Planet-man
Well-Known Member
But I still fail to see real evidence of it.
Deadly Shooting at Virgina Tech
- Thread starter SSJmole
- Start date
But I still fail to see real evidence of it.
Hibiki
Really is pretentious, no matter what she says. Do
Don't mess with him, he's a writer :wink:
Just look around anywhere, read any part of a newspaper and there's always stuff like this going on. Like I said, it's slowly creeping in and we're in the stage of not really caring i.e. ohmeegee, some kids got shot at a college. ten minutes later, you could care less. After that it gets to the point to where we get used to it and it stops bothering us. Do you remember all the televised stuff for columbine or 9/11? That barely happened today and even when those amish kids went on a rampage. There was no 24 hour coverage simply because the media no longer deems it exclusive or what have you. People are just starting not to care. Seriously ask yourself if you give two ****s about it and if you are, are you willing to do something about it?
I guarantee the answer is no. In a month we won't care anymore.
Lynx
Well-Known Member
And? I'm a History Major.
Hibiki
Really is pretentious, no matter what she says. Do
do you see the wink?
compound
Well-Known Member
Well, you saved me the effort of having to contribute anything substantial -- you just basically described my own view of the situation.
The only difference now is the scope of the death, and the possibility that the killer is an international student -- a Chinese national, if rumors are to be trusted. I seriously worry now that there will be unreasonably stricter admissions rules for international students now, not to mention the kind of racial profiling and everyday hassles that become an imperative to maintain the appearance of security, after events like these happen.
Lynx
Well-Known Member
Alright then.
compound said:
It depends on how the media and the public react to the situation over the long run. Personally, I think it'd be ridiculous if they made it more difficult for international students to come here. But, who knows? If there's one thing America has regretfully become, it's intolerant against foreigners.
Last edited:
Well said. That and this:
mean that I'm going to say right now that everyone better be on their best behaviour. I won't lock it but we'll be keeping a close eye on this thread when the inevitable debate begins. This is a subject some people feel really strongly about, both for and against and its quite often linked to very personal tragedies. So everyone posting in this thread, please have a little respect for everyone else, and remember that this is the internet and there might be something you don't know. It'd be pretty awkward to say something controversial and find someone was related to one of the Columbine victims or something. Just play it cool guys: I know you can argue like adults, I've seen it.
I think the reactions of a lot of people do point very strongly to the desensitization that someone I forgot to quote mentioned: very few of the places I've seen around the internet have waited to say "Our thoughts are with everyone affected" before diving straight into the morality and arguments about gun control. Does anyone know if we have anyone on UC from Virginia? I can't think of anyone offhand but I don't pay too much attention to where.
I'm going to be honest: I don't believe you. If you would like to prove me wrong, I'd welcome it, but from everything I've seen, read and heard, the U.S. is the site of the vast majority of the world's gun-related crimes and murders. The simple fact that people can get their hands on them easily means that its easier to commit crimes with them.
One thing I never understand, when I have this debate with Americans, is why nobody I've spoken to about it seems to be willing to bite the bullet and admit they like their guns.
In Australia, gun possession is regulated to within an inch of its life. The majority of firearms, including automatic weapons, are outlawed entirely and as a rule, only the smaller varieties are permitted in certain situations. Police carry small pistols - in New Zealand, I don't think they even do that - and some farmers have guns. Hunting isn't a major past time, but occasionally its a necessity, for rabbits or kangaroos. Kangaroo hunting is even kind of fun. I've fired guns, small and (illegally) large, right up to a big serious automatic rifle.
I didn't like it. Guns frighten me. Going through Singapore Airport where every security guard has a semi-automatic rifle, or even the major European airports where they're certainly evident (albeit more subtly) freaks me the hell out. I feel safer in my country knowing that it isn't easy to acquire a firearm. I don't see the validity of a lot of the arguments: I saw one today, where a woman who said she was about 5'2 would learn to use a gun if she ever moved to a big city, in case she was attacked. My reaction to that is get some mace and take kickboxing classes.
I have yet to find a use for guns that doesn't involve killing things, and, as a whole, I thought that was something we were sort of trying to discourage in the world. I don't think we can eradicate it, but that doesn't mean we don't need to try and cut down on it.
All that said though? It comes down to personal opinion. If you believe that having a gun will make you safer, or if you think that its the way to keep yourself free or even if you think its the only thing that'll save you when the aliens come, whatever. Its your choice. But too many people deny any correlation between gun ownership and gun related crime.
If you, as a society want to have guns, thats your choice. But stop denying there's a cost.
That was such a good movie.
Random
Didn't **** any of those *****es
I just heard about that and was going to post the same thing
Fredrik Martinsson
Formerly known as Ultimate Warrior
Still doesn't disprove my statement that most of the school shootings happens in the US.
Look, every culture has its problems with violence. Is the US's guns? Sure. But hey, I like the odds here better than getting myself blown to smithereens going to the supermarket.
The US might have a higher percentage of gun violence, but other nations have problems with violence as well.
As for disproving your statement - I wasn't trying to. Maybe you'd care to prove it?
Fredrik Martinsson
Formerly known as Ultimate Warrior
I don't think that Americans are worse than most countries when it comes to violence. However the problem is that the US is one of the countries where it is easiest to get hold of a gun. So if you are a complete psycho you can do damage to others both fast and easy. As for proving that most school shootings happens in the US? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting Scroll down to "Notable school shootings". (And no I didn't think you were trying to disprove my statement. Just pointed out that it didn't)
MaxwellSmart
Well-Known Member
I'm most shocked at how effective he was in such a short period of time.
TheManWithoutFear
#1 reason not to join UC
America does not have a problem with gun laws. It has a problem with inhabitants that aren't fit to breed breeding.
Hibiki
Really is pretentious, no matter what she says. Do
That's retarded.
Retarded like a fox!
saintpetesam
Well-Known Member
DISCLAIMER:
Before I address the question, I want to make it clear that neither this argument, nor the original statement that it supports, is or was intended to be a personal attack. Misquotes are one of my pet peeves, especially when the misquote alters the meaning of the original. (Thus I have no real problem with "We don't need no stinking badges" vs. "We don't need no badges" or "Play it again, Sam" vs. "Play it, Sam.") I apologize for the snide tone of the original statement. Furthermore, I'd like to stress that I am not making a judgment regarding the value of guns, gun ownership, or restricting gun ownership.
/DISCLAIMER
Your version of the quotation was, "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Similar paraphrases are not unusual, but significantly distort the meaning of the original by stripping the objects ("Liberties" and "Safety") of their qualifiers: "essential" and "a little temporary," respectively. (The original quotation again: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.") Without those qualifying words, the implication is that giving up ANY liberty whatsoever regardless of the resulting safety is unconscionable. That is clearly not Franklin's meaning.
To provide a concrete example: you give up your liberty to carry a handgun every time you enter the secured area of an airport. In return, you have a reasonable expectation of not getting shot. An equitable trade-off? If the paraphrase is taken as a maxim, you're a big ol' wuss if you think it is. It is unlikely that Franklin intended to convey the idea that no liberty should ever be given up (not "sacrificed," which carries a boatload of connotative meaning that even further warps the meaning of the original) for any reason.
Is the right to own & carry a firearm an "essential liberty" in the modern milieu? If it is, what kind and quality of safety would justify giving it up? How "temporary" and how "little" must the promised safety be before it becomes a bad trade off? Those are the arguments that the casual paraphrase too easily curtails.
Neat. What's your favorite period/region? I was always fond of late Republican Rome (most of my undergrad classes focused on that subject).
Joe Kalicki
Well-Known Member
I'm not a history major, but last summer I set out to read biographies of the US presidents in order, but I got so fascinated by the Revolutionary era and the building of the nation I haven't left it yet! I just keep reading biographies on other luminaries of the era, such as Hamilton and Franklin, books on the war and war time, and even The Federalist papers.
(though I am making a renewed effort to finish James Monroe and get on with it)
(also: I cheated and read Truman and Eisenhower already)
