Virginia Tech Massacre

[Mayfielder]

Let me humble myself and say I realized I had looked at some things too simply at first. But I hope our little battle of words here has made you think as well. I maintain our initial disagreement was largely semantical, however (though you may disagree).

I said I wasn't going to say anything more on the shooting. Don't worry, I'm not going back on my word. I'm only going to respond to the above.
     Yes, it is easy to look at things (especially complicated things) too simply and I have no doubt that I am as guilty of that as you admit to. As far as I'm concerned there was no battle (little or otherwise) between us and, yes, you certainly gave me enough food for thought for me to gorge on. "Semantical"? Oh, I don't know - maybe. What DO words like "culture" and "nationality" really mean?
     But isn't it great to have a forum (thanks, GMG) that we can share our thoughts on with each other and argue (I mean argue in the traditional sense)? The Athenians had Plato's Academy, we have the 'net. 

[cx]

     I said I wasn't going to say anything more on the shooting. Don't worry, I'm not going back on my word. I'm only going to respond to the above.
     Yes, it is easy to look at things (especially complicated things) too simply and I have no doubt that I am as guilty of that as you admit to. As far as I'm concerned there was no battle (little or otherwise) between us and, yes, you certainly gave me enough food for thought for me to gorge on. "Semantical"? Oh, I don't know - maybe. What DO words like "culture" and "nationality" really mean?
     But isn't it great to have a forum (thanks, GMG) that we can share our thoughts on with each other and argue (I mean argue in the traditional sense)? The Athenians had Plato's Academy, we have the 'net. 

--CS

[cx]

And the pages and pages you've posted on the subject aren't speculation?

Most of it isn't...but I suppose you didn't read much of it anyway. Mayfielder and I were talking mostly about what is, and our interpretations of it, and we ended up disagreeing on some major points. Speculative, sure, but none of, "well if circumstances were different it surely would have happened this way."

And just because you don't feel like reading or writing more than 2 lines of text doesn't make you virtuous.

--CS

[Dungeon Master]

There is at least one aspect of US culture that caused so many dead - the bit about automatic weapons being so freely available. Every society has its share of people with psycho/socio/mental  problems, whether it is a personality disorder, depression or psychosis. Most societies do not go out of their way to make weapons of mass murder so easily available to such people.

Yes, we in Australia did have a mass shooting in 1996. We as a nation responded to it - we banned automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Number of deaths from mass shootings since then? Zero! It is just too difficult for people in this country to get their hands on these weapons.

Sure, "professional" criminals will have access to them, but such criminals do not go into schools, shopping centers and workplaces and shoot 30 random people.

I am amazed that anyone would defend the retention of a law that allows ordinary people access to such weapons. Why does anyone in a civilised society need them? Just because some ancient law, now very out of date, says so? If such a law is responsible for so many deaths, change the &*&#@*$ law!

I bet if you actually saw the mutilation of the bodies of the dead, the suffering of the families or had to work in the hospitals where the wounded were treated, you would change your stance. Its not pretty. Gun deaths are not clean and clinical like in the movies. It is disgustingly unhuman (and I have chosen that term deliberately). A high-powered weapon changes a person into a steaming mound of flesh, liquid, and feces.

You are wrong if you are trying to say that gun deaths in the USA are simply a reflection of the high population. Gun deaths in the USA are much, much, much higher than the rest of the western world, even taking into account the population. As I said before, gun deaths in Australia are just 6% that of the USA when adjusted for population.

Just don't be surprised the next time it happens, because it will happen again and again and again. Until you finally change the law.

[greg]

I've heard that when they banned guns for the first time in England, the crime rate went up. Is this true?

[Hector]

I've heard that when they banned guns for the first time in England, the crime rate went up. Is this true?

What guns? Handguns were banned but not just in England and the crime rate has been consistently falling since 1997.

Have we the only police force in the World that still does not carry handguns on a day-to-day basis?

[carlos]

But lately in England there were many aggressions with knifes.
You don't need a bullet to kill somebody.

[Choo Choo]

And also some with guns - however these appear mostly to have been "de-activated" weapons (i.e. for display) that had been re-activated, or replica weapons that had been converted for actual use.  Proving, I suppose, that where there's a will there's a way.  The situation would probably not be helped by un-banning handguns.

[greg]

But lately in England there were many aggressions with knifes.
You don't need a bullet to kill somebody.

That's what's scary. Would you rather be killed with a gun or a knife?