroom, they hide near the door. The intruder comes in? Sneak attack + disarm + "DOGPILE ON THE RABBIT!" = win.

[UnderscoreX]

On 2007-04-17 19:05, Obsidian_Knight wrote:
And I believe it was Chris Rock who suggested raising the price of bullets to "five thousand dollars."



Ah I was watching both his and Chapelle's stand up on DVD a few months ago, so i knew it was of them!

[Cranberry]

Very good thoughts.

[Kent]

Better-trained security officers, airport security checkpoint-style metal detectors/X-ray machines at every entrance/exit, and trained psychologists at schools, would probably be more feasable than extensively raising the price of ammunition so high that people would just stab each other en masse.

Oh yeah, and making sure teachers and other students are responsible to report any suspicious or uncouth behavior to the faculty/psychologist on staff. Can't hurt.

When I was attending the high school I went to in Mississippi, not once did I actually feel safe there. Violent and uncontrollable personalities abound there, and I'm not talking about just bullying, but more along the lines of ruffians (and/or complete posers, trying to be like gang members, etc.) constantly starting (physical) fights with each other. I'm quite honestly very surprised that no shootings occurred while I was there.

In college now (and on the other end of the country...), I see a lot more level-headed people, but I feel that the same security and safety measures would not exactly be inappropriate. We've only had one actual fight break out since I've been attending, and that was at the other campus (which is on the opposite end of Minneapolis), which did involve a quite volatile student and the person who he thought needed "to be taught a lesson."

Now, there's really only a certain length to which these things can be taken, really. I don't think this would be too much, if it were handled and optimized well.

[Jehosaphaty]

On 2007-04-17 19:06, Ma_Navu wrote:
Simple: test the security guards, their mental stability, etc., extensively. Figure out which ones are more prone to misusing the weaponry, to break down and go postal, and such. Afterwards, the ones who are the best candidates for using weapons should be thoroughly trained, no matter how long it takes, to use the weapon properly and professionally to prevent any mistakes (AKA, "lulz i has a gun waanna luk in teh barel? BLAM lulz ur missing ur fayce").

Also, have you heard of fire drills? Have similar drills to prepare the students for any kind of threat that a killer might pose. For example, after the siren sounds, the students and teachers turn their lights out and hide the fuck away from the doors. Wanna take it a step further? Train the teachers to disarm people with guns. So, when they hide in the dark classroom, they hide near the door. The intruder comes in? Sneak attack + disarm + "DOGPILE ON THE RABBIT!" = win.



Look, in theory this is all fine and dandy, but the fact of the matter is, the school systems, specifically secondary education, are already in such a financial crisis that none of that is probably large-scale reasonable nor feasible.

What people seem to fail to understand is that society didn't just become all screwed up five months ago, ten years ago, or even fifty years ago. The only thing that's changed is that technology has simply become more readily available. Honestly, read Neil Postman's Technopoly to understand this concept. Essentially we as a society haven't caught up with our technology in terms of how we effectively deal with the problems our creations cause. (i.e. guns, nukes, whatever en masse technological killing device you can think of)

When trying to understand how we limit these type of incidents, you must realize that the further you increase security measures of any type, weather that be in tighter gun control laws, better physical security at schools, etc., the further you take away the rights of citizens as a whole. It's like one large general slide to an autonomous big-brother society because people refuse to play by a few simple life rules. Namely do unto others as you'd like to have done to you. The problem is more complex than simply "should we let teachers have guns". Adding more weapons to the equation is just bad mathematics.

[Sinue_v2]

But if students were allowed to carry guns in school, something like the Vtech incident wouldn't happen every decade or so, but every other week.

You know... for someone who is critiquing the "stupidity" of this thread, I figured you would have more fucking brains than that. A Vtech incident every week? Are you high? Outside of the school and campus, we are allowed to carry our guns - concealed no less - damned neared anywhere we so choose. So where are the mass-slaughters of people at Wal-Mart? Where are the people who go apeshit with a glock in a movie theater? It's almost unheard of, or at least, as rare as this incident at Vtech was - depsite the fact that guns are being carried by hundreds of thousands of american citizens safely and responsibly every day.

Most shootings that occur are between two people either in self-defense, or in a fit of rage and passion - and most killings which occur with more than one victim are usually the result of gang warfare... a problem all on it's own in which guns only play a part.

Will more guns solve the problem? No, of course not - because the problem was in this fucking kid's head, and not with the gun. More guns can act as a powerful deterant or control device to these sorts of situations though.

[Ma_Navu]

On 2007-04-17 20:53, Jehosaphaty wrote:
Summary:

Schools are generally in financial problems.

We haven't caught up with our technology, and haven't dealt with the problems they caused effectively.

More security measures = less rights. Teachers with guns? Not a good idea.


First things first, sorry about the the summary. I needed to do that so I could get a better understanding of the message you were trying to convey (or, what I got from it).

Secondly, I could easily agree with everything you just said. My school's finances are horrid, the rules implemented restrict our rights as students, and administration has no idea what to do with new technology. The only things I can really comment on are:

1) No matter how many times I read your reply, I fail to see how arming the most capable of security with guns is related to the rights of students. Sure, it'll scare the piss out of them, but in the hands of someone who will not, under any circumstance, use their weapon unless they abso-fucking-lutely need to, no rights are impeded upon. However, by looking at the security guards in my school, none of them fit the bill. They'd probably shoot someone the first day.

2) I wasn't talking about arming teachers. I was talking about teaching them how to surprise the shooter and disarm them. Yet again, there is that heavy "however" looming above the idea. Finding a teacher willing to fuck with a gun-man is probably gonna be hard. The only way it would work out is if, like in the movie Police Academy 4, there's that one army fanatic who wants to beat the shit out of criminal scum, or are prone to having anger issues. The second is more feasable, though.

[Jehosaphaty]

Ma, I'm not suggesting we don't arm security guards: in fact, the security at the high school I attended had a specifically designated cop who served as our security guard, and she did carry a standard issue pistol. When I was referring to more security I think I had in mind metal detectors, dogs, etc. that would be one huge pain in my ass when I'm trying to get from point a to b. I guess on top of that I have an avid distrust of your average rent-a-cop anyways (much less if they're toting guns). Still, I can understand the pros to arming your security guards.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jehosaphaty on 2007-04-18 08:10 ]</font>

[Rainbowlemon]

On 2007-04-17 19:05, Obsidian_Knight wrote:
Removing firearms from the equation is really the only viable option.


Absolutely. I mean, when Bowling for Columbine states the US has about 12,000 gun-related deaths a year (which has probably risen since the film was made), compared to Europe, where we're still not hitting 500 gun-related deaths a year, it's hard not to see a pattern.

I live in England. If I wanted a gun, I'd have NO idea where to get one. That's how strict it is over here. Whereas in America, you can buy them everywhere. And with the constitution stating that every American has the right to bear arms, it makes COMPLETELY removing guns off the market (which I would personally see as the best solution) evermore difficult.

And, of course, it's too late now anyway - even if the government were to go as far as completely banning guns, there's so many already out there it's virtually impossible to keep a tally. So, you're stuck in a never-ending spiral, where the only real solution is to give everyone a gun "So I Can Protect Myself From Others".

I get the feeling these next few years may be life changing for many Americans, but will see HOW soon enough.

[Musashiden]

Hmm, all pretty good points, but look some things. 1. In Switzerland, everybody has guns, and everybody knows the rules and regulations to proper gun usage and safety, and everyone there knows how to shoot, and look at how little crime there is over there. 2. The problem isn't so much the guns, it's the people behind the gun. When you think about it, guns can only do what the person holding it tells it to do (pull the trigger=shoot), so really, there shouldn't be differerent gun laws/rules, because they are all fine; the change should be made with the people who can get access to the gun, and thus use it to commit mass murder/massacre students/etc. The change should be that the people, the masses, have to go through mandatory education on gun safety and handling, and then they should go through some sort of training exercise to prove they know the rules and that they are indeed worthy/not going to go out and try to kill a random group of people. That, coupled with the encouragement, instead of discouragement of buying and owning guns, would not only increase the amount of gun smart civilians ready, willing, and able to defend themselves, but it would also deter anyone from trying to improperly handle/use said guns because, lets face it, when everyone has a gun, who is going to try to steal/rob/murder/rape/massacre? (kinda like the cold war, when every side had nukes, and wasn't willing to use them because what is a victory in a war like that when you lose as much, if not more than the other side does?)

[Garroway]

You know in most states there is already a method for obtaining a concealed weapon permit (see http://www.packing.org (http://www.packing.org/) ). Perhaps rather than actively arming the general populace it would make more sense to simply relax the rules as to where we're allowed to carry (ie. Allow teachers and students that have a CCW to carry on campus.)

[McLaughlin]

The people behind the weapon are indeed the problem. However, training everyone in proper firearm safety and usage is not only totally unfeasible, but stupid as well. Do you think that kid went in there and shot down 33 students because he didn't know the rules? No. He ended 33 innocent lives because he was mentally perturbed. Handing a psycho a lethal weapon and then showing him how to aim it is no different than pulling the trigger yourself. Screening people wouldn't help either, because many people like that can pretend to be perfectly normal. How many people have a Driver's License who shouldn't even be allowed in the vehicle?

Who will rob/rape/pillage/plunder when everyone has a gun? Well, now everyone is CAPABLE of such horrific things. You may have a weapon, but so do they. Would you really put your life on the line because you think you can get them before they get you? Piss off the wrong person and it could very well be game over.

I'm standing by my original point. No good can come of arming everyone. What if you're sitting in class, and get a test back? Someone gets it back with a shiny F on it, and there goes their last nerve. They shoot at someone, like the teacher. Then another student fires at the first, and misses, hitting someone else. Now you've got a 30 way firefight because everyone is trying to protect their own hide.

Again, this whole thing seems idiotic to me. I don't know how you could even consider this course of action.

[Kent]

People need to understand that giving every single person firearms, is just as idiotic and welcoming trouble as completely removing them from everyone's (legal) posession.

Either way, you'd end up with more people getting killed all the time. Extremes are not your friends.

Yes, there's probably a better way of doing things than how they are now. We just haven't stumbled across it yet.

[Cranberry]

In English Class today they talked briefly about this.

The teacher used a statistic that said in Canda there were 136 Deaths from Handguns. In the USA there were over 12,000. Take these numbers with a grain of salt because when I asked the teacher for a source he was not able to provide it.

But if these numbers are accurate, that is quite a difference. So what does Canada do differently than the US? I hear they have stricter gun laws. I don't know a lot about Canadian law. Do less Canadian citizens have guns than US citizens? I just don't know.

One thing that is being brought up is that guns in schools would lead to huge firefights because we are arming people. Dont' forget that these guns are already owned by these people. They just don't bring them to class. Before you assume that a person having a gun is going to lead to total chaos, we must also look at their life outside of class. As someone said earlier in this topic, there aren't these mass shootings going on at Wall-Mart all the time over trivial matters. Don't be too hasty to jump onto the "It's going to be total war" bandwagon. The people already own the guns, and most people are not going beserk with them outside of class.

School rules don't keep the guns out of the hands of students. They merely keep them out of the classroom.

[hollowtip]

I think it's sad an issue like this NOW precipitates firearm regulation debates, and the only reason they are occuring is because of the death toll.

With that being said, I think everyone is failing to remember that the shooter came back after a 2 hour hiatus to kill 30 out of the 32 total deaths that occured on campus.

In that two hour timeframe the campus should have been locked down and surrounded by security and armed officials until more information about what happened and the potential shooter's whereabouts could be established. Also, in the infamous cell phone video, I heard no file alarms being sounded to alert those students that there was an emergency occuring on campus.

While I don't want to put blame solely on Vtech president, the situation was handled extremely poorly and 30 of those deaths could have been prevented with the right procedures carried about by college staff.

Lax gun regulation might have something to do with what happened, but taking American's constitutional right to bears arms is just putting more cash in the black market's pockets.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hollowtip on 2007-04-18 14:39 ]</font>

[PJ]

On 2007-04-18 14:22, Cranberry wrote:
I hear they have stricter gun laws. I don't know a lot about Canadian law. Do less Canadian citizens have guns than US citizens?


Despite living in Canada, I don't quite know myself, but I'm pretty sure we don't have this, "Right to bear arms," luxury.

Which, this topic is really making me afraid to go to America. I mean, I've been there before of course, but I just mean... for awhile.

[TorterraEndor]

In Canada, its a lot harder to get a firearm. And even when you get it, you can't carry it around.

I'm not sure if you're allowed to keep it in your car. But I know if you have one in your house, it has to be in some special box to be used in emergencies only.

[McLaughlin]

I don't even know where I could buy a gun around here.

Cranberry, you're making it sound like everyone already owns a gun. This is likely not the case, and even if it were, allowing the immature teens of today own and carry a firearm on their person is asking for trouble. There aren't shootings in Wal-Marts because people don't get bullied and abused in those stores. I also doubt people bring their weapons grocery shopping with them, unless they're planning on not paying. All the "gangstas" and SEVERELY immature teenagers WOULD abuse this "privilage" and you'd have stand-offs every time someone broke out a "your mama" joke. The people of today CANNOT be trusted with such an important responsibility.

[SolomonGrundy]

limitng ammo by raining it's price will not have the desired effect. All that will happen is that there will be a rise in the theft of bullets, and the US will create a black market. Will will increase violence, not decrease it.

Prohibition failed for the same reason.

The botton line is that the US has a very poor attitude about that value of human life, and self entitlement. Canada has MORE guns per person than the US, and less gun relation violence by more than a factor 10.

[McLaughlin]

We also have a fraction of the population that America does, so more guns per capita doesn't necessarily equate to more than the States.

The bullet price thing was just a part of one of Chris Rock's stand up acts. It wasn't meant to be taken with any weight.

And 136 to 12,000+ is by a factor nearly 1000.

[Sinue_v2]

Obsidian, we're not talking about high schools, and noone is suggesting arming teenagers. At least, I'm not. I'm refering to collages and those people of the legal age to carry firearms.

And yes, people do carry firearms to Wal-Mart and other department stores. You can get a licence to carry a concealed weapon, and most people who do I've noticed tend to carry their gun on them most places they go.

[McLaughlin]

Well, Cranberry never specified as to which level of education she was talking about. Sorry. >_>

[Cranberry]

I don't really have a strong stance on this one way or another. I am merely relaying a topic that was discussed on the radio onto the board and asking people to think about it. This doesn't necessarily mean I advocate guns in schools.

Personally, I won't carry a gun for personal reasons.

I am enjoying reading all of the ideas people are putting here.

One thing that I heard on the radio. "The US seems to be a lot more of an angry culture. People are violent and a lot more angry." Any truth to this in your eyes?

I will agree there are certainly a lot of people that should never carry a gun. The vast majority of people seem to feel that students absolutely should not carry guns in class. My English teacher says that he would not feel safe with the dim-witted teachers on campus trying to use a gun.

Perhaps in a free society, we just have to accept that one of the consequences of such a society is sometimes tragic events like this happen. That too is a valid viewpoint.

[SolomonGrundy]

On 2007-04-18 18:12, Obsidian_Knight wrote:
We also have a fraction of the population that America does, so more guns per capita doesn't necessarily equate to more than the States.

The bullet price thing was just a part of one of Chris Rock's stand up acts. It wasn't meant to be taken with any weight.

And 136 to 12,000+ is by a factor nearly 1000.



::shoots obsidian knight in the face::

12,000+1...bitch!

http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wink.gif

just playing.

[Thalui89]

There should not be a weapons policy in schools/colleges/universities. If you allow a weapons policy in schools then MORE pupils will get harmed as MORE weapons will be in the schools.

America should crate a law to make it so that you CANNOT purchase guns from shops, this will ine ffctive make most people weaponless and therefore most people will be on even ground.

As for being defencless, the students were not entirely. Whilst the situation for the students muist have been horrible and i cant imagine what thoughts were running through their minds, they could have over thrown the gunner with superiror numbers, but i guess being ina situation like that, you dont really have a chance to think logically.

[Sinue_v2]

this will ine ffctive make most people weaponless and therefore most people will be on even ground.

Or you could arm everyone, and then everyone would be on even ground as well.

And do you REALLY think banning guns is going to make people weaponless? I suppose explosives, knives, clubs, poisons, ect, simply failed to exist after guns were invented? Guns simply make killing more convienent.

Not to mention that one of the reasons why we carry guns is not just for the protection of ourselves, but the protection of this country. Seems extremely far fetched right now, but there will, god forbid, come a day when America is invaded by a hostile power. Having armed civilians willing to participate in gurilla warfare on the ground is a powerful deterant to an invading force.


“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass” - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Although I personally like this one as well...


"When we shoot, the Germans duck. When the Germans shoot, we duck. When the Americans shoot, everybody ducks."

[Thalui89]

I diod npt say EVERYONE would be on even ground, i said MOST people would be on even ground. Allowing weapons not only puts students lives at risk but it also endagers the staff members there. For instance, if you allowed students to wield weapons in a learning environment then problems are bound to occur:

1: Bullying: The introduction of more weapons into schools would allow school bullies the potential to wield weapons on their 'fellow' students.

2: If a teacher marks a students grades badly, the student may take a particularly emotional reaction to this, whilst this would only happen in the most EXTREME of instances, it could mean that staff members lives are endagered by an angry student. Result being student wields weapon on staff member. In a around 4-5 years time i myself hope to be teaching and i cant say id relish the thought of my students having knives in their pocket.

3: School shootings are RARE compared o other types of assults inflicted with weapons, as tragic as the shootings in america were, they are still uncommon.

4: Instead of allowing pupils to use weapons why not simply give them identification tags, this therefore prohibits unauthorised entry onto the property via main entrances.

5: Since the killer in the shootings was an actual student the ID tag idea qwould not work, it would only stop outside intrusion, therefore students could undertake bag checks.


I would like to say that guns do not simply cease to be, a ban on them would reduce the chances of a shooting such as this. In regards to your stupid notion that you would be able to resist enemy armed forces inf you were invaded, its no use if your already turning weapons on each other (although the U.K is as guilty of that at times). Not to mention that gurilla warfare rarely works. I also dont see how one handgun for each person is going to repell and invading army. Finally i would like to say that if the U.K. was invaded no doubt people would fight (regardless of what i said about gurilla warfare often failing) as its in their instinct. However we don't need a gun sat under our pillow at night just on the off chance our country will be invaded....

[Sinue_v2]

In regards to your stupid notion that you would be able to resist enemy armed forces inf you were invaded, its no use if your already turning weapons on each other

Most of the petty squables and in-fighting will dissolve away once faced with an outside threat. Look at what happened durring 9/11. Although as an American I'm embarassed by much of the fallout following the attacks, one thing I'm proud of is the unity and solidarity of this nation durring that time. For that one breif moment, it didn't matter if you were black, white, gay, Jewish, religeous or atheist... we worked together, and mourned together as one. Once the percieved threat dissolved, then so did that unity. But it was there. (Although muslims and middle-eastern americans were the target of many attacks, out of a misplaced sence of revenge and anger.) The same thing happened after Pearl Harbor.


Not to mention that gurilla warfare rarely works.

Are you kidding? Gurilla warfare works extremely well. Look at Iraq, Vietnam, and South America. Afghanistan fell (though there is still quite a bit of violence there you don't hear about), after being invaded several times - even by superpowers like the Russians. Hell America even utilized gurilla tactics in the Revolutionary war.


I also dont see how one handgun for each person is going to repell and invading army.

Because it takes a LOT of resources to move troops into an area and secure it. They need food, water, shelter, ammo, fuel, ect... much of this stuff travels along VERY important supply routes. Gurilla tactics are great at knocking out supply routes, and because they can attack with suprise - it's likely that they can take out 2-3 enemy troops before being killed themselves.. because they are in small, scattered, and often disorganized groups hitting from various angles at all hours of the day. A conventional force needs to stay within range of their supply lines. They can't simply forage for supplies without meeting resitance, whereas gurilla troops can move with inpunity in their own home territory.

Perhaps one clip and one gun per person wouldn't defeat an invading army... but those same people can be a tremendous asset to our conventional armed forces by helping to sever supply lines and soften up enemy positions.


However we don't need a gun sat under our pillow at night just on the off chance our country will be invaded....

Off chance? It was just 60 years ago that the last invasion attempt too place. That's not really THAT long ago, and if it hadn't been for the D-Day invasion - the Germans WOULD have succeeding in invading England. With the state of England's military and air force at the time, how much of a resistance do you think the unarmed English people would have been able to put up against well-armed and well trained German troops?

[Thalui89]

1:The point is D day DID occur and it was our resourcefulness that kept us alive.

2: Our forces were only in 'shambles' as you say because one of the most powerful countries in the world didnt get involved in the war until they got bombed (aka America).

3:Dont quote me on my own history. Im well aware that we were extremely close to defeat.

4:I'd hardly called an american/UN occupied country such as Iraq a great representative of how effective Gurilla fighting is. Tragically we are losing troops but the country is still occupied.

5:Cut the patriotic shiz. You may have mourned as one for a brief period of time, but the point is racism is still active in southern parts of America which shows that America is hardly unified.

6: Americans dont need to carry guns with them to defend themselves from an invading country. America seemes to prefer the approach of dropping atom bombs on innocent civilians in order to make an enemy back off. (E.G. America beat down the japanese by slaughtering thousands.)

7: Think of how much resistance America would ahve been able to produce against a german invasion. If it wasnt for countries such as France, Belgium and the U.K. then the Germans would have spread across the face of europe with ease, eventually to Asia and America.

8: Gurilla tactics are helpful in breaking down SOME supply lines, but a gurilla force cant take down all supply routes.

9: dont you think its strange how the U.K. has lower gun crime than america? could is possibly be a link to the fatc that we dont have guns under our pillows?




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Thalui89 on 2007-04-19 14:12 ]</font>

[Sinue_v2]

1:The point is D day DID occur and it was our resourcefulness that kept us alive.

Actually, I believe Operation Sealion was postponed due to escalating conflicts in Russia. England wasn't seen as a major threat, whereas Russia was. In the meantime, resources were put into preparing for the invasion, such as sweeping the english channel of mines, fortifying the French coastline, and small sorties against England's air and naval forces. Not to mention the Lufftwaffe and V2 bombings of the mainland.

To Englands credit, you did hold on for as long as possible and did the best with what you could. Which, by the way, included preparing plans for gurellia warfare on the homefront and the arming of citizens.


2: Our forces were only in 'shambles' as you say because one of the most powerful countries in the world didnt get involved in the war until they got bombed (aka America).

Oh, so it's our fault? Not the fault of the French or Polish who were trampled in the blitzkreig. (And to France's credit, their resistance movements helped out greatly in the retaking of France and gaining a foothold in Europe)


4:I'd hardly called an american/UN occupied country such as Iraq a great representative of how effective Gurilla fighting is. Tragically we are losing troops but the country is still occupied.

Occupied? Perhaps.. but that will only last for as long as we're there. In the meantime, these gurilla attacks are killing more and more soldiers - and politicans and citizens both are screaming to bring our troops home. They're already talking about withdrawl, and as soon as we're out of there the whole country is going to collapse back into civil war. We're only attempting to hold the country together long enough to form a stable and effective government - and we're failing.


Cut the patriotic shiz. You may have mourned as one for a brief period of time, but the point is racism is still active in southern parts of America which shows that America is hardly unified.

That's part of the point... we do fight amongst ourselves and seem undivided quite a bit, but when faced with a common enemy (as we were on 9/11), that underlying unity shows. It's like brothers who constantly fight and beat on each other - but when an outsider tries to fuck with them, they work together as a family to beat the shit out of him.


Americans dont need to carry guns with them to defend themselves from an invading country. America seemes to prefer the approach of dropping atom bombs on innocent civilians in order to make an enemy back off. (E.G. America beat down the japanese by slaughtering thousands.)

1. The lives lost in the Nuclear attacks absolutely PALE in compairison to the number of people who died in firebombing raids. We carpet bombed whole cities, a few times a week, and you think the atom bomb was the biggest tragedy? You hold THAT against us? That's just fucked up - considering how many lives those bombs probably saved, not just from the immediate surrender of Japan, but also durring the Cold War where nobody wanted to actually lauch their nukes because we had seen FIRST HAND what kind of devistation they cause on a real population.

2. England has their own arsenal of Nuclear Weapons. You haven't dropped any yet, but a nuke is somewhat similar to a gun in that you don't aquire them unless you're fully prepared to fucking use them. England has the same intent and resolve when it comes to Nuclear Weaponry. Don't kid yourself.


Think of how much resistance America would ahve been able to produce against a german invasion. If it wasnt for countries such as France, Belgium and the U.K. then the Germans would have spread across the face of europe with ease.

The Germans did spread across the face of Europe with ease. It was called a Blitzkrieg, Lightning War. The only thing that stopped them was the English Channel and war on the eastern front.

And let me get this streight.. in the same post you claim that Germany only spread so far because Americans didn't jump into the war sooner.. and yet, later you claim that we couldn't have been able to put up a resistance against them? We did put up a resistance, in Europe, and with the aid of the European people drove the Germans back, but simutaniously our resources were split between the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. Sounds like we could have put up quite a bit of resistance. And those were just troops in a forign country... concentrated units and devisions of men. Not like a populated city or countryside where everyone was capable of carrying a gun and defending their homesteads.

Hitler KNEW he couldn't fight America alone - which is why he pressured the Japanese and Mexicans to join the conflict. Japan was still embroiled in their own conflicts, and only wanted to talk peace to us. It wasn't until the US began restricting their supply of oil and other goods that they felt they were forced to attack the US. Mexico stood neutral until a few of their merchant ships had been sunk by German submarines. Then they became an ally.


Gurilla tactics are helpful in breaking down SOME supply lines, but a gurilla force cant take down all supply routes.

I never said gurilla tactics could take down all supply lines. I said they could aid in it, either by destorying or disrupting them.


dont you think its strange how the U.K. has lower gun crime than america? could is possibly be a link to the fatc that we dont have guns under our pillows?

No, not really. As I said, guns only making killing more convienient. If the intent is still there, then generally it will find a way to minifest itself. And despite the horrible scenarios you hear on the news - crime in America has actually been seadily decreasing over the last 25 years. We're not offing each other in the streets, and a majority of the gun releated fatalities are exchanges between criminals, or between citizens against criminals. It's much less common to see gun violence against family members, or social peers.


[

[Cranberry]

Well, reading all of this, I'm convinced that guns should not be in the hands of students on school grounds.

[McLaughlin]

I'm not getting into the war discussion, as I know a fair bit about both World Wars, and am FAR too tired to be bothered typing out all that crap. All I would like to point out is that Canada was critical in turning WWI around.

Vimy Ridge. A stronghold that both the French and the English had tried for months to capture and failed. The French alone suffered 150,000 casualties in 1915.

On April 9th, 1917, after a week of artillery bombardment (a week the Germans called the "Week of Suffering") the Canadians attacked with 27,000 troops. Two hours later, 3 out of the 4 divisions had seized their objectives. The 4th Division was pinned by machine gun fire at Hill 145, and unfortunately the 87th Battilion suffered nearly 50% casualties. However, the 85th Nova Scotia Highlanders (who were originally intended to operate in a supply and construction role) were sent in as reinforcements and Hill 145 was claimed by the end of the day.

By April 12th, the Canadians had taken the entire ridge, which was not only considered impossible by many, but the first Allied victory in nearly a year and a half.

A year later, in April 1918, the fact that Vimy Ridge continued to be held even as the final German offensive to try and win the war pushed deeper into France and into the outskirts of Paris was also significant. The ridge provided a leverage point behind the lines from which an extremely effective Allied counter-attack was launched. The counterattack would ultimately lead to victory over Germany by November 1918.

Just thought I'd point out we weren't useless.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Obsidian_Knight on 2007-04-19 16:55 ]</font>

[Ma_Navu]

On 2007-04-19 15:12, Sinue_v2 wrote:

1:The point is D day DID occur and it was our resourcefulness that kept us alive.

Actually, I believe Operation Sealion was postponed due to escalating conflicts in Russia. England wasn't seen as a major threat, whereas Russia was. In the meantime, resources were put into preparing for the invasion, such as sweeping the english channel of mines, fortifying the French coastline, and small sorties against England's air and naval forces. Not to mention the Lufftwaffe and V2 bombings of the mainland.

To Englands credit, you did hold on for as long as possible and did the best with what you could. Which, by the way, included preparing plans for gurellia warfare on the homefront and the arming of citizens.


2: Our forces were only in 'shambles' as you say because one of the most powerful countries in the world didnt get involved in the war until they got bombed (aka America).

Oh, so it's our fault? Not the fault of the French or Polish who were trampled in the blitzkreig. (And to France's credit, their resistance movements helped out greatly in the retaking of France and gaining a foothold in Europe)


4:I'd hardly called an american/UN occupied country such as Iraq a great representative of how effective Gurilla fighting is. Tragically we are losing troops but the country is still occupied.

Occupied? Perhaps.. but that will only last for as long as we're there. In the meantime, these gurilla attacks are killing more and more soldiers - and politicans and citizens both are screaming to bring our troops home. They're already talking about withdrawl, and as soon as we're out of there the whole country is going to collapse back into civil war. We're only attempting to hold the country together long enough to form a stable and effective government - and we're failing.


Cut the patriotic shiz. You may have mourned as one for a brief period of time, but the point is racism is still active in southern parts of America which shows that America is hardly unified.

That's part of the point... we do fight amongst ourselves and seem undivided quite a bit, but when faced with a common enemy (as we were on 9/11), that underlying unity shows. It's like brothers who constantly fight and beat on each other - but when an outsider tries to fuck with them, they work together as a family to beat the shit out of him.


Americans dont need to carry guns with them to defend themselves from an invading country. America seemes to prefer the approach of dropping atom bombs on innocent civilians in order to make an enemy back off. (E.G. America beat down the japanese by slaughtering thousands.)

1. The lives lost in the Nuclear attacks absolutely PALE in compairison to the number of people who died in firebombing raids. We carpet bombed whole cities, a few times a week, and you think the atom bomb was the biggest tragedy? You hold THAT against us? That's just fucked up - considering how many lives those bombs probably saved, not just from the immediate surrender of Japan, but also durring the Cold War where nobody wanted to actually lauch their nukes because we had seen FIRST HAND what kind of devistation they cause on a real population.

2. England has their own arsenal of Nuclear Weapons. You haven't dropped any yet, but a nuke is somewhat similar to a gun in that you don't aquire them unless you're fully prepared to fucking use them. England has the same intent and resolve when it comes to Nuclear Weaponry. Don't kid yourself.


Think of how much resistance America would ahve been able to produce against a german invasion. If it wasnt for countries such as France, Belgium and the U.K. then the Germans would have spread across the face of europe with ease.

The Germans did spread across the face of Europe with ease. It was called a Blitzkrieg, Lightning War. The only thing that stopped them was the English Channel and war on the eastern front.

And let me get this streight.. in the same post you claim that Germany only spread so far because Americans didn't jump into the war sooner.. and yet, later you claim that we couldn't have been able to put up a resistance against them? We did put up a resistance, in Europe, and with the aid of the European people drove the Germans back, but simutaniously our resources were split between the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. Sounds like we could have put up quite a bit of resistance. And those were just troops in a forign country... concentrated units and devisions of men. Not like a populated city or countryside where everyone was capable of carrying a gun and defending their homesteads.

Hitler KNEW he couldn't fight America alone - which is why he pressured the Japanese and Mexicans to join the conflict. Japan was still embroiled in their own conflicts, and only wanted to talk peace to us. It wasn't until the US began restricting their supply of oil and other goods that they felt they were forced to attack the US. Mexico stood neutral until a few of their merchant ships had been sunk by German submarines. Then they became an ally.


Gurilla tactics are helpful in breaking down SOME supply lines, but a gurilla force cant take down all supply routes.

I never said gurilla tactics could take down all supply lines. I said they could aid in it, either by destorying or disrupting them.


dont you think its strange how the U.K. has lower gun crime than america? could is possibly be a link to the fatc that we dont have guns under our pillows?

No, not really. As I said, guns only making killing more convienient. If the intent is still there, then generally it will find a way to minifest itself. And despite the horrible scenarios you hear on the news - crime in America has actually been seadily decreasing over the last 25 years. We're not offing each other in the streets, and a majority of the gun releated fatalities are exchanges between criminals, or between citizens against criminals. It's much less common to see gun violence against family members, or social peers.



Oh my God, this is the best history lesson I've ever seen. I hope when my class covers this in a few weeks, it's as in depth as this.

[Solstis]

Less than 50% of American soldiers would fire a weapon at a revealed enemy combatant during WWII (the number is lower, but I don't want to search through my textbook right now). With training, brutilization, and desensitization, the number of American soldiers that would fire was around 75% in Vietnam.

[Cranberry]

Guys, as interesting as this is ye are getting WAY off topic here.

[SolomonGrundy]

back on topic. One possile solution to shootings is the systematic arming *and trainingg* of young adults (15? 16? 18?) in the use of firearms.

This way, everyone know up front that if a weapon is drawn there is a well trained armed response likely.

You see, the core issue is that allowing students to be armed really does not aid the situation, as without proper training, a gun is a poor weapon. A baseball bat is far more deadly in unskilled hands.

Someone who plans on commiting a crime like this, usually has taken some time to practice using firearms, and in part may feel emboldened knowing others are not prepared to defend themselves.

*sigh*

[Thalui89]

1: You do not slaughter thousands to end a war. Not only did the atom bomb kill thousands, it also created genetic mutations in newborns. These mutations are still around today.

2: You keep saying 'English' you may want to try and include the ENTIRE U.K. as i do believe ireland, wales and scotland were part of the war.

4: Don't know why i didnt include Canada so my apologies. To Canada's credit they joined BEFORE America.

5: England is just as crude as America when itcomes to Nuclear weaponry. I havnt denied that. However we HAVE NOT actually used them yet.

6: America also succeeded to damaging the environment with their weapons. Well done.

3:Atleast the French and Polish actually TRIED from the very start of the world war (which oh by the way, started in 1939 NOT when america joined in around.

4:

[Sinue_v2]

1: You do not slaughter thousands to end a war.

Apperantly you don't know very much about war. Todays modern wars have focused more on precision weaponry, and have kept civilian casualties to a minimum (a policy the US has been at the forefront of due to it's effectiveness, resource conservation, and humanitarian rationale)... but at the core, war is about beating the enemy into submission by any means possible. You have to have the full resolve to win the conflict, even if it means the slaughter of thousands, or else you are going to lose. I don't like that fact either, but that's the ugly truth to it.

And as I said, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were likely necessary - to our survival. Imagine what woud have happened if those bombs had never been dropped, and the world did not witness first hand the tragedy and horror of such an event. What would have happened if those images had not been etched into the minds of nuclear equipped countries durring the cold war, staying the hand of those ready to push the button. We came damned close enough to all out Nuclear annihalation on more than one ocassion even as it was.

As for the mutations, it's not fucking Toxic Avengers over there. We didn't create Godzilla. What mutations there were, were minimal at best.

http://www.solarstorms.org/Hiroshima.html


No genetic effects have been detected in a large sample (nearly 80,000) of offspring. By this, we mean that there is no detectable radiation-related increase in congenital abnormalities, mortality (including childhood cancers), chromosome aberrations, or mutations in biochemically identifiable genes.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/06/stories/08060003.htm


Physicians appointed by ABCC examined 76,626 infants conceived and born in Hiroshima and Nagasaki over a period of six years starting from the late spring of 1948. The researchers did not see statistically demonstrable increase in major birth defects in these infants. While the survey started, certain dietary staples were rationed in Japan. Pregnant women had special provisions. Because of this, the surveyors of new-borns could identify 90 per cent of the pregnancies that persisted for at least 20 weeks of gestation.

Physical examination of the new born and autopsies on as many stillborn infants revealed that neither the frequency of major birth defects nor the frequency of the most common birth defects differ significantly with radiation exposure of parents. The researchers examined some 21,788 infants shortly after birth and re-examined them eight to ten months later. The study covered 65,431 registered pregnancy terminations and appropriate control populations.

So blow it out your ass, and remember that England also took part in the carpet bombing of Germany. Blowing the enemy into submission by any means necessary, regardless of the civilian casualties.


England is just as crude as America when itcomes to Nuclear weaponry. I havnt denied that. However we HAVE NOT actually used them yet.

Of course not... noone has after the end of WWII, mainly because setting one off would ignite a global firestorm of retribution. That's kind of the whole point of MAD. If England were to find itself in an all-out war with Russia durring the Cold War, and had a way to sneak a nuke up the Kremlin's ass without them knowing or retaliating, I'm sure they would have.


America also succeeded to damaging the environment with their weapons. Well done.

And guess what... England was right beside us.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/staffordshire/6204709.stm

Not to mention that we're not the ones to drop the fuckin Tzar, a bomb 4 times larger than anything America detonated - and that was only at half yeild. It was reduced from 100 Megatons to 50, because even the Russians feared what the repricussions of global fallout from such a bomb would be.

And England isn't exactly fucking innocent of environmental damage due to nuclear testing either... just ask the Australians.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/lcj/wayward/ch16.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sinue_v2 on 2007-04-20 04:45 ]</font>

[Thalui89]

here i go again -_-'

1: You say no one has used nuclear weapons since the war. Whilst this may be true i do recall a certain incident in America called the cuban missle crisis. Whilst yout nation thanks president kennedy for stopping it, it was actually the russians that backed down as Kennedy formed a Blockade which COULD have resulted in russia firing their nuclear arsenal. Thankfully the Russians were wisest and backed down.

2: Whilst the UNITED KINGDOM( ive placed this in capitals since you persistantly miss out the countries that are united e.g wales, ireland and scotland.) is guilty if bombing Germany, it pales in comparson to the massacre that the atom bombs caused. Not to mentioned that Germany also bombed the U.K. persisitantly.

3: Minimal mutations? I wouldnt call being born without limbs and internal mutations, and mental disablities minimal. Infact the mutations are STILL occuring today because entire gene structures have been damaged. So in effect, America is still causing misery to the Japanese decades on.

4: I'd hardly call U.S tastics in foreign countries effective at minimising casualties. Infact it wasnt long ago that America was responsible for killing british service men. Id hardly call that resourceful.

5: All countries damage the environment. Thats Humanity for you. However it does seem that America is one of the biggest polluters out there and they also refuse to make major changes.

6: If America had got involved in the war earlier there would have been littkle point in setting off an atom bomb.

7: Don't tell me i dont know about war, ive studied both History and have family members who have/are serving in the armed forces.

[Ma_Navu]

I'm gonna be honest here: as the observer of this quarrel, I'm noticing that Sinue seems to be the more believable of the two of you, as he/she's backing up his/her claims with reputable sources. I find studies done by scientists to be more decisive than, "I studied history and some of my family members are in the armed forces."

And dealing with the "minimal mutations," I'll have to side with Sinue again, seeing as though Thalui's claim of, "mutations are STILL occurring today" could be easily discredited due to the fact that EVERYONE has the ability to produce mutated or handicapped offspring. If I'm not mistaken, 1 in 144 newborns are autistic, so the chances of having a birth defect are statistically high.

However, if you decide to attack my opinion's weak spot of, "but I'm talking about the people who have had their entire gene structures damaged," I'll have to spout out a logical comment: if someone is hit by a radioactive bomb and hasn't died, who's gonna come near that guy, let alone produce children with him? People would be freaked out by him, as he shows symptoms of horrid diseases. But even before that, he'd be sent somewhere else to be treated, thus drastically decreasing the chance of someone reproducing with him. Therefore, no production = no mutated children.

Also, suppose the radiation affects a person years after the bomb was set off. Suppose that a family gets fucked up by the dormant radiation in the ground. It wouldn't make much difference. As technology advanced, we've been using radiation to help with our day to day lives. Microwave, anyone? Hell, electronics in general? It would seem, to me, that the added radiation coming from the leftover remnants of the bomb would add no more of an effect than the 10 microwaves at a generally larger workplace would.

However, I will admit, I have no true knowledge of this subject, just tidbits of information that I picked up from my eleven years of schooling.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ma_Navu on 2007-04-20 09:19 ]</font>

[McLaughlin]

The Atom Bomb was so powerful that if you were within the blast radius YOUR SHADOW WAS BURNT INTO THE CONCRETE. I don't know how Trueman had the gall to drop both Fat Man AND Little Boy, but the casualties exceeded 200,000.

The United Kingdom isn't exactly off the hook either though, as only 6 countries in the world have ever dropped a Hydrogen Bomb, with both the USA and the UK being part of that list.

Germany carpet bombed the UK (specifically, England was the major target) for almost a year. The citizens painted their windows black, so the light from their houses wouldn't give the German pilots a target. In turn, the Germans were ravaged by aerial bombings.

No side is innocent in a war.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Obsidian_Knight on 2007-04-20 09:21 ]</font>

[Cranberry]

I don't have anything worthwhile to contribute. This has gotten pretty far off topic and I don't think it can be steered back on topic. I'm not really prepared for a WW2 debate I'd have to gather notes to make a case one way or another effectively. But that wasn't what I was intending to do.

[Thalui89]

Heh, although i havent 'gathered reliable sources' as you say, the knowledge i am applying has been derived from what i have learnt from both my education and knowledge obtained throughout the war by my decased great gran. My mainpoint was that America never seems to believe itself responsible for anything. In regards to your theories of mutation, im not stupid. I have studied cells in biology, im well aware they mutate but it appears most of you have entirely missed the point. This being that deformaties did and in some cases still are, more frequent than natural cell mutation. As for the foolish statement about "no one will go near that guy" thats one of the most childish things i have EVER seen as you have obviously not thought about people who are already married and women who were pregnantat the time and the impact the radiation will have caused on the baby.

As for as im concerned this debate is over. Its obviously impossible to penetrate the thick skulls of SOME Americans with knowledge.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Thalui89 on 2007-04-20 11:49 ]</font>

[Ma_Navu]

On 2007-04-20 11:47, Thalui89 wrote:
As for the foolish statement about "no one will go near that guy" thats one of the most childish things i have EVER seen as you have obviously not thought about people who are already married and women who were pregnant at the time and the impact the radiation will have caused on the baby.

First thing's first, thanks for calling it childish. Was kinda what I was going for. xD

Second, the thing about the mothers being pregnant at the time of radiation, I can agree with that. Although, I assume that the probability of the pregnant mother surviving the initial radiation is tiny, whereas the baby surviving is smaller. Don't get me wrong, there can be people who overcame it, but the numbers of those people should be... well, I ran out of synonyms for "small." xD

Although there should be people with gene pools affected by radiation, there's a distinct possibility that they're a rare find, probably 1 in about... 100,000 or so? I dunno, I suck at estimations.

[Sinue_v2]

1: You say no one has used nuclear weapons since the war. Whilst this may be true i do recall a certain incident in America called the cuban missle crisis. Whilst yout nation thanks president kennedy for stopping it, it was actually the russians that backed down as Kennedy formed a Blockade which COULD have resulted in russia firing their nuclear arsenal. Thankfully the Russians were wisest and backed down.

Woowww..... Now you're REALLY off base. Kruschev was the wise one? He's the one who was sneaking Nuclear Misses into Cuba in the first place. It was a show of force, a flexing of nuts, and an attempt to please the hardliners in his government. He didn't realize the reaction that the US would have. The US did the only thing we COULD do, because otherwise he have the entire US stockpile in range for destruction betore we could even launch a retaliatory strike. It defeats the whole purpose of MAD when one side is incapable of insuring the destuction of the other. And need I also remind you that in President Kennedy's address to the nation, we PROTECTED the entirety of nations in both North and South America by stating that ANY offensive missle launched from Cuba against ANY nation in this hemisphere would be taken as a direct attack on the US. Kennedy's blockade was largely ineffectual, and technically an act of war. Many of the ship passed right through the blockade and made a run for Cuba - to which we couldn't do much of anything except fire warning shots across their bow out of fear of escalating relatiations.

The blockade was a political manuver, not a military one. It was a chance for Kruschev to back down without losing face while we hammered out a deal.

In the end, we pledged to never invade Cuba and let them know that our Jupiter missles in Turkey were obsolete and scheduled for dismantaling. We hastened the withdrawl of those missles, which resulted in the Cuban Missle Crisis being a victory and comprimise for both sides. The situation was defused by men on BOTH sides of the conflict - Russian and American, who did not want to see our two countries embroiled in a Nuclear exchange.

Kennedy was no fucking warmonger, and I thought that had been proven irrefutably by Adlai Stevenson's address to the UN.


Whilst the UNITED KINGDOM( ive placed this in capitals since you persistantly miss out the countries that are united e.g wales, ireland and scotland.) is guilty if bombing Germany, it pales in comparson to the massacre that the atom bombs caused. Not to mentioned that Germany also bombed the U.K. persisitantly.

No, numbskull - what you still don't understand is that the Atomic Bombs caused far less death, pain, and horror than the firebombings. The message behind the Atomic Bomb was that it was only ONE bomb which caused that much destruction, unlike the incindeary firebombs whiich were blanketed down on enemy cities. Imagine a carpet bombing campgain with nuclear weapons? That's what fucking freaked people out after it was dropped.

Nuclear Weapons aren't the only devil in war, you need to get past that.

And by the way - it's ok for England to rain down death and destruction in night-time bombing raids against German, because the Germans did it first? What the fuck kind of stupid logic is that man? Either way there are innocent civilians dying, horribly. And yet you also seem to say that it wasn't ok for the US to bomb Japan because apperantly Pearl Harbor wasn't a large enough attack to warrant such a retaliation. America wasn't the only country that Japan attacked you know, and Japan's campaign across Asia was everybit as devistating as German's campagin against Europe. Yet they didn't "deserve" the bombings they got? Horsehit... why don't you ask the Chinese if those bombings were justified.

And you know, that's completely off the point anyhow. It's not about retribution, or eye for an eye. It's about doing whatever it takes to win the fucking war. Wars are horrible, tragic, events. You're going to have to come to grips with that fact.


3: Minimal mutations? I wouldnt call being born without limbs and internal mutations, and mental disablities minimal. Infact the mutations are STILL occuring today because entire gene structures have been damaged. So in effect, America is still causing misery to the Japanese decades on.

If it's that big of a problem over there, then you would think there would be quite a lot of statistics to back that up. Links please?


I'd hardly call U.S tastics in foreign countries effective at minimising casualties. Infact it wasnt long ago that America was responsible for killing british service men. Id hardly call that resourceful.

Do you know how we used to bomb targets? You know that back in WWI, bombers were two-seater planes - and that the bomber would simply lean out of his side and eyeball a target, then drop a handheld bomb, it eventually graduated to filling a compartment with bombs and simply opening the underside of the craft to let them fall out when you thought you were over the target.

The thing was, back in those days, we didn't have precision weapons. We marked a circumfrance around a target and just mass bombed those areas - killing everyone inside the circumfrance - and hopefully taking out the objective as well. This policy stayed in effect even up till Vietnam where we would napalm and carpetbomb wide swaths of the jungle in an attempt to clear out enemy positions and knock down areas of the jungle to use as landing bases. And it wasn't just the US who adopted these tactics.

It's not until recently that we have focused on creating precision weapons, lazer guided smart bombs, that are capable of surgical strikes - ideally destorying only the target while leaving the surrounding area unscathed. These weapons don't always work right, and the intelligence recieved doesn't always point to the right building... but considering that we've come from carpet bombings and eyeballing hand-dropped bombs to the current level of precision... I'd say that's a VERY large jump in the name of saving resources and civilian lives.

Accidents do happen, yes, and innocent civilians are still killed. To a digree, you're not going to be able to get away from that. That's something you have to deal with and consdiering the above point - that wars are horrible events, and these things happen. That's why we're supposed to try to AVOID them as much as possible.


All countries damage the environment. Thats Humanity for you. However it does seem that America is one of the biggest polluters out there and they also refuse to make major changes.

Ok... so, now it's gone from "America's horrible Nuke Evironmental Damage" to just plain all encompassing Environmental Damage. Not to mention that apperantly, now, you don't mind England's involvement in damaging the environment with their Nuclear Tests. Oh well, that's humanity for you eh?

I'll freely admit that the United States is one of the largest polluters out there, and that it needs to change. You REALLY don't want to turn this into an environmental debate though...


If America had got involved in the war earlier there would have been littkle point in setting off an atom bomb.

You're confusing the European and Pacific campagins. Technically, we should have only fought against Japan since they were the only ones to attack us - and they didn't do so at Hitler's request. In fact, Hitler wanted Japan to attack us earlier - but Japan consistantly REFUSED until we gave them no other option. The fact is that America WANTED to join the war much sooner - but we needed a reason, because the people of the US were already badly scarred from the previous world war and wanted nothing to do with Europe's problems. In the meantime, we sent food, artilierally, volunteer soldiers, finances, and whatever aid we possibly could. Yes, we had our hand in the war long before we actually declaired war.

So you know... afterwards, America adopts a policy of helping to quell flashpoints around the world before they can explode into conflicts as great and bloody as WWII. Vietnam and Korea, for example, we entered into because we did not want the communists to expand their sphere of influence and end up in another situation like WWII. We STILL send in troops to keep the peace in situations that expand out of control. And yet - now we get labeled as War Mongers and "World Police".

So which is it... do you want us in your wars or not?


Don't tell me i dont know about war, ive studied both History and have family members who have/are serving in the armed forces.

Well then perhaps you should stop discussing war as if it's some kind of humanitarian effort. War is death and murder, of soldiers and of civilians, on a grand scale. Always has been, always will be. And nothing will change that.

[Thalui89]

1:He was sneaking nuclear weps in yes, so he was rather moronic there. However he did actually call the whole thing off. America did not.

2:America didnt join because you needed a reason? Is a holocaust not a good enough reason?

3:Actually it was two bombs dropped.

4:I never stated war was a humanitarian effort. Why would it be?

5:In regards to mutations read some documentries you arse.

6:In regards to kennedy why dont you do some research on him. The man was practically a male whore who was willing to place our entire planet on the line for the sake of a single country. To me he'll always be a piece of shit.

7:Again in regards to mutations, for several years japanese from affected area's were born without limbs. Again watch a documentary.

8:If were supposed to avoid wars then why did America plunge itself into iraq in the name of "justice" for iraqui civilians. Wouldnt have anything to do with the vast amounts of oil the country has would it?

9:In regards to "there is alwasy going to be accidents". Yes your right. However i find it rather strange how the British rarely kill American soliders in cross fire whereas Americans kill british soliders every few months, not the mention that the latest incident has resulted in an inquest in which the U.S has refused to helpthe famiies of the British soliders killed. Wow how great an ally this nation is.

10:I'm well aware nuclear weapons arent the only evil in war. That might be because war itself is made of multiple evils.

11: If you wish to continue this debate then dont post a response here. PM me instead. Atleast that may get the topic back on track...





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Thalui89 on 2007-04-20 17:05 ]</font>

[Sychosis]

On 2007-04-20 17:03, Thalui89 wrote:
If were supposed to avoid wars then why did America plunge itself into iraq in the name of "justice" for iraqui civilians. Wouldnt have anything to do with the vast amounts of oil the country has would it?


I'm sorry, but didn't you just say the genocidal slaughter of innocent people (such as the Holocaust) was a good enough reason to join a war?

[Garroway]

Damn you Sinue_v2. Everytime I wanted to smack him down you did it with clarity and grace then backed it up with sources (who does that?). I simply can't compete with that.

On topic though: I think more Americans are armed than some of you actualy realise, and also I think it's much more difficult to obtain a permit than you think. It took me almost three months to get mine. I had to go through a familiarization course that involved a practical exercise. An extensive background check was done and I was interviewed by a county commity before the OK was given (all-in-all about $300 in fees, registration, and courses). I carry my pistol to the grocery store, to work, to my friends houses, just about everywhere it's allowed. I work in a small shop of 4 people, 3 of us carry. Outside of work 5 of 8 of us carry. Everyone had to go through the same process that I went through (we're mostly veterans and we have clean records, for us it wasn't a big deal). The idea of an armed populace is not something that could happen, it is something that has happened. I know most of you are thinking now that this must be the reason that shootings occur at such an alarming rate, but before you try and argue that point, I would like to see the statistics on the number of gun crimes committed by people that carry registered firearms legally. Also take into consideration that suicides are counted in that statistic so to find your answer you'll have to crossreferance those statistcs.

I would tell you the answer but I think Sinue_v2 has demonstrated (rather well) that most of you half-wits won't accept knowledge originating from anyone but yourselves.

[Sinue_v2]

1:He was sneaking nuclear weps in yes, so he was rather moronic there. However he did actually call the whole thing off. America did not.

Oh, I would just LOVE to hear how "America" was the agressor in the Carribean Crisis, and how we did not call things off. You realize that it was us who slipped "top secret" assurances to Russia that our Jupiter Missles were scheduled for withdrawl. It was OUR Navy which let multiple Russian ships slip past the blockade in order to avoid hostilities. It was our Administration's decision to ignore the downing of our U2 spyplane, and ignore the rules of engagement - chalking the incident up to a mistake or miscommunication between Cuba and Russia.

Not to mention that that very decision to put up a blockade was fully approved by the Organisation of American states by a unanamous decision.


2:America didnt join because you needed a reason? Is a holocaust not a good enough reason?

If were supposed to avoid wars then why did America plunge itself into iraq in the name of "justice" for iraqui civilians.

Sychosis took care of this for me. Thanks.


In regards to mutations read some documentries you arse.

I did, and I posted both links and excepts. Where are yours?


In regards to kennedy why dont you do some research on him. The man was practically a male whore who was willing to place our entire planet on the line for the sake of a single country. To me he'll always be a piece of shit.

A male whore? Maybe... but personally I don't see where that has anything to do with anything. The guy was banging Marylin Monroe, more power to him, cause I sure as hell would have too if I was in his shoes.

Placed the entire world on the brink of disaster for a single country? Did you miss the part of his address to the nation where he said..


It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.

... to say of our efforts to keep East Berlin secure.


Yes your right. However i find it rather strange how the British rarely kill American soliders in cross fire whereas Americans kill british soliders every few months, not the mention that the latest incident has resulted in an inquest in which the U.S has refused to helpthe famiies of the British soliders killed.

Yes, friendly fire incidents occur in every war, and for every participant. US Armed Forces are responsible for killing far more US Soldiers than they are British Soldiers - and many of the familes of our fratricide soldiers are getting the screw over job as well. It's not like we're just picking on you.

This is a problem, and I agree that it needs to be fixed through better intelligence and perhaps global positioning ID. As I quoted earlier jocularly...


When we shoot, the Germans duck. When the Germans shoot, we duck. When the Americans shoot, everybody ducks.....

As for this topic - it's already so far off topic I doubt it COULD get back on track at this point.

[McLaughlin]

On 2007-04-20 18:29, Garroway wrote:
Damn you Sinue_v2. Everytime I wanted to smack him down you did it with clarity and grace then backed it up with sources (who does that?). I simply can't compete with that.

On topic though: I think more Americans are armed than some of you actualy realise, and also I think it's much more difficult to obtain a permit than you think. It took me almost three months to get mine. I had to go through a familiarization course that involved a practical exercise. An extensive background check was done and I was interviewed by a county commity before the OK was given (all-in-all about $300 in fees, registration, and courses). I carry my pistol to the grocery store, to work, to my friends houses, just about everywhere it's allowed. I work in a small shop of 4 people, 3 of us carry. Outside of work 5 of 8 of us carry. Everyone had to go through the same process that I went through (we're mostly veterans and we have clean records, for us it wasn't a big deal). The idea of an armed populace is not something that could happen, it is something that has happened. I know most of you are thinking now that this must be the reason that shootings occur at such an alarming rate, but before you try and argue that point, I would like to see the statistics on the number of gun crimes committed by people that carry registered firearms legally. Also take into consideration that suicides are counted in that statistic so to find your answer you'll have to crossreferance those statistcs.

I would tell you the answer but I think Sinue_v2 has demonstrated (rather well) that most of you half-wits won't accept knowledge originating from anyone but yourselves.




Bam.

[Sinue_v2]

I would tell you the answer but I think Sinue_v2 has demonstrated (rather well) that most of you half-wits won't accept knowledge originating from anyone but yourselves.

Honestly, I doubt he really believes what he's typing. Or at least isn't serious about it. More likely he's just doing the same thing I am. Relieving boredom.

[Thalui89]

Ok you fucking shitty arsed Americans. If you want to live in your little dream bubble then you do that. I know i'm right and clearly England has as superior education system than yours. Clearly it is impossible to educate such thick skulled animals as your selves. In regards for 'lack of evidence' if would be rather hard to actually show you some evidence since it was documentaries that were aired in the UK NOT America.
Garroway the reason why you didnt personally 'smite me down' is because you couldnt. I didn't see you post once in this little argument which suggests lack of knowledge. As for banding together, yes the public opinion here is ALWAYS going to move towards America as theres more of you, hence why you band together like dogs. For instance theres always the matter of "America won the war". Well erm in a degree you did due to the fact you joined our cause toward the end but really the victory is more in the hands of those who stood up for justice right from the very start. Those who did not fear being damaged by their enemy. Whilst America did EVENTUALLY stand up for justice they did so rather late.

I apologise to those Americans who actually know their history, arent blinded by patriotism and are actually decent. It just appears that this topic was largly dominated by a moronic sample of your society.

Now back on topic please. This being the shootings.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Thalui89 on 2007-04-21 09:44 ]</font>

[Solstis]

On 2007-04-21 09:41, Thalui89 wrote:
Ok you fucking shitty arsed Americans. If you want to live in your little dream bubble then you do that. I know i'm right and clearly England has as superior education system than yours. Clearly it is impossible to educate such thick skulled animals as your selves.


Aw... who's a silly little prude? Whoooo's a silly wittle pookie bear? Kooshi Koochi Choo!



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2007-04-21 11:44 ]</font>

[Thalui89]

Ok STAYING ON TOPIC.

I personally think schools/colleges/universities should have better security. I mean at my own college the only form of security there is an I.D. tag system and ONE main entrance, and then the actual staff themselves which i cant really see beating up a gunman xP. I'm not sure what the U.S have for forms of security but i think Britain should have security guards (atleast at the exits/entrances).

[Jehosaphaty]

On 2007-04-21 13:33, Thalui89 wrote:
Ok STAYING ON TOPIC.

I personally think schools/colleges/universities should have better security. I mean at my own college the only form of security there is an I.D. tag system and ONE main entrance, and then the actual staff themselves which i cant really see beating up a gunman xP. I'm not sure what the U.S have for forms of security but i think Britain should have security guards (atleast at the exits/entrances).



Staying on topic? Now you want to stay on topic after all your mindless, uneducated, and grossly misinformed drivel? haha asshole.

You can pretty much walk all around our campus without I.D. except for labs, art storage rooms, and a small few various other places.

[Solstis]

The dorms are pretty well contained, security doors and moderately trained staff abound. I would say some stuff, but I'm basically legally bound not to. :/

We also have an on-campus police staff, though they're a little traffic ticket hungry.

[Ma_Navu]

On 2007-04-21 09:41, Thalui89 wrote:
I know i'm right...

Clearly it is impossible to educate such thick skulled animals as your selves.

Kinda contradictory there. I'd think that the more open-minded you are, the more you'd be willing to accept a possible fault, a possibility that you could be wrong. The people who can't are, as you say, "thick-skulled animals."

And about the patriotism? I'm not patriotic. Hell, when the "Star-spangled Banner" is played, I either zone out or change the words a bit. I "banded together with my fellow Americans like a dog" only because I thought he made more valid points. Yet again, that was only an opinion. I could've easily been wrong, Sinue could've been wrong, you could've been wrong. I don't know who was.

Anyhow, back on topic. My school has shitty security. Some of the guards are supposed to prevent students from leaving the premises or people from entering the building. Like yesterday. However, I proved them to be useless by just leaving the school to walk home at 9:30 a.m., seeing as though my home was nearby. There are a total of 7 entrances to the school that I have counted. If one is blocked, I move to the next. Always, at least one is unguarded. I can walk home anytime I wish.

Isn't it sad that a student can find such faults within a school? Lucky them, I'm not prone to homicide. xD

[Valius]

I'm against allowing more people to bring guns to school. However, I would be for having more and better trained security officers (armed or otherwise) at schools.

[Jive18]

Reckless, out-of-control teens + guns = http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif.

We have a better chance of outlawing guns entirely than persuading politicians to allow students/faculty arm themselves inside a school.

[Solstis]

Seriously though, a lot of posters here don't seem to realize that security guards are people. It's like the whole "I work in retail and a I hate X." The only reason I like working for security is the mobility and how lovely the campus is at night. The sort of person that could be content sitting in a chair next to a door would be a senile old man (or woman).



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2007-04-21 23:46 ]</font>

[SolomonGrundy]

On 2007-04-21 23:44, Solstis wrote:
Seriously though, a lot of posters here don't seem to realize that security guards are people. It's like the whole "I work in retail and a I hate X." The only reason I like working for security is the mobility and how lovely the campus is at night. The sort of person that could be content sitting in a chair next to a door would be a senile old man (or woman).



surely you must realize that any security position is potentially life threatenting. I would never take a securithy job unless there was significant training, and the pay was proportionate with the real risk. seriously - most security jobs leave the employees sitting ducks. It is only the basic criminal wisdom of avoiding detection that gives a modicum of safety.

Fuck a lovely campus, attend evening classes if you like it so much.

[Cranberry]

Based on the on topic parts of this, it seems clear to me that people would not feel safer if they were allowed to be armed at schools.

I think the answer is that in a free society, we just sometimes have to accept that trajedies happen.

[MrNomad]

You know what the real problem is? Its not the flexibility of getting a gun, its that Americans are just fucking insane =P Thats all. The killer was insane, he didnt have lots of friends, and the only "friends" he had never really tried to make him comfortable, so he went insane and killed people. The problem is Americans and people in general think being weak is not a good thing and have to prove to their enemies that they are tough, when the fact is that at the end of the day no one cares except you. Thats why killers do mass murders, so they are left in the pages of history as supposed "tough guys" You wanna stop stuff like that, just make friends with people, dont bust their chops, and quit being an asshole, cause it'll bite you hard later. Remember: GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE, FUCKING INSANE PEOPLE DO, so dont let the insane run rampent, help them ;3

[amtalx]

What happened to just being crazy? Everything has to have a reason now. He was a nutbag, end of story.