Absolutely attitudes toward violence need to change. Starting with education to reduce poverty, followed by jail programmes that release prisoners that are better people rather than worse ones. Prisons are currently punitive in nature, not rehabilitative, and violence always begets violence !!
The number of guns in circulation is important to the "crims can always get guns", or the "only teh crims will have guns" argumanet against gun control.. that will only continue to be true while there is a large number of guns in circulation. Hand gun crime is practcally non-existent in Australia, because hand-guns are uncommon, their sale is strictly contoleed, and teh laws about storage etc are stricly enforced.
All guns in Australia must be kept in an approved locked cabinet with the ammunition kept separate from the weapon.
ONce the number of guns out there starts to fall, crims will not be able to get them.
With only a knife or machete, Cho could not have killed 32 people.
I predict that these incidents will increase in frequency in the USA.
Australia has gun laws that are about as restrictive as those here in Canada, yet our handgun crime rate is a lot higher than yours. This suggests that cultural attitudes play a bigger role than gun laws per se. Sure, I need all kinds of permits to get a handgun. A 19-year old gang member doesn't care about such technicalities, he'll get a gun illegally and then shoot someone. Meanwhile, here's me, no need to have a handgun and even if I wanted one, it'd be a huge pain in the arse to get the permits so I probably wouldn't bother. My point? Gun laws that target me do little or nothing to prevent violent crimes. Restrictive laws somehow need to target criminals, not the general public. Illegal handguns, and more importantly, those who use them, need to be the targets.
Australia has gun laws that are about as restrictive as those here in Canada, yet our handgun crime rate is a lot higher than yours. This suggests that cultural attitudes play a bigger role than gun laws per se. Sure, I need all kinds of permits to get a handgun. A 19-year old gang member doesn't care about such technicalities, he'll get a gun illegally and then shoot someone. Meanwhile, here's me, no need to have a handgun and even if I wanted one, it'd be a huge pain in the arse to get the permits so I probably wouldn't bother. My point? Gun laws that target me do little or nothing to prevent violent crimes. Restrictive laws somehow need to target criminals, not the general public. Illegal handguns, and more importantly, those who use them, need to be the targets.
I really hate to admit it, but strict gun laws probably increase the amount of illegal activity involving the gun trade. Look at the war on drugs, specifically prohibition.
Outlaw liquor, people still want liquor but can't get it legally, the mob supplies it, bad things happen all around.
The same can most likely be applied to gun control.
I really hate to admit it, but strict gun laws probably increase the amount of illegal activity involving the gun trade. Look at the war on drugs, specifically prohibition.
Outlaw liquor, people still want liquor but can't get it legally, the mob supplies it, bad things happen all around.
The same can most likely be applied to gun control.
Pretty much ... I mean, since Canada implemented its long gun registry, handgun killings in cities like Toronto have increased. What's driving this increase is an increased flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border, as well as urban gang activity increases in general. This violent gang subculture is seeping into our big cities, and it has nothing to do with laws that make it less likely that I'll bother to obtain a handgun.
I really hate to admit it, but strict gun laws probably increase the amount of illegal activity involving the gun trade. Look at the war on drugs, specifically prohibition.
Outlaw liquor, people still want liquor but can't get it legally, the mob supplies it, bad things happen all around.
The same can most likely be applied to gun control.
excellent post, agree with you 100% on both issues.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
I think it also said that most students did'nt have an issue with it. I think that's an important thing.
Not really, it said that 1 student said that most students didn't have an issue.
This appears stupid, but what the hell is a financial accounting prof doing? Those kids or their parents are paying money for a financial accounting class.
Seriously, who really thinks the accounting prof is the best person to lead the students in a discussion about gun control and the VA Tech shhotings?
I really hate to admit it, but strict gun laws probably increase the amount of illegal activity involving the gun trade. Look at the war on drugs, specifically prohibition.
Outlaw liquor, people still want liquor but can't get it legally, the mob supplies it, bad things happen all around.
The same can most likely be applied to gun control.
So you equate people gathering in secret - speak easy's - and drinking alcohol, and generally having a good time, to violent criminal activity involving guns?
Somehow, I think one of the above stands out slightly more than the other, and so is therefore easier to curb, and to impose stricter sentences on.
Not really, it said that 1 student said that most students didn't have an issue.
This appears stupid, but what the hell is a financial accounting prof doing? Those kids or their parents are paying money for a financial accounting class.
Seriously, who really thinks the accounting prof is the best person to lead the students in a discussion about gun control and the VA Tech shhotings?
my bad, I stand corrected
The shootings involved both teachers and students, so based on that i feel anyone in that situation is qualified to have a discussion about said topics.
we may not agee with the method used, I mean It really did'nt make sense to me reading what he did, nevertheless, he made that choice. if any students have issues, a debate should be started. not a quick action such as getting fired over this.
(Is there an eyrolling smiley?)
I really don't think this is a freedom of speech issue. If this is an innapropriate act, then it should be treated as such, like a sexual gesture or something. In any case, the reaction was an over-reaction. I think 20 seconds with the him would have been enough to make sure he does not do this again.
This kind of reminds of of a mock trial I was a "juror" for in college. A law professor and law students were putting on a mock trial and the "murder weapon" was represented by a bright green squirt gun. One of the law students ("prosecutor") in his closing remarks pointed the "gun" right at me to get his point across. It was almost unsettling, but no big thing. After that portion of it, the professor said "...and by the way, an attorney would never point a gun at a juror." I am sure that student did not need more than that. This was the University of Wisconsin, so it's hard to believe this very liberal and possibly communist university did not fire him, make him issue an apology to me and some animal rights groups, force him to donate money to the United Negro College Fund and order him to replace the Camp Randall (football stadium) astroturf with natural grass while being taunted by a "Take Back the Night" crowd.
Seriously ... That comment wasn't "liberal bashing", Captain Defensive. It was university-bashing, if anything. My point was that free discourse doesn't really exist on most campuses, and I stick by it. You can get away with more public comments as long as they reflect a leftist political bias.
Like I said, its true up here, at the very least. Maybe the U.S. is different.
Seriously ... That comment wasn't "liberal bashing", Captain Defensive. It was university-bashing, if anything. My point was that free discourse doesn't really exist on most campuses, and I stick by it. You can get away with more public comments as long as they reflect a leftist political bias.
Like I said, its true up here, at the very least. Maybe the U.S. is different.
Relax. I was long done thinking about your posts when I told the poster that Communist is a word used in liberal bashing (which is undeniably true). While his question related to my response to your post, our conversation at that point was an unrelated tangent.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
Relax. I was long done thinking about your posts when I told the poster that Communist is a word used in liberal bashing (which is undeniably true). While his question related to my response to your post, our conversation at that point was an unrelated tangent.
Sorry ... Its keeps coming up and I wish it would die. In truth, I shouldn't have made the comment (which itself was kinda tangential).
Seriously ... That comment wasn't "liberal bashing", Captain Defensive. It was university-bashing, if anything. My point was that free discourse doesn't really exist on most campuses, and I stick by it. You can get away with more public comments as long as they reflect a leftist political bias.
Like I said, its true up here, at the very least. Maybe the U.S. is different.
Well then, just for my amusement, I'll give you my take.
There are segments on campus (though keep in mind, the University of Wisconsin-Madision is up there with Boulder and Berkely) that are liberal--i.e. the student body and the faculty are more liberal than would be reflected in society. In most courses, it's a non-issue. In some, the discourse is very liberal, based primarily on the students that take it. Nevertheless, I have no recollection of a time where the minority viewpoint was shut up just for being "wrong." My best example was a Poli Sci course I took--Politics of Social Welfare. It was a very discussion-centered course. There was one hard core conservative. I disagreed with him 80% of the time, but recognized his points as well thought out. The students in the class hammered him--with primarilly reasonable dialogue. It was 1 vs. 20. But no students (and most importantly the professor) ever shut him down.
My four years is just that. A four year anecdote from one person. I am not saying that dialoge from "dissenters" is never shut down. But like abuse of food stamps or racist cops, we sometimes tend to make the anecdotes the rule. Even if this is an instance of shutting up a conservative (which I tend not to think it was), it's just an anecdote.
Believe me, I felt like I was being shut out alot, as a liberal from about 2002-2004.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
So you equate people gathering in secret - speak easy's - and drinking alcohol, and generally having a good time, to violent criminal activity involving guns?
Somehow, I think one of the above stands out slightly more than the other, and so is therefore easier to curb, and to impose stricter sentences on.
The illegal alcohol trade back then caused a huge surge in crime (and the modern war on drugs is immeasureably even larger than that). Yes, I think it's an accurate issue to compare the illegal gun trade to. I fucking HATE guns, but I'm not gonna be naive about the effects of gun control.
However, as it relates to the VT shooting, gun control definetly needs to be tighter. I say this in reference to the ease in which a 19 year old with severe documented mental/social problems, who had been institutionalized before, who's teachers had recently spoken out about their concerns with him (specifically his creative writing teacher about his extremely violent writings), could buy a gun (two, even) and ammunition that he apparently bought off Ebay.
Illegalizing guns isn't all that gun control is about.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Australia has gun laws that are about as restrictive as those here in Canada, yet our handgun crime rate is a lot higher than yours. This suggests that cultural attitudes play a bigger role than gun laws per se. Sure, I need all kinds of permits to get a handgun. A 19-year old gang member doesn't care about such technicalities, he'll get a gun illegally and then shoot someone. Meanwhile, here's me, no need to have a handgun and even if I wanted one, it'd be a huge pain in the arse to get the permits so I probably wouldn't bother. My point? Gun laws that target me do little or nothing to prevent violent crimes. Restrictive laws somehow need to target criminals, not the general public. Illegal handguns, and more importantly, those who use them, need to be the targets.
Outlaw liquor, people still want liquor but can't get it legally, the mob supplies it, bad things happen all around.
The same can most likely be applied to gun control.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Pretty much ... I mean, since Canada implemented its long gun registry, handgun killings in cities like Toronto have increased. What's driving this increase is an increased flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border, as well as urban gang activity increases in general. This violent gang subculture is seeping into our big cities, and it has nothing to do with laws that make it less likely that I'll bother to obtain a handgun.
excellent post, agree with you 100% on both issues.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Not really, it said that 1 student said that most students didn't have an issue.
This appears stupid, but what the hell is a financial accounting prof doing? Those kids or their parents are paying money for a financial accounting class.
Seriously, who really thinks the accounting prof is the best person to lead the students in a discussion about gun control and the VA Tech shhotings?
So you equate people gathering in secret - speak easy's - and drinking alcohol, and generally having a good time, to violent criminal activity involving guns?
Somehow, I think one of the above stands out slightly more than the other, and so is therefore easier to curb, and to impose stricter sentences on.
my bad, I stand corrected
The shootings involved both teachers and students, so based on that i feel anyone in that situation is qualified to have a discussion about said topics.
we may not agee with the method used, I mean It really did'nt make sense to me reading what he did, nevertheless, he made that choice. if any students have issues, a debate should be started. not a quick action such as getting fired over this.
Just wondering. How can a university be liberal and communist? Aren't communists conservative by nature?
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
You need to bone up on your liberal bashing.
You mean like Stalin, Castro and Mao? Yeah those were real liberal governments.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
Seriously ... That comment wasn't "liberal bashing", Captain Defensive. It was university-bashing, if anything. My point was that free discourse doesn't really exist on most campuses, and I stick by it. You can get away with more public comments as long as they reflect a leftist political bias.
Like I said, its true up here, at the very least. Maybe the U.S. is different.
Relax. I was long done thinking about your posts when I told the poster that Communist is a word used in liberal bashing (which is undeniably true). While his question related to my response to your post, our conversation at that point was an unrelated tangent.
Sorry ... Its keeps coming up and I wish it would die. In truth, I shouldn't have made the comment (which itself was kinda tangential).
Well then, just for my amusement, I'll give you my take.
There are segments on campus (though keep in mind, the University of Wisconsin-Madision is up there with Boulder and Berkely) that are liberal--i.e. the student body and the faculty are more liberal than would be reflected in society. In most courses, it's a non-issue. In some, the discourse is very liberal, based primarily on the students that take it. Nevertheless, I have no recollection of a time where the minority viewpoint was shut up just for being "wrong." My best example was a Poli Sci course I took--Politics of Social Welfare. It was a very discussion-centered course. There was one hard core conservative. I disagreed with him 80% of the time, but recognized his points as well thought out. The students in the class hammered him--with primarilly reasonable dialogue. It was 1 vs. 20. But no students (and most importantly the professor) ever shut him down.
My four years is just that. A four year anecdote from one person. I am not saying that dialoge from "dissenters" is never shut down. But like abuse of food stamps or racist cops, we sometimes tend to make the anecdotes the rule. Even if this is an instance of shutting up a conservative (which I tend not to think it was), it's just an anecdote.
Believe me, I felt like I was being shut out alot, as a liberal from about 2002-2004.
However, as it relates to the VT shooting, gun control definetly needs to be tighter. I say this in reference to the ease in which a 19 year old with severe documented mental/social problems, who had been institutionalized before, who's teachers had recently spoken out about their concerns with him (specifically his creative writing teacher about his extremely violent writings), could buy a gun (two, even) and ammunition that he apparently bought off Ebay.
Illegalizing guns isn't all that gun control is about.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Fired Professor Speaks Out 2/4
Fired Professor Speaks Out 3/4
Fired Professor Speaks Out 4/4