Topic: Virginia Tech Shooting (WARNING: EMOTIONAL CONTENT)

[Gordon]

NO I Don't own it Gordon, it seemed that the consensus was that this thread would not be
a gun debate thread. I like to see that thought consistent.

If not y'all have at it, good riddance.

You started it as a gun debate thread.  I don't remember the exact phrase you wrote because you've edited your original post, but it was decidedly pro gun ownership.  I don't care one way or the other because I don't get involved in pointless gun debates on the internet, but you can't make a statement like that, then say you don't want a gun debate thread and actually expect people to listen. 

[Jv550]

So go make your point in another thread.

Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you own it.

NO I Don't own it Gordon, it seemed that the consensus was that this thread would not be
a gun debate thread. I like to see that thought consistent.

If not y'all have at it, good riddance.

I thought we were only going to stop arguing about guns for a week?

RM, I'm not trying to get on your case here and you're entitled your opinion. But let's not pretend that the gun debate has nothing to do with the VT shooting. This country is awash in guns and while many are in the hands of law-abiding people like you and me (yes I do own a couple), just as many are in the hands of nuts and criminals. Unless we find a way to deal with it, we'll have more tragedies like VT.

Over and out...

[BobbyR]

In addition, I'd love to point out that there is an inordinate interest in American politics on this board by Non-Americans, Australians in particular.  I'm curious about why?  What do Australians care about how and why American laws are the way they are?

I have a feeling that people outside the US have a difficult time understanding the concept of a United States. In that, it a group of semi autonomous States that banded together. Each State has retained certain rights to enact it's own laws. Our Civil War was essentially about States Rights.

 I live like 20 mins from Connecticut. When I cross border I can take off my helmet if I wish because that is the law in that State. A rider coming across the NY border needs to wear a helmet.

There is no Sales Tax in New Hampshire nor do you have to wear a seat belt. In Nevada prostitution is legal in certain spots. In Florida you can have a pistol in your console without a license, but don't cross the Georgia Border.

All this must seem puzzling to many since in almost all other countries the laws apply across the board. We are used to it, so we don't notice it.

Australians are very similar to Americans in many ways. Drop an Aussie in Texas and they would feel right at home .

[bill440cars]

          You know, for a while, the main thing that was posted here was feelings for those who lost their lives at Virginia Tech. If there is gonna be a free for all about whether "Gun Control" is a good thing or not, can't you all take and do a thread on "GUN CONTROL?" A subject can be beat to DEATH and those involved aren't gonna change their mind One Way Or Another, so what's the point? I imagine nearly everyone involved has expressed their opinion about this, at least once. Has anyone changed their views? I seriously doubt it. There are any number of ways a person could take revenge on others. What about those who have rammed their cars into crowds of people? (I know that this hasn't happened as often but, it has happened just the same. Now days, if folks would just pay more attention to what's happening around them, things like VT might be prevented or at least not be as bad. I don't agree with other students having guns either. What if one of them went off their rocker? Having been in the military, I was taught to pay attention to the things and people around me and note anything that didn't seem quite right. To many times folks just don't want to get involved or say to themselves,"Let Someone Else Do It!"

                   So, if there is to be more discussion (or whatever) on "Gun Control", would you please  start a thread on it and let this one die in peace?

                                                         Later on, Bill 

[edbikerii]

I guess I'll wait for things like that to happen before I indict a nation.

So you would need that one specific action to happen before you would believe that the U.S. has a tendency to force it's way of doing things on other nations?  Nevermind all the other events that already show it to be true? 

I'm quite proud of how we, as a nation, have denied some nations "most favored nation" status because of things like child labor violations, atrocities, etc.  In fact, our nation has used our military leadership role to oust many, many tyrannical, despots who have committed genocide.  Many times (including the current Iraq situation), this was done with the support of many nations including England, Australia, etc. as part of a "coalition".  Iraq, in particular, had quite a bit of support worldwide, and the almost unanimous support of the democratic majority in congress.

When it counts, and the world needs help, who else has stepped up to the plate like America?

[edbikerii]

Australians are very similar to Americans in many ways. Drop an Aussie in Texas and they would feel right at home .

Yes, most Australians that I've met and worked with, it seems, but not Terry, I guess.

[CrisPDuk]

Gordon, are equally as proud of all the times the US has propped up genocidal tyrannical despots, merely because they have opposed the 'commie' threat Or are proud of the times your government has backed terrorists fighting to depose legitimately elected governments

The rise to power of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, as a direct result of CIA operations, must have been a real high point

If your goverment is so pro-democracy, and anti-oppression, why do they continually deny support to the democratically elected government of Taiwan in their quest for diplomatic recognition?


As to Gun Control, both Canada and Switzerland have more privately owned guns per head of population, which indicates to me that the US's problem is more about attitude than availability

[edbikerii]

In addition, I'd love to point out that there is an inordinate interest in American politics on this board by Non-Americans, Australians in particular.  I'm curious about why?  What do Australians care about how and why American laws are the way they are?

I have a feeling that people outside the US have a difficult time understanding the concept of a United States. In that, it a group of semi autonomous States that banded together. Each State has retained certain rights to enact it's own laws. Our Civil War was essentially about States Rights.

 I live like 20 mins from Connecticut. When I cross border I can take off my helmet if I wish because that is the law in that State. A rider coming across the NY border needs to wear a helmet.

There is no Sales Tax in New Hampshire nor do you have to wear a seat belt. In Nevada prostitution is legal in certain spots. In Florida you can have a pistol in your console without a license, but don't cross the Georgia Border.

All this must seem puzzling to many since in almost all other countries the laws apply across the board. We are used to it, so we don't notice it.

Australians are very similar to Americans in many ways. Drop an Aussie in Texas and they would feel right at home .

Oh, and good point about states' rights.

[Gordon]

Gordon, are equally as proud of all the times the US has propped up genocidal tyrannical despots, merely because they have opposed the 'commie' threat Or are proud of the times your government has backed terrorists fighting to depose legitimately elected governments

When did I say I was proud of it?   I think you may have misread my post.  You're just emphasizing my point about why people of other nations have every right and need to be interested in American politics, and in many cases (sadly) know more about what's going on in our government and foreign policy than the majority of U.S. citizens do. 

[CrisPDuk]

Drop an Aussie in Texas and they would feel right at home .

I didn't think they had sheep in Texas

[eldar]

I look at it this way, ALL countries, even yours crisP have crapped on countries. Look at how maniacal the UK was about colonization. How many native tribes got killed off in the conquest? As for Iraq and such, it is a debacle and the UK helped it along just as much as our own govt did.  It all goers around. Remember rome? They did it. Attila did it. The persians did it. Hell crap like this is as old as humanity, what do you think probably started the first war ever?  The reason the US gets scrutinized so much is because at this time, we are THE ONLY superpower and so every other country out there, especially france, feels they can criticize everything we do.  As for forcing our ideas on other, remember, it is our MILITARY doing it. The rest of the country could care less what happens in iraq or some other country until they DIRECTLY F*CK with us.

[CrisPDuk]

When did I say I was proud of it?   I think you may have misread my post.  You're just emphasizing my point about why people of other nations have every right and need to be interested in American politics, and in many cases (sadly) know more about what's going on in our government and foreign policy than the majority of U.S. citizens do. 

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your post Gordon however, the tone of your post led me to believe that you were proud of the way your government went about the business of destabilizing/removing 'unfriendly' regimes. I was merely highlighting the flipside of that policy.

[CrisPDuk]

I look at it this way, ALL countries, especially yours crisP have crapped on countries. Look at how maniacal the UK was about colonization. How many native tribes got killed off in the conquest? As for Iraq and such, it is a debacle and the UK helped it along just as much as our own govt did.  It all goers around. Remember rome? They did it. Attila did it. The persians did it. Hell crap like this is as old as humanity, what do you think probably started the first war ever?  The reason the US gets scrutinized so much is because at this time, we are THE ONLY superpower and so every other country out there, especially france, feels they can criticize everything we do.  As for forcing our ideas on other, remember, it is our MILITARY doing it. The rest of the country could care less what happens in iraq or some other country until they DIRECTLY F*CK with us.

A slight edit for accuracy there Eldar

The last line of your statement pretty much sums up the problem some parts of the world have with your country

If the population of the US took a look over the fence once in a while and realised that maybe the rest of the world doesn't want to be just like them, maybe they'd start to understand why some people resent having American values forced upon them at gunpoint

[edbikerii]

Gordon, are equally as proud of all the times the US has propped up genocidal tyrannical despots, merely because they have opposed the 'commie' threat Or are proud of the times your government has backed terrorists fighting to depose legitimately elected governments

The rise to power of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, as a direct result of CIA operations, must have been a real high point

If your goverment is so pro-democracy, and anti-oppression, why do they continually deny support to the democratically elected government of Taiwan in their quest for diplomatic recognition?


As to Gun Control, both Canada and Switzerland have more privately owned guns per head of population, which indicates to me that the US's problem is more about attitude than availability

I don't mean to argue against you about our mistaken or sometimes misguided support for leaders.  But in our defense, foresight is not 20/20:

Here's the CIA's page on Cambodia:  https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cb.html.  It seems that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge took power in 1975 and then began the genocide.  The US withdrew from Vietnam in 1973 while Richard Nixon was the president https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/vm.html.  I won't verify their timeline, but I'm comfortable that they aren't lying about things that are so easily verified elsewhere.  Do you think it would have been popular for us to proceed to go into Cambodia after the public relations debacle we undured with Vietnam?  Personally, I think we should have gone in and cleaned up Cambodia, too.

Here's the CIA's page on Taiwan:  https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tw.html.  I'm comfortable with the history that led up to the current situation.  In fact, I'll bet the Taiwanese are quite happy about their current American exports.

Also, when we supported Iraq against Iran, Saddam Hussein hadn't yet committed genocide against the Kurds.

Also, when we propped up Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, he was not yet a terrorist, either.

Oh yes, let us not forget the support we provided Winston Churchill, et. al. when we opposed the legitimately elected (and democratically elected) Adolph Hitler.

[CrisPDuk]

Ed,

My point about Cambodia wasn't that the US supported Pol Pot, far from it to be fair, but throughout the 60's the CIA laboured, long, hard, and successfully, to destabilise a comparatively strong constitutional government (who coincidentally refused to allow he US to stage from their country), in order for their chosen puppet to attain control. By the time this scenario had worked itself out, Nixon had pulled out of SE Asia and consequently withdrew US support for the new government, the puppet wasn't strong enough to retain control, thus leaving the opening.

The rest, as they say, is history

Don't get me wrong here though, I am not anti-American, I love a hell of a lot of things about America (Hardley's and suicide blondes with plastic t!ts excepted), but your methods of chosing your leaders do have room for improvement

[eldar]

And right there is where you are wrong cris. The people are not the ones making the US govt do what it does. I am sure you news over there is censored. Well here, a large majority want out of Iraq, most never really wanted to go in. We certainly did not have much of a say. Sure we could have elected bush out but then, Britain could have gotten rid of Blair and did not.  It is NOT the american people that want to do these things to other countries but unfortunately, as you have shown, that is what other countries think. We would be content to leave people alone but when things like 9/11 happen or pearl harbor, we some heads are going to roll then since we were attacked. We did not start EITHER world war, korea, or even vietnam. We  were asked to go in. We would probably have not gone into WW2 except the japs bombed us and then the gloves were off.

You people in other countries need to stop thinking like this of the american PEOPLE as much of what our govt does is not OK with the people.

[edbikerii]

Ed,

My point about Cambodia wasn't that the US supported Pol Pot, far from it to be fair, but throughout the 60's the CIA laboured, long, hard, and successfully, to destabilise a comparatively strong constitutional government (who coincidentally refused to allow he US to stage from their country), in order for their chosen puppet to attain control. By the time this scenario had worked itself out, Nixon had pulled out of SE Asia and consequently withdrew US support for the new government, the puppet wasn't strong enough to retain control, thus leaving the opening.

The rest, as they say, is history

Don't get me wrong here though, I am not anti-American, I love a hell of a lot of things about America (Hardley's and suicide blondes with plastic t!ts excepted), but your methods of chosing your leaders do have room for improvement

As I said, I agree with you about our occasionally misguided selection of whom to support.

Also, I think we agree that the lack of real commitment and the premature withdrawal of American troops from SE Asia allowed Pol Pot to become the despot that he eventually did, as well as turning our anemic efforts in Vietnam into a complete failure.

I believe that the failures were driven by the then misguided public relations and overly-simplifed (and incorrect) conclusions drawn by much of the American voting public due to the television media's need to sensationalize every issue without reporting the (terribly boring) facts.  It is patently obvious that a stabilizing force should not leave an unstable nation until it is stabilized somehow.  This perfectly mirrors the current situation with Iraq.

So, yes, I agree wholeheartedly that we have problems with the election process.  I think the biggest problem is that it is largely driven by media "sound-bytes" and "docu-dramas" rather than knowledgeable research into the issues by the voters.  I'm not sure how to fix that, though.  Maybe instead of convincing uninformed voters to "Rock the Vote", we should encourage them to NOT vote unless they have actually taken the time to research the issues.

Now, as for suicide blondes, with plastic guns or otherwise, you are way off base, buddy.  I'm still undecided on the biodegradeable vs. plastic issue.  I think I need to research that issue quite a bit more

[edbikerii]

Well, sorry, Eldar, but that is where you are wrong.  The vast majority of the senate and congress (our elected representatives with a democrat majority), of BOTH parties, did, in fact, support the war on Iraq.  In fact, they OVERWHELMINGLY voted for the resolution approving the action.  At the time it was decided.  The vast majority of Americans were in support of going in, as the nation was reeling from the World Trade Center incident.

I suspect that your bias has you convinced otherwise, but you have no facts to indicate that the majority of Americans don't want to finish the job properly, either.  If we pull out like a bunch of idiots (again), then we'll have something ten times worse on our hands, globally.

And right there is where you are wrong cris. The people are not the ones making the US govt do what it does. I am sure you news over there is censored. Well here, a large majority want out of Iraq, most never really wanted to go in. We certainly did not have much of a say. Sure we could have elected bush out but then, Britain could have gotten rid of Blair and did not.  It is NOT the american people that want to do these things to other countries but unfortunately, as you have shown, that is what other countries think. We would be content to leave people alone but when things like 9/11 happen or pearl harbor, we some heads are going to roll then since we were attacked. We did not start EITHER world war, korea, or even vietnam. We  were asked to go in. We would probably have not gone into WW2 except the japs bombed us and then the gloves were off.

You people in other countries need to stop thinking like this of the american PEOPLE as much of what our govt does is not OK with the people.

[CrisPDuk]

To my mind the trouble with your election system Ed, is that it cost's so much money to get into either house, by the time somebody actually get's there, they have effectively become just another employee of whichever corporation bankrolled their campaign

Unfortunately to many of the big corporations who own the politicians see a war in terms of the big finiancial gains, not the terrible human cost

As for the enhanced vs organic debate, that's just down to user preference I think, a bit like the Apple/MS thing and I've product tested enough enhanced to know I prefer organic


BTW, I did notice you didn't jump to the defence of Hardley owners

[edbikerii]

Well, yes, I agree with you again, at least partially.  I think the media control is driven largely by the corporate money.  That is why it is so expensive to get ad campaigns on the TV.  Maybe one part of the solution is to provide each of the candidates equal time on the TV.  But would the voters watch and listen?  Is that enough?  Maybe the ads would still be too superficial and nothing more than vicious attacks anyway.  I don't know.

Apple vs MSFT is much less important than fake vs. natural.  I believe that you've never tested enough samples to be *completely* sure!   Natural is nice, and I think long-term I prefer natural, but short-term plastic is pretty cool and refreshingly firm.

No, I would never defend HD.  I resent the duties that Ronald Reagan imposed on imported motorcycles over 700 cc's back in the 80's as being the antithesis of "free trade".  That political lobbying move is the only reason HD is still alive today.  On the other hand, Reagan was in the middle of a whole campaign to increase our American pride, which was very important to us as a nation recovering from the Carter recession/oil shortage/hostage crisis.  I don't care what anybody else chooses to ride, or their reasons for choosing it.  I have my reasons to ride my Honda, and I don't care what anybody else thinks either.

To my mind the trouble with your election system Ed, is that it cost's so much money to get into either house, by the time somebody actually get's there, they have effectively become just another employee of whichever corporation bankrolled their campaign

Unfortunately to many of the big corporations who own the politicians see a war in terms of the big finiancial gains, not the terrible human cost

As for the enhanced vs organic debate, that's just down to user preference I think, a bit like the Apple/MS thing and I've product tested enough enhanced to know I prefer organic


BTW, I did notice you didn't jump to the defence of Hardley owners

[Terry in Australia]

Fair enough guys, I'm certainly not anti-American, I've got many friends (not to mention some family too) living in the US, and if America's military accidentally nuked Oz due to Harley Davidson winning the contract for America's latest long range missile propulsion and steering systems, America would probably be my first choice to temporarily migrate to, while American defense contractors got the job of cleaning up all the fallout.

But I also understand that to some of you, your right to own a gun is much more important to you than the lives of fellow Americans murdered in staggering numbers every year, so maybe it'd be better if these sorts of threads not be allowed on this site, because I can see that some of you guys are just crying "crocodile tears" about the VT tragedy, when in fact you really couldn't give a rats ass how many American kids kill each other, as long as no-one takes your precious guns away.

And finally, if you persist with the mentality that the only way to keep your government honest is at gunpoint, then  tragedies like VT are not just inevitable, but should be expected regularly. Cheers, Terry.

[ofreen]

But I also understand that to some of you, your right to own a gun is much more important to you than the lives of fellow Americans murdered in staggering numbers every year, so maybe it'd be better if these sorts of threads not be allowed on this site, because I can see that some of you guys are just crying "crocodile tears" about the VT tragedy, when in fact you really couldn't give a rats ass how many American kids kill each other, as long as no-one takes your precious guns away.

Pretty amazing statement.  Your ad hominem attacks are unwarranted and insulting to those who believe differently than you.  Crocodile tears indeed.  Your way is the only way, is that it?

[Terry in Australia]

But I also understand that to some of you, your right to own a gun is much more important to you than the lives of fellow Americans murdered in staggering numbers every year, so maybe it'd be better if these sorts of threads not be allowed on this site, because I can see that some of you guys are just crying "crocodile tears" about the VT tragedy, when in fact you really couldn't give a rats ass how many American kids kill each other, as long as no-one takes your precious guns away.

Pretty amazing statement.  Your ad hominem attacks are unwarranted and insulting to those who believe differently than you.  Crocodile tears indeed.  Your way is the only way, is that it?

I think you're just easily insulted Greg, and you'd rather attack my opinion than admit that you're sidestepping the real issue here. Cheers, Terry. 

[CrisPDuk]

I think Terry makes a pretty valid point actually ofreen, though he could maybe have been a tad less inflammatory in his language.

Guns aren't the only cause of this tragedy though, the education and welfare systems must bear their shares of the burden. As long as it is deemed acceptable by the authorities to ignore and deride the many dissaffected members of the country's adolescent population, rather than addressing the causes of that dissaffection, these incidents will continue to occur

[ofreen]

I think you're just easily insulted Greg, and you'd rather attack my opinion than admit that you're sidestepping the real issue here. Cheers, Terry. 

Probably no easier than you. I've seen your feathers get ruffled a few times on these forums when others have kidded you, offering to give them a thumpin'.  I wasn't particularly insulted, but I recognise an insult when I see it.  I explained to you in a PM why I wasn't going to join in a gun control debate on this thread.  I also raised some points in that PM that you did not respond to, so telling me I am sidestepping the issue is rather ironic.

According to you, those of us that believe that taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the way to solve events such as the VT tragedy do not care about the victims, "crying crocodile tears."  That is an ad hominem attack and is not addressing the issues.  It is simply an insult toward those that disagree with you.  Believe me, I care and it outrages me that the authorities created a so-called "gun-free zone"  that enabled Cho to kill without worry that someone would have anything other than their bare hands to stop his attacks.  There have been several instances where a citizen with a firearm has stopped such tragedies.  You won't hear about them in the news, though.

Regards.