For you no guns solution people
-
I think a tragedy like this is the wrong time to point out how stupid the US attitude towards guns is. How can you expect anything but an emotional response ? I will say, I'd rather face a madman with a knife, than one with a gun. And the US seems to breed both the access to weapons, and the intent. So, either way, there's a US centric issue here, although it can happen in other places, it happens in the US a LOT. Note 22 kids stabbed is different to 26 kids killed, proving my point. Access to guns is access to the ability to do more harm, more quickly.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, either way, there's a US centric issue here, although it can happen in other places, it happens in the US a LOT.
It most certainly DOES NOT happen "a lot". We have over 85 million legal gun owners. A mass shooting MIGHT happen a couple of times per year (if you don't count cops shooting civilians). The last time I did the math, 2 out of 85,000,000 could not reasonable be defined as "a lot".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
At least without guns, it is harder to kill.
That's pretty much the stupidest thing I've seen posted on CodeProject.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Stay classy America :doh:
There really was no call for that.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story[^] As I said before, how do you stop the INTENT?
Dude your no-guns rampage guy that you're talking about INJURED 22 people with a knife. INJURED. There's just a little difference you know. Getting a phone call saying your kid is INJURED, even slashed up with a knife, versus getting a phone call that your kid is freaking DEAD.
Nigel
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So, either way, there's a US centric issue here, although it can happen in other places, it happens in the US a LOT.
It most certainly DOES NOT happen "a lot". We have over 85 million legal gun owners. A mass shooting MIGHT happen a couple of times per year (if you don't count cops shooting civilians). The last time I did the math, 2 out of 85,000,000 could not reasonable be defined as "a lot".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997Every time I've looked for figures, your shooting deaths per capita dwarf those of the rest of Western society.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Every time I've looked for figures, your shooting deaths per capita dwarf those of the rest of Western society.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I thought we were talking about mass shootings.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
I thought we were talking about mass shootings.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997You have more of those too. You win on every front. See my link below, the wiki entry for school shootings breaks out to another, much bigger page, b.c there's a much bigger and longer history in the US, than the rest of the world.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story[^] As I said before, how do you stop the INTENT?
In South Africa we have very strict gun control, and yet 'normal', i.e. one on one shootings are extremely commonplace. Nearly always the guns used in these are not legally owned by the shooter, but stolen or bought on the black market. Yet, we have extremely few mass shootings such as occur on an alarmingly regular basis in the US, and sometimes elsewhere.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
It's almost a matter of religion with people who are raised to think that access to guns makes them free.
Not really. It is however a fundamental right explicitly given by the most fundamental legal document in the US.
The same document also gave us the 3/5ths compromise. Are you willing to stick by that?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Criminals can only get guns if society gives them access, through people having them.
That is incorrect. The UK permits no guns yet they are routinely used by criminals to shoot people. Anyone intent enough will always find a way to get hold of weapons, regardless of the law.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
mark merrens wrote:
That is incorrect.
Not really, it sure restricts the crime with guns involved. and I dont think it serve any purpose when general population is allowed guns. if a criminal come at you with a gun, you are done, it doent matter if you have gun in your house - in a locker. but it can be deadly when common man who is angry and frustrated and that man has a gun.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
None of this means anything. I never said there was NO gun violence in other countries. There's just more ( quite logically ) in a country awash with guns. If I decide to become a criminal, do you think some network of super villians mails me a gun ? Or do I need to find one ? Isn't it easier to find one when there's lots of them about ? Isn't that logical ?
Based on that then you should be able to easily demonstrate a direct correlation between guns and violence using a number of countries, say 20 at least, where some have restrictive laws and some have liberal laws.
Read these, if you are able to step past your determination that you're - of course - right: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11130511[^] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/[^] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975[^] It's not that easy of a correlation. There are many underlaying factors. But gun availability is a major one of them. Sometimes people are unable to realize that they're standing on the wrong side, because they're hiding behind the simplified models of reality, and require obvious and meaningless evidence. If that is not presented - as it solves nothing - they consider it as a proof of them being correct. As I already said. It works in Europe and Japan (because you really can't - or rather want - to compare US to third world countries), so you're beating a dead horse - so to speak. I know of nobody, who would know, where to obtain an illegal weapon. Some of us know where to probably obtain a legal one, but it would take complex expensive courses, then to buy an rather expensive gun. So if you get really mad with someone you don't go for gun, and kill him, but at best beat him (then again, I never felt this urge ever). The guns in Europe are usually for one of four major reasons: 1) robbing the banks (usually as a threat) 2) underground disputes - illegal ownership 3) hunt, sports, police, etc. usually harmless legal means 4) properly tested legal owners - hobby, or for a feeling of protection in US it's also: 5) almost anyone - the untested owners (the emotionally unstable people, people who doesn't even know how to handle the gun properly, you name it...)
The wisdom is to see things truthfully.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
No, it is not worth noting.
Yeah, why make a big deal of the difference between life and death? :)
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
Nish Sivakumar wrote:
Yeah, why make a big deal of the difference between life and death?
Life and death, are not the issue here. The intent to do harm to anyone, children in this case, is the issue. Whether he just injured the child or killed the child is inconsequential, he intended to do harm to the child. How do we deal with intent to harm/kill?
-
0bx wrote:
It's the same with nuclear weapons... Most countries have relatively stable governments right? Suppose everybody country in the world has nuclear weapons, nobody will dare to use them and nobody would dare to go to war.
That's the same pattern to how most pro-gun people seem to think. They underestimate the probability of human error and only focus on the 'most people are sensible, so having more sensible people carrying guns is good'. It's absolute bs.Most pro-gun people I know, and I know many (even ones that *gasp* voted for Obama), don't think that criminals or mental ill people should have a right to own guns. Constitutional guarantee's don't apply to criminals (look into convicted felon's voting rights). Will you admit that if nobody can legally carry guns, only criminals would carry them? The sad thing is that pro-gun people are just willing to be realistic, and not idealistic. Can a rogue country get nukes? Yes, probably. Then should reasonable countries have nukes for defense via mutually assured destruction? Yes. Would the world be better without nukes? Maybe, but we don't live in that world. Nor do we live in a world without guns. They exist, bad guys and insane people can and will get their hands on them. Should we restrict law abiding citizens because of this? What purpose does that serve? So people will have a false sense of security and sleep better at night knowing that their law abiding, yet idiotically stupid, neighbor Joe won't accidentally discharge a gun into their condo? Wouldn't they sleep better knowing that criminals may be less likely to burglarize, rape, and murder their family because criminals aren't the only people armed? I'll leave you with this: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities[^]
You talk about accepting reality, but as I said before: carrying a gun doesn't make you bulletproof. It creates the illusion of security, but real security comes form having good locks, quality doors and windows, receiving basic martial arts training, encrypt your laptop, etc... And I do see the ownership of guns separate from the presence of crime. This is the one thing I actually agree on with the pro-gun camp and it's also mentioned in the article. It's only sad that despite their wisdom about crime not having anything to do with guns, they can't seem to be able to shut up about burglars wanting to rape children, etc... Burglars don't typically break in when someone is home. Criminals are humans just like us; they think like us and have the same emotions like us. They would want to avoid confrontation as much as possible. Having guns doesn't increase crime, but it doesn't decrease it either. The only thing it does is making crime more dangerous than it has to be. So, let's focus on the "unintentional deaths" for a while. The article claims that they are very low in the US. Sure who am I to judge how many death children you find acceptable, but may I remind you to the fact that they are 270 times more likely to happen compared to most countries[^]?
.
-
I think a tragedy like this is the wrong time to point out how stupid the US attitude towards guns is. How can you expect anything but an emotional response ? I will say, I'd rather face a madman with a knife, than one with a gun. And the US seems to breed both the access to weapons, and the intent. So, either way, there's a US centric issue here, although it can happen in other places, it happens in the US a LOT. Note 22 kids stabbed is different to 26 kids killed, proving my point. Access to guns is access to the ability to do more harm, more quickly.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
It's a perfect time. As I said to Nish, the "intent" takes issue with me, not the gun laws. I gave the stabbing link, which many in China actually end up in death, as an example of mass harm to children, without a gun. You don't need a gun, to harm.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'd rather face a madman with a knife
I would pay good money to see this.
-
http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story[^] As I said before, how do you stop the INTENT?
You can't stop the intent. What you could do is make it more difficult for someone who has the intent to access the weapons that allow him to carry out the intent so easily. The problem is, of course, that the right to carry arms is embedded in the USA constitution. There's an argument that the right to carry arms is 150 years out of date and needs changing, but amending the constitution a *big* deal. I don't have the figures to hand so am going on gut feel: let's suppose there are 50 indiscriminate murders in schools & colleges each year in the states. I'm guessing there are about a million students in any year, 1 in 300 of the population. So a 1/20,000 chance of your child being murdered by a rogue gunman in school/college. Let's also assume that 10% of Americans take up their constitutional right to bear arms. That's 30 million people in round numbers. If an attempt to introduce gun legislation is made, 30 million people lose their rights when there's only a 1 in 20,000 chance that their children won't die because of it. It's just not going to happen and the killings will continue.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Criminals can only get guns if society gives them access, through people having them.
That is incorrect. The UK permits no guns yet they are routinely used by criminals to shoot people. Anyone intent enough will always find a way to get hold of weapons, regardless of the law.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story[^] As I said before, how do you stop the INTENT?
You don't stop the intent. You prevent the damage being so serious by taking away the tools that can be used to do a lot of damage quickly. You have linked to a story which is an absolutely perfect illustration of why gun control is a good thing. If guns were readily available in China, there's be 22 dead children, not 22 injured ones.
-
Because the facts don't matter. All the shootings that take place in the US don't matter. It's almost a matter of religion with people who are raised to think that access to guns makes them free.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Have a 5.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe, but not a personality. [Charlie Brooker] My Blog
-
They are not used 'routinely', firearms offences in the UK are much, much rarer than in the US.
They are used routinely by criminals and gangs though knife crime is more of a problem in the UK. Either way, it is too simplistic to suppose that making the possession of a firearm illegal will stop gun crime.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Nish Sivakumar wrote:
Yeah, why make a big deal of the difference between life and death?
Life and death, are not the issue here. The intent to do harm to anyone, children in this case, is the issue. Whether he just injured the child or killed the child is inconsequential, he intended to do harm to the child. How do we deal with intent to harm/kill?
Slacker007 wrote:
How do we deal with intent to harm/kill?
You cannot. There'll always be people with that intent, and depending on what weapons they have access to, the bigger the damage they can cause.
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com