Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

ComeToTX

Bronx Bombers wrote:

Reports of multiple people shot in a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/05/us/wiscon ... index.html

At least 7 dead.

pandora

pandora wrote:

redrock wrote:

"But you would dismiss her life because you think she should not have a gun
to protect herself. Poor Miss Ruby. ...

But maybe you are like some here and side with those who are the victimizers,
not with the victim

You are not" WE""

quote HFD "you are obviously reading the responses how you want to read them. not how they were written/intended."

If one could let go of histrionics maybe a reasoned debate could be had.

I think you could use a little of what I got

I am quite seductive you know

All seriousness though... that was definitely personal and against posting guidelines...
I thought you were ignoring...
maybe not when you want to INSULT I guess.

redrock wrote:

pandora wrote:

I think you could use a little of what I got

I am quite seductive you know

:? Thank you, but I'll pass. :?

mickeyrat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame ... nstitution







The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":


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.[89]

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the States.




Struggling under the inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, delegates from Virginia and Maryland assembled at the Mount Vernon Conference in March 1785 to fashion a remedy. The following year, at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, 12 delegates from five states (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia) met and drew up a list of problems with the current government model. At its conclusion, the delegates scheduled a follow-up meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for May 1787 to present solutions to these problems, such as the absence of:[58][59]
interstate arbitration processes to handle quarrels between states;
sufficiently trained and armed intrastate security forces to suppress insurrection;
a national militia to repel foreign invaders.

It quickly became apparent that the solution to all three of these problems required shifting control of the states' militias to the federal congress and giving that congress the power to raise a standing army.[60] Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution codified these changes by allowing the Congress to do the following:
provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
provide and maintain a navy;
make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.


A well regulated militia.

For defence of the nation. less as an individual thing than last stand against foriegn invasion should a standing army of the U.S. be defeated.

Well regulated. WHo then does the regulating? The Government? Regulations are control are they not?

mickeyrat

suckered again.



The U.S. is made up of many many differing voices.

Just sayin.

pandora

PJ_Soul wrote:

I don't think it's very cool of you to minimize someone's argument because of their nationality. Canadians are very, very connected to US culture, we have the exact same level of access and exposure to US media, and our own policies and laws can be very much affected by what goes on south of the border. Canadians pay a LOT of attenton to what happens jn the US, especially when it comes to politics, gun and drug laws, and foreign policy. Oh, and all the religious right stuff scared the bejeezus out of us, at least while we're sitting with a conservative govenment, although our conservatives are more like your democrats, so that's a relief).

We ARE very tied into what happens in the States because out country very much depends on the US for our economic survival and our government is very much influenced by American politics and society. Clearly you have no concept of this and don't realize just how connected our countries are and how much us Canucks pay attention to what's going on with you folks (i guess beause it's not a two way street - Americans pay very little attention to Canada... kind of strange now that i think about it; it's like we're on the outside of the fish bowl), but it would still be nice if you'd stop acting like a Canadian's opinion is less valuable. Trust me, the average Canadian knows just as much about this issue as the average American does (the only diffence is that we are not, obviously, as personally affected by all the gun deaths, but that doesn't mean our views and opinions on the issue are any less meaningful).

I wonder, Pandora, if it might not serve you if you tried discussing this issue with someone who has actually lost a loved one to gun violence or a gun accident? You seem to have a lot of empathy, so I'm thinking that the perspective of someone who has personally suffered because of lax gun laws and the attitude that everyone should and can have guns might at least help you to grasp the other side of this debate?

I never cared about being cool I'd rather be real...

I do not think a Canadian opinion is of less value when speaking of your own countries policies
but it is kind of irrelevant ...
like when a crime happens in Canada and we Americans give an opinion... just not as relevant
as if it would have happened in our country.

The gun violence I know and have experienced in my lifetime suffices
thank you very much and to assume otherwise well :wtf:

You I quoted here earlier because you can not fathom someone not owning a gun who is
still able to support and protect another's right to.

You can not understand this very basic point which is the foundation of my beliefs.

PJ_Soul

pandora wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

pandora wrote:

It is every person's right to protect their own life, if they choose to do that with a gun
yes that is their right. In Miss Ruby's case she was also able to have the criminals caught
so they can not do more harm and she saved many others from horrible outcomes.

This is happening often... countless stories with happy endings.

But you would dismiss her life because you think she should not have a gun
to protect herself. Poor Miss Ruby. ...
and this makes perfect sense to you. :fp: because YOU don't like guns.

Gun violence is based in the fact people have no hope, they do not value their own lives,
so they prey upon others as a livelihood and they take lives.

I think those who do this choose to victimize others, hurt, rape, rob, torture, murder,
when they do this to another human being they are not worthy of a breath.

But maybe you are like some here and side with those who are the victimizers,
not with the victim ... not with Miss Ruby. You would have had this 89 year old
woman at the hands of two young thugs, defenseless.
How about you write a letter to her loved ones and tell them just how you feel?
That she should not have the right to protect her own life.
That is more than wrong it is unforgivable.
She is loved, she lives today because she was brave and armed.

There are WAAAAY more deaths from gun shot wounds than there are stories about someone successfully defending themselves with guns. WAY more. Shouldn't this whole thing be looked at from the perspective of 'what caused less people to die'? I think so. And in that case, then guns should be highly controlled.

There are far more criminals with guns committing crimes than there are
accidental shootings. And way less accidental shootings amongst the responsible
gun owners.

Guns should not be highly controlled here in the United States of America
but the laws we have in place should be enforced.

Perhaps Canadians want to have their guns highly controlled, I don't know,
don't care, not my country or people.
If guns are banned for you and it is illegal for law abiding people to protect themselves,
there will be no need for gun safety training.
So when many choose to own anyways, we know they will,
because they need / want to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property
from the criminals that got guns, :fp:
these once law abiding peoples will be risking their own freedom
and will also be owning a gun lacking the responsible safety training necessary.
Actually could be a big step backward for the Canadians.

You can't ensure that anyone will be a responsible gun owner at all, so the 'as long as they're responsible' argument does not really fly with me. Plus, being a "responsible" gun owner literally negates the spontaneous self-defense argument you've been making, since the "responsible" tactics that prevent accidental shootings necessarily make sudden defense of the home impossible, since the guns are locked up and unloaded.

And there is carrying concealed fire arms, which most gunovers want - for me, people walking around with legally concealed weapons is a terrifying concept, especially if they all think they can draw arms when they perceive a threat and start shootin'. I do not have thatuch faith in Joe Shmoe!! There are too many Dirty Harry wanabees around (hello Mr. Zimmerman).

Side note: it's kind of interesting how people in the US so often say they couldn't care less about what's going on outside of their own country. This is very much the opposite of how Canadians think - we care quite a bit about what's happening around the world to people, what the social and political implications are within other countries, the histories of other nations, etc. It's quite useful because we are able to look at others and learn from it all and broaden our perspectives on important issues and concepts. It also makes us feel more connected to others in the world we share. Americans seem to be the opposite of that (not all, but a lot). I think it would serve America well if they developed the same global attitude, because there is a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from the rest of the world, especially this day and age as we are more and more a global society. It's just curious how Americans don't see it that way.

PJ_Soul

pandora wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I don't think it's very cool of you to minimize someone's argument because of their nationality. Canadians are very, very connected to US culture, we have the exact same level of access and exposure to US media, and our own policies and laws can be very much affected by what goes on south of the border. Canadians pay a LOT of attenton to what happens jn the US, especially when it comes to politics, gun and drug laws, and foreign policy. Oh, and all the religious right stuff scared the bejeezus out of us, at least while we're sitting with a conservative govenment, although our conservatives are more like your democrats, so that's a relief).

We ARE very tied into what happens in the States because out country very much depends on the US for our economic survival and our government is very much influenced by American politics and society. Clearly you have no concept of this and don't realize just how connected our countries are and how much us Canucks pay attention to what's going on with you folks (i guess beause it's not a two way street - Americans pay very little attention to Canada... kind of strange now that i think about it; it's like we're on the outside of the fish bowl), but it would still be nice if you'd stop acting like a Canadian's opinion is less valuable. Trust me, the average Canadian knows just as much about this issue as the average American does (the only diffence is that we are not, obviously, as personally affected by all the gun deaths, but that doesn't mean our views and opinions on the issue are any less meaningful).

I wonder, Pandora, if it might not serve you if you tried discussing this issue with someone who has actually lost a loved one to gun violence or a gun accident? You seem to have a lot of empathy, so I'm thinking that the perspective of someone who has personally suffered because of lax gun laws and the attitude that everyone should and can have guns might at least help you to grasp the other side of this debate?

I never cared about being cool I'd rather be real...

I do not think a Canadian opinion is of less value when speaking of your own countries policies
but it is kind of irrelevant ...
like when a crime happens in Canada and we Americans give an opinion... just not as relevant
as if it would have happened in our country.

The gun violence I know and have experienced in my lifetime suffices
thank you very much and to assume otherwise well :wtf:

You I quoted here earlier because you can not fathom someone not owning a gun who is
still able to support and protect another's right to.

You can not understand this very basic point which is the foundation of my beliefs.

Okay, being real then - you were dismissing HFD's statements because he's Canadian. I was examining why there is no reason to do so.

It's just ironic that you're making a point about assumptions, since that is your specialty - i'll leave it at that. .

I understand the concept of supporting rights of others even if they don't affect me very well. I just don't think that's a good argument when it comes to guns, and simply find it surprising that people are so in support of mass gun ownership. It's that some people view easy gun ownership as a right at all is what seems strange to me.

redrock

PJ_Soul wrote:

Plus, being a "responsible" gun owner literally negates the spontaneous self-defense argument you've been making, since the "responsible" tactics that prevent accidental shootings necessarily make sudden defense of the home impossible, since the guns are locked up and unloaded.

Point made a number of times but never discussed or 'explained'.

pandora

PJ_Soul wrote:

You can't ensure that anyone will be a responsible gun owner at all, so the 'as long as they're responsible' argument does not really fly with me. Plus, being a "responsible" gun owner literally negates the spontaneous self-defense argument you've been making, since the "responsible" tactics that prevent accidental shootings necessarily make sudden defense of the home impossible, since the guns are locked up and unloaded.

And there is carrying concealed fire arms, which most gunovers want - for me, people walking around with legally concealed weapons is a terrifying concept, especially if they all think they can draw arms when they perceive a threat and start shootin'. I do not have thatuch faith in Joe Shmoe!! There are too many Dirty Harry wanabees around (hello Mr. Zimmerman).

Side note: it's kind of interesting how people in the US so often say they couldn't care less about what's going on outside of their own country. This is very much the opposite of how Canadians think - we care quite a bit about what's happening around the world to people, what the social and political implications are within other countries, the histories of other nations, etc. It's quite useful because we are able to look at others and learn from it all and broaden our perspectives on important issues and concepts. It also makes us feel more connected to others in the world we share. Americans seem to be the opposite of that (not all, but a lot). I think it would serve America well if they developed the same global attitude, because there is a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from the rest of the world, especially this day and age as we are more and more a global society. It's just curious how Americans don't see it that way.

really? it is terrifying to you to have a good caring trained respectful person carrying a gun ...
what about the bad guys ...is that not terrifying?

I was speaking to your laws...
don't care what laws Canadians choose to have but if you ban guns you ban
safety training and that could effect some people all the way around.

Better build some more prisons ...
for the law abiding folk who decide they still want to own too.

I think Americans pay attention to foreign matters
it would be a derogatory generalization to say otherwise...

hey I love the Canadian's Olympic female bathing suits, much prettier than the US....
see I pay attention

redrock

PJ_Soul wrote:

Side note: it's kind of interesting how people in the US so often say they couldn't care less about what's going on outside of their own country. This is very much the opposite of how Canadians think - we care quite a bit about what's happening around the world to people, what the social and political implications are within other countries, the histories of other nations, etc. It's quite useful because we are able to look at others and learn from it all and broaden our perspectives on important issues and concepts. It also makes us feel more connected to others in the world we share. Americans seem to be the opposite of that (not all, but a lot). I think it would serve America well if they developed the same global attitude, because there is a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from the rest of the world, especially this day and age as we are more and more a global society. It's just curious how Americans don't see it that way.

Whilst maybe not quite on topic (though responding to another poster's points in this thread) this is excellent point that would have it's place in the 10 Things Most Americans Don’t Know About America (before in went into a spiraling descent as a lot of threads tend to do!).

pandora

PJ_Soul wrote:

Okay, being real then - you were dismissing HFD's statements because he's Canadian. I was examining why there is no reason to do so.

It's just ironic that you're making a point about assumptions, since that is your specialty - i'll leave it at that. .

I understand the concept of supporting rights of others even if they don't affect me very well. I just don't think that's a good argument when it comes to guns, and simply find it surprising that people are so in support of mass gun ownership. It's that some people view easy gun ownership as a right at all is what seems strange to me.

I think I just pointed out your assumption about Americans in my last post
who's on first....

No you don't understand the concept at all... has nothing to do with affect or lack thereof.

It is a perfect argument, we have the right, it's not strange, and the masses feel the need
and want the guns. And they want to own them safely and responsibly...
google if you need a definition there...Gun safety training.

What seems more than strange to me is that anyone would think allowing only the bad guys
to own guns, and they do and they will, would ever be ok with the good guys.

norm

At least seven people were killed (including a shooter) at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin on Sunday. That’s 57 mass murders in 30 years.

PJ_Soul

pandora wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

You can't ensure that anyone will be a responsible gun owner at all, so the 'as long as they're responsible' argument does not really fly with me. Plus, being a "responsible" gun owner literally negates the spontaneous self-defense argument you've been making, since the "responsible" tactics that prevent accidental shootings necessarily make sudden defense of the home impossible, since the guns are locked up and unloaded.

And there is carrying concealed fire arms, which most gunovers want - for me, people walking around with legally concealed weapons is a terrifying concept, especially if they all think they can draw arms when they perceive a threat and start shootin'. I do not have thatuch faith in Joe Shmoe!! Thpere are too many Dirty Harry wanabees around (hello Mr. Zimmerman).

Side note: it's kind of interesting how people in the US so often say they couldn't care less about what's going on outside of their own country. This is very much the opposite of how Canadians think - we care quite a bit about what's happening around the world to people, what the social and political implications are within other countries, the histories of other nations, etc. It's quite useful because we are able to look at others and learn from it all and broaden our perspectives on important issues and concepts. It also makes us feel more connected to others in the world we share. Americans seem to be the opposite of that (not all, but a lot). I think it would serve America well if they developed the same global attitude, because there is a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from the rest of the world, especially this day and age as we are more and more a global society. It's just curious how Americans don't see it that way.

really? it is terrifying to you to have a good caring trained respectful person carrying a gun ...
what about the bad guys ...is that not terrifying?

I was speaking to your laws...
don't care what laws Canadians choose to have but if you ban guns you ban
safety training and that could effect some people all the way around.

Better build some more prisons ...
for the law abiding folk who decide they still want to own too.

I think Americans pay attention to foreign matters
it would be a derogatory generalization to say otherwise...

hey I love the Canadian's Olympic female bathing suits, much prettier than the US....
see I pay attention

Oh, yes, first I want to say that of course my statements about Americans not paying much attention to or caring about what's going on elsewhere is a generalization (hence the "not all but a lot" disclaimer). It is a fairly well-known American quality though - at least that's how non-americans see it. I don't mean to be derogatory; just saying what I perceive to be the truth. I think some Americans would agree that what I said is true for a good number of folks in the US. I don't think the concept of the US being rather US-centric is a new one for most. Just because I say something about America that isn't a compliment doesn't mean I'm being derogatory toward Americans. All nationalities have their strengths and weaknesses, and I hope we can mention them in the course of discussion without being accused of something untoward.

All this gun safety trai king you speak of... is there a requirement to take gun safety lessons to own guns in the US?? I don't think so. If so, i've somehow never heard or read that anywhere. You seem to have an awful lot of faith in everyone who carries a weapon to be responsible and clear-headed citizens. I would say they are the exception, not the rule. I don't have a problem with well-trained, caring people who cangenerally be trusted to responsibly carry and use a gun. They're called police officers. I have zero faith in the general public being equally well-trained and responsible, let alone well-intentioned. There are just way too many idiots walking around, and no one is even checking safety training papers in gun stores, let alone whether or not the person is a moron, or, worse, crazy or evil. I don't get why you are acting like everyone with a legally concealed weapon is going to be a good guy or responsible??

redrock

norm wrote:

At least seven people were killed (including a shooter) at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin on Sunday. That’s 57 mass murders in 30 years.

What are the odds that the gunman was a 'responsible, law abiding' citizen that obtained his gun(s) legally?

OK.. I may be jumping the gun here (pardon the pun) but looking back at other shootings, it's not a silly thing to assume....

Or, I guess, one can say that if these peaceful sikhs in their temple were packing, they would have saved themselves and their loved ones in a shoot-out (with, of course, only the shooter killed).

pandora

redrock wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I think what many are saying is that guns are making a bad situation even worse, and that gun control could definitely help to ease the problem and actually prevent some deaths (including all those thousands of accidental gun deaths), not end violence in America.

The root of the violence needs to be seriously addressed too. But it would seem that it's also a point that some would sort of shrug their shoulders at - it's engrained in 'our' culture - nothing much we can do about it (except arm ourselves more). One may think one can fight fire with fire and, whilst in the case of wildfires, burning a stretch of land purposely so 'new' fire can't catch on may seem to be a possible solution, the truth is that if there is the slightest little bit of grass (or whatever) left, the 'attacking' fire will continue. Same with violence.

It's not engrained in our culture ....
it is the devaluing of life.

When two young men can go to the home of an 89 year old woman with the intent
to do harm and worse...
go without conscious, without compassion, have a plan and carry it out,
and this is commonplace not rare we have a generation feeding on the lives of others.

We have a culture that is allowing criminals power to do this.
Gun laws help the criminals, they do not help the law abiding citizens.

Miss Ruby fought back, like many are and this is the fire!
She had a plan too, a plan not to be a victim.

mickeyrat

norm wrote:

At least seven people were killed (including a shooter) at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin on Sunday. That’s 57 mass murders in 30 years.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... map?page=1
from the article .....
Editor's note, 8/5/12: On Sunday morning a mass shooting at a Sikh temple near Milwaukee left at least six people dead.

It's perhaps too easy to forget how many times this has happened. The horrific mass murder at a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises in Colorado on July 20 is the latest in an epidemic of such gun violence over the last three decades. Since 1982, there have been at least 56 mass murders* carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. We've mapped them below, including details on the shooters' identities, the types of weapons they used, and the number of victims they injured and killed.

Of the 132 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and high-powered handguns. (See charts below.) Just as Jeffrey Weise used a .40-caliber Glock to massacre students in Red Lake, Minnesota, in 2005, so too did James Holmes when blasting away at his victims in a darkened movie theater.

Half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (11 and 17, respectively); the other 28 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, government buildings, and military bases. Only one of the killers was a woman. (See Goleta, Calif., in 2006.) Explore the map for further details—we do not consider the map to be all-inclusive, but based on the criteria we used to identify mass murders, we believe that we've produced one of the most comprehensive rundowns available on this particular type of traumatic violence. (Mass murders represent only a sliver of America's overall gun violence.) For a timeline listing all the cases on the map, including photos of the killers, jump to page 2.

peacefrompaul

PJ_Soul wrote:

Oh, yes, first I want to say that of course my statements about Americans not paying much attention to or caring about what's going on elsewhere is a generalization (hence the "not all but a lot" disclaimer). It is a fairly well-known American quality though - at least that's how non-americans see it. I don't mean to be derogatory; just saying what I perceive to be the truth. I think some Americans would agree that what I said is true for a good number of folks in the US. I don't think the concept of the US being rather US-centric is a new one for most.

All this gun safety trai king you speak of... is there a requirement to take gun safety lessons to own guns in the US?? I don't think so. You seem to have an awful lot of faith in everyone who carries a weapon to be responsible and clear-headed citizens. I would say they are the exception, not the rule. I don't have a problem with well-trained, caring people who cangenerally be trusted to responsibly carry and use a gun. They're called police officers. I have zero faith in the general public being equally well-trained and responsible, let alone well-intentioned. There are just way too many idiots walking around, and no one is even checking safety training papers in gun stores, let alone whether or not the person is a moron, or, worse, crazy or evil. I don't get why you are acting like everyone with a legally concealed weapon is going to be a good guy or responsible??

No, you are right. Many have no idea what is going on AND many simply don't care. To be honest, the news is pretty crappy about telling us what is happening in the world... I recommend alternative news sources and making a Twitter account. I get first hand accounts of what's happening in many parts of the world. I hear people calling the Syrian rebels terrorists... I follow people that say otherwise... I follow people that are pro-Assad... I hear about mortars being used on innocent people, school busses shot up by government soldiers... Pro-Israel, Anti-Israel... I hear from Socialists, Statists, Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Democrats, Republicans, Anarchists... I get to hear all of that information... I seriously recommend making a twitter and following as many people as you can, no, not Lebron James and Tom Cruise...

I have a lot of faith in people to make the right decision. I guess I just don't like to live in fear... That goes with drugs, firearms, their money, etc. So, saying that a person is deemed sane, I have no problems with them owning firearms... Mandatory training? Not a bad idea, but, I certainly don't want to pay for it.

redrock

mickeyrat wrote:

Of the 132 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally. The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and high-powered handguns. (See charts below.) Just as Jeffrey Weise used a .40-caliber Glock to massacre students in Red Lake, Minnesota, in 2005, so too did James Holmes when blasting away at his victims in a darkened movie theater.

Worth a highlight and a repeat. Obtained legally (which would have to be by 'responsible and law abiding citizens).

dimitrispearljam

so,for the moment guns are from protection,why need the police?
why pay taxis for have police??buy 50 guns and ammo and u protect your self better..
why to have airforce?
want to protect the country??
why not have an F-16c at your back yard?and a tanks and a navy carrier!!
why we dont have an ER table at hour houses and give treatment?do surgeries alone...
and firemen??they suck..
buy an ax and a ladder from your local shop..

and u can be a super hero...

PJ_Soul

Even the guns that criminals have illegally... pretty much all of those started off as legally purchased weapons. Every gun that is bought legally is at risk of being stolen or illegally sold off when the legal owner needs money and landing in the hands of criminals.