ANOTHER shooting rampage?

[placidchap]

No doubt that stabbings would result in fewer deaths, but it seems a little like leech-craft. It lessens the pain but doesn't address the cause. It is a step in a direction that may be good, but I wouldn't say it is a step in the right direction.

Maybe Kevlar vests should be standard academic issue.

I hope that Kevlar vest comment was a joke.  That would accomplish nothing.  That is a defeatist approach to the situation.  "Nothing can be done, let's just wear Kevlar vests."  There is a great lack of community in the Disconnected States of America.  Everyone is here to look out for themselves, its all about individual choice, its all about doing what you want to do .  It is all "me", there is no "we" which leads to a feeling of isolation, abandonment, disconnect etc...ehh, I'll leave it now, I feel like I will go off on a rant and go in 1000 directions.

[BROJ]

No doubt that stabbings would result in fewer deaths, but it seems a little like leech-craft. It lessens the pain but doesn't address the cause. It is a step in a direction that may be good, but I wouldn't say it is a step in the right direction.

Maybe Kevlar vests should be standard academic issue.

I hope that Kevlar vest comment was a joke.  That would accomplish nothing.  That is a defeatist approach to the situation.  "Nothing can be done, let's just wear Kevlar vests."  There is a great lack of community in the Disconnected States of America.  Everyone is here to look out for themselves, its all about individual choice, its all about doing what you want to do .  It is all "me", there is no "we" which leads to a feeling of isolation, abandonment, disconnect etc...ehh, I'll leave it now, I feel like I will go off on a rant and go in 1000 directions.

There is a great lack of community in the Disconnected States of America.  Everyone is here to look out for themselves, its all about individual choice, its all about doing what you want to do .

This is true, but not the problem, as we are a collection of *individuals*, not the Borg.

It is all "me", there is no "we" which leads to a feeling of isolation, abandonment, disconnect etc...ehh, I'll leave it now, I feel like I will go off on a rant and go in 1000 directions.

It *is*, however, a unique and interesting take on things. 

[Thought]

I hope that Kevlar vest comment was a joke.  That would accomplish nothing.  That is a defeatist approach to the situation.  "Nothing can be done, let's just wear Kevlar vests."  There is a great lack of community in the Disconnected States of America.  Everyone is here to look out for themselves, its all about individual choice, its all about doing what you want to do .  It is all "me", there is no "we" which leads to a feeling of isolation, abandonment, disconnect etc...ehh, I'll leave it now, I feel like I will go off on a rant and go in 1000 directions.

It was an argument disguised as a joke; a bit of satire -- a modest proposal, as it were.

Look at it in context; Gun control would reduce deaths, therefore it was claimed to be a step in the right direction. Kevlar vests would also reduce deaths, therefore it also would seem to be a step in the right direction. Kevlar vests, however, are a "defeatist approach," which should then imply to the reader that gun control is likewise a defeatist approach. It addresses the symptoms, not the cause.

[placidchap]

Well the cause or one of the causes is the me vs we mentality and the feeling of isolation, as I already mentioned.  At least I believe so.

[Burning Zeppelin]

There's no point even discussing it. It's going to happen again.

[FaustWolf]

The Kevlar idea would be a plausible suggestion with some sound head protection. I'm under the impression that most fatal injuries in school shootings are gunshot wounds to the head; most rampage lunatics seem to be Kennedy assassins in training.

Essentially, we'll need this to atttend class:


I would feel much safer with a powered exoskeleton, though it would drive tuition way up. Meh, it would give us the chance to look like Master Chief at least.

[Kebrel]

I would like to note that I never heard about the shooting till yesterday, I find it sad, disgusting and partly insulting.

I certainly hope I am not the lone Compendiumites against removal of fire-arms. The whole point of the second amendment is to enforce the constitution, the government sure as hell won't.

[FaustWolf]

This is an appropriate place to take a look at the text of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I've heard arguments to the effect that this guarantees gun ownership to militias but not to individuals. But the wording of the amendment is ambiguous at best; there is mention of both "militias" and "people," the one word implying gun ownership by an organization and the other implying ownership by individuals.

[placidchap]

just because it is in the constitution, does not make it right.

[ZeaLitY]

enforce the constitution, the government sure as hell won't.

Well, it's always important to remember that your continuing education, political awareness, and most importantly, your vote are the most effective weapons you have against tyrannical leadership. The youth vote revealed itself to be sadly retarded with all the Ron Paul support this time around, but that's mostly because his supporters have no real idea about how the economy works, or why having an independent central bank is a good thing (though I'm not exempting the free market, economy, or Fed from criticism, by any means). Nor did they have an idea of all his other crazy beliefs and quirks. But still, his supporters were correct in spirit for following the Constitution and eager to take part in the political process, and that's an example the citizens in a democracy should follow.

Unless, of course, you're a neoconservative, fascist, religious nut, or communist. Just stay home in that case.

Look up the research on the implications of gun control policies in other countries. I think Canada had the best example. When the majority of criminals in the United States obtain firearms through illegal means, tightening the legal hurdles of acquiring them accomplishes nothing. Gun control is the one thing I totally disagree with Barack Obama on, but that's forgivable because it's such a sticking-point for the Democratic party. Theoretically, it may seem like escalation, but honestly, guns are going to be here forever, and so are criminals who will obtain them through any means. It all comes down to the fact that guns are merely a tool for human use, and that until humanity progresses, society will always be plagued with criminal acts. If gun control has no real effect or practical application in restricting those acts of violence, then there is no need to deny citizens the right to protect themselves. Research suggests that yes, gun control is ineffective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

[Kebrel]

just because it is in the constitution, does not make it right.

By no means am I saying that, just that in this case the right and what the constitution says are the same. I rarely ever use the second amendment right, and when I have it was hunting with my grandpa(didn't care for it much). But I am glad its their the only reason is because I *know* that some day are government will down the crap shoot like every government does at one point. the second amendment is there as a fail safe if it becomes, some sort of overly oppressive dictatorship for example. there will be blood shed many people will die we might not win, but we fight, Think about how high are chances go up if we are armed as apposed to the classic pitchfork mob.

Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of (the States) being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.

[MsBlack]

As an outsider, I see no real benefit, other than to overthrow the evil government, to many of the firearms permitted under the Second Amendment. What legitimate use has an assault rifle, a sub-machine gun?

Perhaps these are poor examples; I will admit I don't know very much about the following situations, so please feel free to criticise them as analogies (such as whether gun control was in place, whether the people opposed the leader) and correct factual inaccuracies, but just to put out there:

- The abundance of guns in Iraq didn't help overthrow Saddam.
- The access to guns in Pakistan hasn't helped overthrow Musharraf
- The UK has done comparatively well with gun control, with regard to gun-related death and evil dictatorships
- The army, bodyguards and those helping a tyrannical regime are armed and able to overthrow it
- Dictatorships are not inherently bad
- A dictator could probably be assainated by a few determined civilians or soldiers, holding guns legally or otherwise (funny how the black market could theoretically ameliorate such a situation!)
- Vladimir Arutyunian failed to kill Bush with a hand grenade. Despite widespread criticism and opposition, Bush stays President and 'The War' goes on.
- the July 20 plot failed.
- Power can be abused and the public harmed, even if not blatantly and/or physically by a legitimately-elected, legitimately-upheld leader.

Now, all the opponents of gun control can respond with an array of counter-examples based on transpirations on foreign soil. At the end of the day, I think we need to look primarily at the United States and at specifics, such as the cost and extent of gun control, complementary legislation in such a State, the present death rates et cetera.

The Second Amendment was written in critically different times. By the doctrine of full support of the Second Amendment, nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, chemical weapons; all of these would be acceptable for a citizen fo the United States to possess.

Now one may argue that's a very one-sided itnerpretation, but then that raises the question: Where does one draw the line? The main difference is that of scale. Is it more acceptable for a dozen thousand to die or a few million? When is it a significant enough threat to warrant the expenditure to significantly diminish the the threat?

Here in Greater London, I have no fear of guns. I've only once seen and suspected a gun in my presence. A crowd can much more easily deal with a person with a knife. One can quite feasibly run from a knife. But not a gun. Not an assault rifle. Not a handgun. Not a rocket launcher. Not a shotgun. Not a flamethrower.

You can go on about the greatness of the Second Amendment without acknowledging its faults, but don't then side with licences and banning certain types of arms.

I am here today... because my son Daniel would want me to be here today. If my son Daniel was not one of the victims, he would be here with me today. Something is wrong in this country... when a child... can grab a gun... grab a gun so easily... and shoot a bullet... into the middle of a child's face, as my son experienced. Something is wrong. But the time has come to come to understand that a Tech-semi-automatic-bullet weapon like that that killed my son, is not used to kill deer. It has no useful purpose. It is time to address this problem.

[Agent 12]

Hey,

What I meant before is I go to U of I (where the shooter came from ) and  friends went to Northern.  I came up to NIU today to visit a friend, noone I know or he knows was shot.  He knew a couple people in the building.  He said his friends say it seemed like the guy was shooting at a specific person.  Which I think explains the "small amount" of deaths (thank goodness).  It's almost empty on campus most parents took their kids home.  There's news vehicles everywhere and many people visit the site with flowers.



My personal opinon on gun control is that it would hurt the people who want them for good alot more than the people who want them for harm.  Thats all I'll say for now.

--JP

[ZeaLitY]

But the right and power to resist tyranny is ingrained into the American psyche. It is the same reason we are so violently abhorrent of domestic spying or the idea of a city constantly recorded by surveillance cameras. At least the sane ones. And guns, like that Wikipedia article states, are "central to the American identity." There is also a desire to protect oneself.

It comes down to freedom. There may be no use for having assault weapons other than fun practice and shooting, but there is no negative use for them either. The criminally insane and disturbed will inflict pain whether through bullets, homemade bombs, stabbings, etc. But as the analysts of the Luby's massacre in Killeen deduced, if any one of the people in attendance were carrying a gun, the massacre would have ended early. Ditto for Virginia Tech; some lawyer was sprinting back to his office off-campus to retrieve his rifle, but the spree ended before he could return. In a country in which guns are part of culture and criminals can illegally obtain them, gun-free zones are target ranges and gun-deprived citizens are targets.

[Burning Zeppelin]

I think you guys should start shooting at the government until they change the Second Amendment.

But to be fair (and I am all for removal of guns), I've heard that most dictatorships imposed strict gun policies before they began their reign.