School Shootings...

[monsta666]

QUOTE (NobleEagle @ Mar 09 2008, 08:00 AM)Hmm...I Always wonder why in Europe it is so easy to get a gun. because in asia (Indonesia specifically) owning a gun is no easy matter at all. I can say that out of 20 people. only 1 (or 2 at most) have a gun. though sharp weapon is much more easier to find.

What part of Europe are you referring to? Europe is not a country so using sweeping statements like this is unlikely to be true. In Switzerland yes you could say it is easy to acquire a gun but in most of Europe it is not easy to possess a gun (if you ignore BB guns). Certainally less than the 5% (1 in 20) have guns in Britain and my guess is this figure holds true in most of western Europe e.g France, Germany, Netherlands etc. My knowledge of eastern Europe is more limited so I can't comment on those countries too much.

I can understand why some Americans can get pissed off at some of the comments made by the non-Americans. Perhaps some of the comments did sound condescending but I'm sure this wasn't the intention. The biggest complaint I remember hearing was the one regarding American violence. I will prove my point using the following example. If Britain had the same gun laws as America I am SURE they would have similar rates of gun crime as America. Hence Americans are not violent per say (at least no more violent than other countries) they simply have greater access to weapons (I understand there are numerous restrictions to gun possession).

In a way it boils down to supply and demand. The demand for guns in England could be similar to America (relative to population) but supply is far less. As less people own guns their is less gun crime (after all there cannot be gun crime if there are no guns). So banning guns will be a pretty sure way of stopping gun crime but I understand this never going to happen. It all begs the question what is easier banning weapons from school (AND ACTUALLY TAKING STRONG MEASURES TO ENFORCE THESE LAWS) or behavioural change? Both options are difficult but the situation is unlikely to improve if no action is taken.


QUOTE (dchaosblade @ Mar 09 2008, 01:10 PM)The reason I get mad at people saying stuff about the U.S. without knowing what they are talking about isn't all because they are ignorant and acting like they aren't (this is annoying and makes me mad but) - the problem is that IT HAS BEEN SAID SEVERAL TIMES that what they are saying is wrong, and they STILL say it. Thats not ignorance, it's sheer STUPIDITY.

*goes off to smash some heads in*

Call it a careless mistake. If you read my earlier posts I said increase school security not banning guns from school. Seriously dchoasblade you need to chill out. I get a lot of ignorant comments regarding the country I come from so its not like I don't know how it feels like. Case in point look at the above post, yet another reference that Europe is (seemingly) one unified country. Do you see me, jumping up and down in frustration? A simple explanation will suffice. If a person fails to reads posts they're not going to read your mad rant anyway, so it doesn't make much difference anyway.

 

[dchaosblade]

For God's sake!! If I have to say this one more time, I'M going on a frickin' rampage.

WEAPONS ARE ALREADY BANNED FROM SCHOOLS!!
IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE (breaking a REALLY big law) TO TAKE A GUN ONTO THE CAMPUS OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

The problem is NOT that guns are allowed, and thus people are doing this shit. The problem is that some people are fkn insane, don't care if they break a law, and so they bring a gun ILLEGALLY onto campus and SHOOT people (breaking ANOTHER law - yes, it IS illegal to shoot and/or kill people in the United States

) before shooting themselves in an act of suicide - thus avoiding any criminal punishment they would have gained from the act of carrying a gun onto campus, shooting the gun, shooting people, killing people, etc.

Banning weapons from school DOESN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BANNED!!


The reason I get mad at people saying stuff about the U.S. without knowing what they are talking about isn't all because they are ignorant and acting like they aren't (this is annoying and makes me mad but) - the problem is that IT HAS BEEN SAID SEVERAL TIMES that what they are saying is wrong, and they STILL say it. Thats not ignorance, it's sheer STUPIDITY.

*goes off to smash some heads in*

 

[Patrick5087]

Also banning weapons overall just makes it illegal, thus it would make normal people outlaws. And if you make that many outlaws, quite frankly you are just asking for alot of problems at that point.

The reason to be able to own a firearm isn't to protect oneself from outside invaders it is to protect yourself from your government. Because all governments fear their people more than they do other countries.

Honestly the banning of assault weapons didn't have any effect one what happens in school shootings/offices/anywhere else 'idiots' think they need to use a weapon.

 

[Dalriada]

QUOTE (Patrick5087 @ Mar 27 2008, 06:25 AM) The reason to be able to own a firearm isn't to protect oneself from outside invaders it is to protect yourself from your government. Because all governments fear their people more than they do other countries.
This reason is pretty much fantasy. It was probably one of the reason in the XVIIIth century (when rifle was pretty much the apex of weaponry, oustide artillery), but it's no more relevant.

 

[Patrick5087]

I dont see how you say it fantasy. The rifle is still a very huge part of the military. I mean do you honestly think the bombs we drop or the shells we seen over "holds the ground"? You need people with rifles in there hands to "hold ground" Which IMO is more important that how many bombs you can drop.

So, yes the rifle is still a very important part of the armed forces which it should be a important part of keeping your freedoms safe.

And honestly, its not the rifle that is the apex weapon its the human mind behind the rifle that is the apex weapon, and all weapons in every era.

 

[monsta666]

QUOTE (Patrick5087 @ Mar 28 2008, 03:11 AM)I dont see how you say it fantasy. The rifle is still a very huge part of the military. I mean do you honestly think the bombs we drop or the shells we seen over "holds the ground"? You need people with rifles in there hands to "hold ground" Which IMO is more important that how many bombs you can drop.

So, yes the rifle is still a very important part of the armed forces which it should be a important part of keeping your freedoms safe.

Explain to me how a gun is going to help maintain my freedoms? If I go to the voting pool with a gun will I gain more respect, will my vote have more weight? Please don't tell me it some reference to actually physically defending yourself against the government...

Are weapons useful in the army? Yes they help defend yourself from attack, they can also push the enemy away. Are weapons useful in a domestic setting? No, the matter can often be solved quite easily without weapons. Use of weapons also carries its own problems as it can be used as form of intimidation and can harm our right to free speech. If you say something I don't like will it be acceptable to use a gun to maintain my free speech? Nice one, I might need to try this! Seriously though many countries can have a functioning democracy without the use of guns. Indeed most countries that use guns to force their agendas are not real democracies, look at Zimbabwe and China as obvious examples.

 

[dchaosblade]

You aren't looking at it right, monsta. The idea is such that:
What if someone manages to get elected, but then reforms the government from the inside out. He/she removes the democratic process and takes the power - similar to a dictatorship. Essentially, what if our government becomes corrupt? Since the government has power over the military, they have the power of brute force to make the citizens follow. The only way to defend ourselves against such force is with force of our own. It would become necessary to take up arms against our own government and overthrow it in order to create a new and safer government and reinstate the old democratic process.
When the U.S. government was created, everyone was paranoid that it would become another government similar to the British - which ruled over the colonies with an iron fist - uncaring for its citizens. Due to this fear, the founders decided that the American people should have the ability to do exactly what they had done - overthrow the government. If it needs to be done with force, then the citizens should have the right to do so. Notice: it is the RIGHT to bear arms, not a law per-se.

 

[Dalriada]

QUOTE You aren't looking at it right, monsta. The idea is such that:
What if someone manages to get elected, but then reforms the government from the inside out. He/she removes the democratic process and takes the power - similar to a dictatorship.

You mean like Hitler (sorry for the Godwin) ? It won't happen except if the people wish it. And then, all the guns of the world won't help, if the majority of the population favor the strong man.
A president nomming himself president for life otherwise would be put down very quickly (It wouldn't be the first time an army makes a coup to put down a wanabee dictator and retore democracy. Although it's rare).

A possibility would be a general making a military coup, but it's very unlikely since the army has already a lot of power (who need to make a coup when your army has already almost half the world military budget) and since, I believe, the support of the troops would be shaky.

I fail to see how the USA would become a dictatorship without the support of the population.

QUOTE
Essentially, what if our government becomes corrupt?

It's a good thing to add a touch of humour in serious messages, really.


QUOTE The only way to defend ourselves against such force is with force of our own. It would become necessary to take up arms against our own government and overthrow it in order to create a new and safer government and reinstate the old democratic process.

Except it's fantasy.
Let's suppose your scenario happens.
To think a random extrem-right-wing militia is able to hold ground against a first-class army is fantasy. They don't have the weapons, they don't have the logistics, they don't have the communications technologies (here, I include spying on enemy's communications. With Echelon for example), the have less strategic and tactical skills...

As Iraq have shown us, the US army is not almighty. A guerilla war can be a pain.
But let's not forget that such a conflict wouldn't be a colonial war.
The army would play on its own ground, without holding back (politically, it's harder to lose your troops on a foreign soil than on your own soil, defending your country), with nowhere to retreat.
A fair part of the population would side with the government against the terrorists (It's well-known that terrorists and freedom-fighters are synonymous).
And anyway, the average American citizen has too much to lose.
So the main advantages of a guerilla would disappear.

At most, it could be a succesful resistance movement, but without hope of winning without the help of a world power.


QUOTE
Due to this fear, the founders decided that the American people should have the ability to do exactly what they had done - overthrow the government. If it needs to be done with force, then the citizens should have the right to do so.

I don't want to disrespect the Founders, but none of them could see the future.
I agree with the reasons why the right to bear arms was introduced in the constitution back then, but they are no more relevant.

 

[Patrick5087]

Yes because a city of a million people can fight against a force. half its size of the USA current armed forces. They would have to commet mass murder to do so. If they don't know how many guns are out here there can fight ageinst them.

Now we are just talking about real world figures. What about the psychological pressure that is under the government knowing that there are people out there that if the government gets outta line that someone could assassinate them.

I will tell you right now, that if the US government starts walking down the path of Hitler, I will personally hunt the guy down and kill him myself. But guess what I would like a gun that I am comfortable with to do so, just so I could do it at range. I would also do so with a knife or my bare hands also.

And just so you know Hitler banned rifles/guns and even knives, during his rule. Also peoples mothers turned there sons in if they where going against the state. Just some food for thought. You may also want to read articles about the banning the longbow in Britain.

Also by your argument what Hitler was able to do was alright in your opinion and shouldn't have been stopped. Because he did have the people OK to do so. That if the majority is OK with it, then it isn't wrong.

Granted this will turn into a debate about what is "right" and what is "wrong" which I already said my views in a different topic. So sorry if I de-rail it.

Honestly not everyone goes into there offices and shoots up the place. Heck how many people that you know, that have a arsenal. They aren't going to tell you they have it. But can you also say that they are the kind of person who will go crazy and kill everyone?

A gun has never killed a person, people kill people. A sword ever go up and stabed someone, or walked up to someone a slashed someone. Getting rid of weapons is not an answer. its a silly attempt. Because honestly you can kill someone with your bare hands, with any sort of item. From a pen/pencil to anything.

As Larry the cable guy says, if guns are responsible for killing people, them my pencil is responsible for my spelling mistakes. And to continue on with that then my keyboard is responsible for spelling mistakes too.

 

[Dalriada]

QUOTE Now we are just talking about real world figures. What about the psychological pressure that is under the government knowing that there are people out there that if the government gets outta line that someone could assassinate them.

Then you're promoting terrorism, not civil war. It's a different beast.
Considering the mood about terrorism those days in the USA, it's very brave of you to acknowledge this.

Strangely enough, I don't remember John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald or John Hinckley, Jr. being celebrated as Defenders of Freedom in the USA, even if they did exactly what you're promoting.


QUOTE Also by your argument what Hitler was able to do was alright in your opinion and shouldn't have been stopped. Because he did have the people OK to do so. That if the majority is OK with it, then it isn't wrong.

Fine ! What Hitler did was right !
I'll really have hear everything here.

You miss one huge point : people are quite self-centered. So they will often vote for the one who claim to make their life better (even if it's wrong. Populism have a nice history), even if they disagree with some points of his politics.

 

[Patrick5087]

Well I was going to edit some stuff but sense you replied already. Terrorism is all in the eyes of the beholder and as I said falls under what I like to call "Whats right" and "Whats wrong" I really don't wish to get into it at this point.

The only thing I really wanna say is this. You say something can't be done, I respect that, but you have to in return respect that I say that it CAN be done. I would ask you as a fellow human to allow my idea that I can do something, rather than try to limit me just because you think something cannot be done. If I only have a .00000000000001% chance of being able to do something. I would ask you to allow me to hold onto that .00000000000001% chance. its just I would like for people to give each other the benefit of a doubt.

QUOTE Then you're promoting terrorism, not civil war. It's a different beast.
Considering the mood about terrorism those days in the USA, it's very brave of you to acknowledge this.

No its not. Look at what happens in the Civil Wars around the world. History goes to the victor. It always has and always will. Granted with the information age that MAY not always be true, but it will turn into who ever controls the information goes to the victor.

Also bravery has nothing to do with what I am saying. Its just a fact of life that people have different point of views on a subject, or labels. its like saying someone is ugly or fat or stupid. Its a label based on a persons point of view. It may not be the "right" or "wrong". Because even what is "right" and what is "wrong" is also a point of view.


QUOTE Strangely enough, I don't remember John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald or John Hinckley, Jr. being celebrated as Defenders of Freedom in the USA, even if they did exactly what you're promoting.

If you go to the southern states of the US you will see confederate flags flying either under or even above the US flag. And in those circles those people are celebrated for the confederacy not the USA.

And I am not promoting anything. I'm just an observer who is looking at this world and the thing called humanity, and good and evil. From a point of view that my very well be unique. I really can't say what is right or wrong. Nor will I try to argue about it. Because there are no real answers to those questions. I can argue to anyone how what you think is wrong or evil or is also right and good. I can also say that I can argue about things that are right and good, how they can be wrong and evil.

I can probably tell you what the difference between a civil war and a terrorist action is. its when one side does not acknowledge that they are at war with someone. Because really a 'War' is when both sides knowingly recognize each other as a force, army. In todays world in order to be an "army" you need to have uniforms. Which is silly IMO, because the first rule of war is that there are no rules.

Also I would like to apologize for getting getting close to personally attacking you. My emotions get stirred and I go dumb in the head. I really just don't like being told that I can't do something just because someone says so. Its one of my hardest things to disconnect myself from.

 

[monsta666]

In any case America is not going to turn into a dictatorship. So what has been said here is a moot point anyway. Two main ways that can lead to a dictatorship:

Self elected government - If a government tries to nominate himself for life, even killing people to achieve this goal he will quickly be brought down by the police/military. So it won't happen that way.
Military coup - Will the American troops really support a general who wants to take over the country? I don't think so, regardless of how stupid, incompetent (or even corrupt) the current government is.

If the government did manage to achieve this all the guns in the world won't help. Look at China/Zimbabwe/Russia as examples. What is typical of most dictators is they keep the people poor. After all if most people are only thinking about filling their bellies they cannot mount a serious resistance movement.

As for the Hitler comments just remember this. After the end of world war I Germany was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles. This in effect was not only an admission to defeat but they also had to foot the bill to the war. This lead the country into financial ruin and with the depression of the 30's there was hyper inflation. Hitler reversed this trend and steered Germany to a better future financially and the Germans loved him for it. Yes there was a few questionable policies but he saved the country so it didn't matter.

Further it should be noted that the way people thought back then was different to what it is today. The idea of Eugenics was quite popular at the time and it was idea that was certainly not limited to Germany. Many people had theories about how to advance the human race and they wanted to put these theories into practice... The atrocities of world war II stopped these ideas dead in it tracks however and the idea was never to become fashionable again.

I would recommend you read the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. The name of the book is rather misleading but it is actually pretty accurate as to what normally happens in a dictatorship. Things start innocently enough but when people realise the government is bad it often too late (hindsight is a beautiful thing). The story is actually based on what happened when Stalin ruled over Russia between 1920-50.

 

[Dalriada]

QUOTE The only thing I really wanna say is this. You say something can't be done, I respect that, but you have to in return respect that I say that it CAN be done.

No. The idea that all opinions are valid is a fallacy.
I respect your right to say them (we're in free countries after all ^^), but I think it's wrong nonetheless.


QUOTE If you go to the southern states of the US you will see confederate flags flying either under or even above the US flag. And in those circles those people are celebrated for the confederacy not the USA.

But not by the majority, isn't it ? (Maybe by the majority in some remote part of the South, but not by the majority of a state for example. At least I hope).
Therefore it's in opposition of your idea that guns are useful to save democracy or your rights (Since president that had been elected by a majority have been removed by a minority of a few).


QUOTE
I can probably tell you what the difference between a civil war and a terrorist action is. its when one side does not acknowledge that they are at war with someone. Because really a 'War' is when both sides knowingly recognize each other as a force, army. In todays world in order to be an "army" you need to have uniforms. Which is silly IMO, because the first rule of war is that there are no rules.

Wrong about the difference between terrorism and civil war (There was no civil war in French Algeria until the 80's or the 90's. Before, it was just events. And yet... Or the French Resistance in WII, labelled as terrorists by Vichy).
Wrong about the fact that wars have no rules (Well, of course those rules can be broken. But rules of the civil society can also be broken, they exist nevertheless).

The difference between a terrorist, a soldier in a civil war and a freedom fighter is often wether we disagree, are neutral or agree with him.


QUOTE Also I would like to apologize for getting getting close to personally attacking you.

As long as you're attacking my ideas, I'm fine with it. Maybe mods will have another opinion if the debate gets too heated (and I would be as guilty as you), but otherwise don't worry about that.

---------------------------------------


QUOTE
As for the Hitler comments just remember this. After the end of world war I Germany was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles. This in effect was not only an admission to defeat but they also had to foot the bill to the war. This lead the country into financial ruin and with the depression of the 30's there was hyper inflation. Hitler reversed this trend and steered Germany to a better future financially and the Germans loved him for it. Yes there was a few questionable policies but he saved the country so it didn't matter.

He also played a lot the nationalism card (as linked to the Treaty of Versailles and the occupation of the Ruhr by France in 1923) and the strong man card.
It would be misleading to say that Hitler was economically more skilled than the Weimar Republic (Between the reparations for WWI and the crisis of 1929, the republic was in trouble from the beginning).

 

[snorky2k]

Do the stories of these school shootings make Europeans and Asians think that we (US north americans) are violent? Does our attack on Iraq make it worse?

Even when I traveled in the town in Denmark where my great grandfather came from, I was spotted as an american years ago. Would I be welcome as a recognizable american to travel amongst the locals?

 

[monsta666]

QUOTE (snorky2k @ Apr 06 2008, 05:46 PM)Do the stories of these school shootings make Europeans and Asians think that we (US north americans) are violent? Does our attack on Iraq make it worse?
Not really. At least I don't think so. In my opinion people in Britain are just as violent as Americans. The thing is guns are not as readily available here. If guns were available in Britain I am pretty sure we would have similar rates of gun crime (if anything it will be worse). I suppose there is the stereotype that Americans are self-centred, stupid and trigger happy but then stereotypes are rarely right. That is not my opinion by the way it is just something I often hear. If you ever want to see an American stereotype watch the film Live and Let Die. The copper in that film pretty much sums up the description I made.

My opinion on the matter could be summed by this statement:


QUOTE (Dalriada @ Feb 19 2008, 01:02 AM) Driving a car needs a driving licence (not an easy one here).
And yet, when I see how people drive... I think a gun-carrying permit would be a disaster.

Now, driving and carrying a gun are two different things, and people may be more respectful of rules in the US, but still...

It's the same here! The driving test is difficult here too! You need to pass a theory test which consist of a multiple choice questions (anything less than 30 out of 35 is a fail) a hazard perception test and a practical Test. Despite the test being difficult however the driving in the streets can be pretty bad. Why? With all tests there is a fundamental problem that occurs no matter how rigorous the test is. Namely the person taking the test does what the examiner expects. Once the person obtains the licence however they are free to act in any matter they see fit. They may know the rules but they can disregard them whenever they want.

That said like dchaosblade stated (on numerous occasions) guns are not allowed on school premises. It is against Federal law. However my main concern is this. The law is not very easily enforced. Yes many people respect the laws or are afraid of the breaking them but what of the nutter who doesn't give a damn? What measures can be taken to stop people like this from making this unfortunate incident occur again? That is the crux of the problem.


QUOTE Even when I travelled in the town in Denmark where my great grandfather came from, I was spotted as an American years ago. Would I be welcome as a recognizable American to travel amongst the locals?

Were you wearing an American shirt/flag and having a massive hot dog in one hand and a gun in the other? Okay that was just a poor joke/stereotype that isn't supposed to be taken seriously! Probably the biggest give away was your accent. When going to America my accent was a give away to where I live.

 

[Dalriada]

QUOTE Do the stories of these school shootings make Europeans and Asians think that we (US north americans) are violent? Does our attack on Iraq make it worse?

It's not an easy question. I'll try to answer for France (and keep in mind it's just my opinion).

On a political level, I would say the USA are seen more as self-centered and naive.
Self-centered as caring mainly about its own interest. Like every other nation, but the might of the USA and their stance as the symbol of freedom make it more obvious.
Naive, because the USA haven't had a war on their own ground since a long long time (with some exceptions like Pearl Harbour, but a strike is hardly a war). So they seem sometimes to have forgotten the disaters a war provokes on the civil population (There was some feelings after the 9/11 like 'Welcome to the real world', alongside with the feeling of horror).

On a more individual level... I'd say the death penalty and the gun laws make the American society appear like more violent than an European one. Of course, it's mainly a problem of perception (usually, the news show only the worst stuff. So people can't really the good side of the American society).
And don't forget Hollywood. There's just a lot of movies or TV shows coming from the USA, and a lot of them are quite violent (Well... All the shows about cops). Of course, nobody is fool enough to believe those shows depicte accurately a country, but it creates a mood, an image.

A third point : the notion of acceptable violence is also different. You'll remember that France have an quite high number of burned cars per year. It's condamned by the society of course, but some of American guys I spoke with were amazed that the condamnation wasn't stronger, because it seems it would have been the case in the USA.

Of course, I'm talking here about the perception of the society, not the actual violence of the society.


QUOTE
Even when I traveled in the town in Denmark where my great grandfather came from, I was spotted as an american years ago. Would I be welcome as a recognizable american to travel amongst the locals?

You can always say you're canadian.

Otherwise, as long as you don't speak about politics or religion (a wise position when you're dealing with strangers), I don't see why you would have more problems than someone else (i.e. parisians won't welcome you and will be grumpy, but they act that way with everybody, including with another parisian).
Well, going in some suburbs, where pro-palestinian feelings are strong and when courteous debates are uncommon, wouldn't be the best idea, but I guess there's also places in the USA where a tourist is not welcomed.

 

[Patrick5087]

Accutly there are some places in the US that white people aren't welcomed in and the same for "colored" sadly enough racism is still here. I dont like it and it really saddens me that it still is a part of life here. Heck, there are a few places I would like to go drive around in but because I'm from California and have a California licensed plate, I would have my headlights broken, and taillights broken. Just because I'm a 'Californian' they would be broken by the police btw. So really there are alot of sad things here.

The 9/11 thing burst alot of peoples bubbles about the kind of world they live it. I also agree that most Americans are naive and down right dumb at times. Now I don't claim to know all the US presidents. I may know them by sight, I just wont be able to tell you there names. But thats a problem I have with people in general, I can recognize alot of people from just all my classes that I have had in school. I just may not be able to tell you there names.

Countries well I at least know where most of them are or atleast whats the nearest ocean (if you don't count arctic/antarctic) . Granted I sometimes get mixed up which one is Norway and which one is Sweden. But I really don't think I will ever have the money to ever go to Europe in my lifetime. So that is my excuse, if you will, for me not knowing them. I would love to visit Ireland/Australia. I mean sure I would like to visit other places too, for me personally France at least from what I have seen on travel channels and what not, doesn't really have anything to see but that huge radio tower looking thing

(Sorry it does look like a radio tower and I've seen too many here to be impressed by it). So for me I think I would be more intrested in places like Spain/Italy(mainly for the Roman stuff), and Greece much for the same reasons.

About the permit and stuff while I may have misgivings that its more of a "Big Brother" sort of thing happening, I think it would be a good idea, in fact there are some states where I believe if you want to own a firearm you have to take courses for basic firearm safety. I'm fine with that.

With the school shoots, the fact that it happens so rarely should tell say alot in it self. Pretty much its just a few whacked people doing it. Honestly I understand the reason why they would. I mean, I was teased alot when I was in school. I mean when people say "its just words" really don't understand the power of words. Then you have grades.... the big "compete with your class" system, you work so hard to do things for your family and friends the pressure builds up until you snap and lose your mind. Honestly I was a slacker in school, for 2 reasons I didn't like the idea of homework, and 2 I didn't have anything to go for, so I never put my heart into anything. In fact I really still don't have a dream of my own. Granted I would like to design a video game but I don't know, I would also like to write a book one day, I guess I feel that I'm still too young for that sort of thing.

Also the way I see it the blackmarket is alot more free here also, with 'freedom' there comes both the good and the bad. Also it doesn't help the fact that there are alot of "points of entry." Also it doesn't help most Americans have having a serious identity crisis at the moment. So making laws for things that are so easy to get by other means to me sounds pretty pointless.

 

[snorky2k]

QUOTE (monsta666 @ Apr 06 2008, 11:13 AM)
Were you wearing an American shirt/flag and having a massive hot dog in one hand and a gun in the other? Okay that was just a poor joke/stereotype that isn't supposed to be taken seriously! Probably the biggest give away was your accent. When going to America my accent was a give away to where I live.
I was wearing a normal casual shirt with kind of a plaid pattern that I don't think was visible because I was wearing a parka. I was there the second week of February and I thought that it would be could there because of how much farther north it is than here near Chicago, Illinois, USA. I was with a Canadian and the only place open we could find was a Chicago style pizza restaurant. But, the pizza guy just looked at me and figured it out even though the Canadian was talking. I'm pretty sure it was the black parka with no markings that gave me away.

I don't leave the country often. I usually only go out of the country when a company is really in trouble. I'd like to travel for fun some time. But, I doubt that I'll ever be able to afford it and one of my areas of expertise might limit me from leaving the country if things keep getting worse here politically. The last three times that I came back, my companions always made it through customs in seconds. But, they always are typing forever and take minutes before they give my passport back. I am a citizen that was born here.

I figured that it must be like my japanese niece. She was born and raised in Japan but is 100% caucasion with parents born from northwestern european ancestry. I used to work for some large Japanese companies and noticed right off that she held her head and moved her eyes like the japanese women did.

Accent is more important here in the USA than many people might expect. There are areas that still have a lot of people like the sheriff in Live and Let Die. If you get pulled over for a traffic violation with a northern accent, you will pay big time or do road clean-up. In Idaho and Utah, there are places where you had better be morman and have bluer eyes than I do and not wear glasses. Although, accents seem to be mixing here now and the deep south accent is fading. I don't know if I am just getting used to it but I think that the enlish accents seem to be changing too over the last 40 years.

There are many places in Chicago and Milwaukee that it is not safe for caucasions to even drive through. I had the locals tell me to leave the factory well before 11 am and not to stop for traffic lights until I made it back to the highway. I always thought that racial tensions would be better in Chicago than rural Iowa because there is so much more interaction. But, I was really wrong. There are so many ethnic groups compartmentalized as you go around the city that you almost need a map. It is strange when you see all the signs switch from polish to korean to spanish in just a few miles.

 

[franzoir]

Hi, im from England. Now i have not heard about the shooting at Illinois university but i think it is an interesting debate. Now here is a bit of background information about me. At the time of the Virginia tech shooting i was studying politics preparing for my exams Uk/US comparison with an american teacher who was teaching us american poltics. He is a southern texan with republican and army roots. Now he explained the virginia tech shooting and bla bla bla. All this is to out line that i think i can competenctly talk about american politics and society to an extent.

Ok now to tackle the subject matter. Alright, you Americans sure do love your guns ( stereotypical thing to say, i know). However before you package me as ' everyoneelse' who says the same thing, let look at some history. Ok.

American was founded on war, pilgrims vs native americans, the colonial british government etc. Some famous guy said 'American constitution emerged from the mist of gunpowder.' Now that would certainly explain why the founding father's made it so in the constitution to allow people to carry firearms and their love of guns.

Now that we have discuss America and it's history with gun let's tackle the heart of matter. Time for me to take hardline stance. I think people being allowed to purchase firearms legally is a joke. It's like leaving fireworks where there's an open flame and not expecting anything to happen. First of all, it should be illegal to buy a gun, i know there are check in places to make sure the person is sane or whatever but thats not the point. Like it or not, if you carry a weapon, your looking for trouble and trouble you shall surely find.

So, if America wants to reduce these shootings, America should distant itself from it's gun culture in society, by tougher gun/weapon controls and educate the youngsters it is not the American way, if you have a problem get a gun and shoot to kill.

Will this ever happen, probably not since one of the most powerful pressure groups in America is the NRA. And they would never let a piece of legislation condeming guns go through congress. What was it a again, "from my cold dead hands."

Ultimately, will what i have proprosed solve the problem. No, you know that saying, gun dont kill people, rappers do, (i mean people do). But i do believe a large part of the problem, is this gun culture within America and it's liberal attitudes towards guns.

Well anyway, thats my observation from across the pond, oh and FREAKIN UPDATE YOUR CONSTITUTION.

 

[snorky2k]

My wife and son were on campus during the Illinois shooting but they were a few buildings away. Your teacher was not far from the truth. The intent of guns in the constitution was to make the government fear the people to reduce the corruption that we experienced under the monarchy. The need for more rifles faster even was the foundation for our industrial might as Eli Whitney made the first transfer line for building rifles using modern techniques.

I see the need for rifles for times like when I was young and my granfather shot a rattlesnake that appeared about a foot from my brother and I as we were fishing. The only time that I pulled a gun on someone was when a crazy minister broke into our house and anounced that he was there to save me. I grabbed my brother's 49 colt Navy replica (unloaded). But, it was good enough to scare the minister back before he could attack. That is a pretty extreme case that does not happen everyday. I just seem to attract the nuts. One of my childhood neighbors was a serial killer pedophile.

I don't think that it is just guns. I blame the church which seems to crave power, money, death and places no value on life. Of course, try telling that to a minister and you will have them crawling in your windows with bibles and a spike. Now that my brother has moved out, I don't have guns in the house around my kids. I prefer only well trained and stable adults to have well controlled access to them.

By the way, I also blame a highly revered english woman with major ownership and influence in our gun industry just as she has major ownership in tobacco. But, I like the english people and love their TV shows.