Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by JBourrie
I think it is reactionary to discuss gun control in light of this incident.

I think it's reactionary to not discuss gun control in light of this incident.

Do you even know what reactionary means? Not discussing it (not reacting) would be the very opposite of reactionary. I expected better of you :)

Quote:

Quote:This wasn't a kid. This was somebody who was old enough to legally own and carry a gun. That's what makes it so terrible: this situation can only be avoided by taking away one of our most basic rights.

I don't think we know enough about the shooter at this time to say those things.

True. I'm assuming that, being a college, that he was of college age (therefore legally old enough to own a gun, unless he's a child prodigy).

Quote:

Quote:Things could have gone very differently if one of those students had a gun for protection.

Oh yeah, wild west vigilantism is the way to go... The 2nd amendment is only marginally important. It made sense when communities were smaller and under threat from the native population. It doesn't make so much sense today.

I'm sorry that you can't make the distinction between self-defense and vigilantism. If you point a gun to my head, I sure as hell hope I have a way to defend myself, even if it means pointing a gun back.

Quote:I'm not interested in an academic discussion. I'm interested in putting people opposed to gun control on the spot.

Quote:Please keep the discussion civil.

Then you are a hypocrite. You started a thread that you wanted to keep "civil" long enough to push your agenda. So it's not as much a discussion as it is your soapbox. Oluseyi made a great comment in the religion thread about listening to others point of view instead of just arguing your own, maybe you should go back and read it.

I'm done here, theres no point to this thread if it was just made for trolling.

Edit: A few changes made due to hurried typing.

[Edited by - JBourrie on April 18, 2007 11:19:59 AM]

Quote:Original post by slayemin
Whats sad to note is that when more than three dozen people die in Iraq it barely registers on the richter scale of tragedy in America, but when three dozen American university students die, it is enough fuel to make headline news and provoke heated debate. Is there really such a difference in the value of human life?

Of course. As the Imus situation has shown, America has become a land of insensitivity to others and self-soothing righteousness for ourselves. 4000 Iraqis die. Well they're barbarians; that's the type of people they are. 31 Americans die. Oh the horror; oh the sorrow.

The reality is a life is a life. Not a statistic. Not a headline. Not a time of the month summarized by a name. Maybe when we all get over ourselves and realize we're not all that damn special, we'll have a better appreciation for the lives around us.

Quote:Original post by slayemin

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by slayemin
Oops, double post.

On another topic, I have issue with the title of this thread. I think its a classic case of poisoning the well. Anyone who is opposed to gun control is implied to approving the death of students in a university massacre.

The blood of nearly three dozen people poisons the well. I meant the title to be provocative. I'm not interested in an academic discussion. I'm interested in putting people opposed to gun control on the spot. I'm interested in shaming the people that harassed Zumbo [1]. I'm interested in shaming the people that blamed Columbine on Marilyn Manson rather than on how easily those shooters came by their guns.

So, you ask a rhetorical question about gun control and put a negative bias on any legitimate arguments someone might have, and then you proceed to say that you're not interested in discussion. Yet, you insist on pushing your side of the issue which seems to indicate that you want discussion. It sounds like you have your ideas but aren't willing to listen to opposing ideas.

This thread was a spin off of the other thread where it was asked that no questions about gun control be raised. If you don't like the negative bias don't participate. What I said was that I wasn't interested in an academic discussion, so before you talk about negative bias and confirmation bias, you should first take care not to engage in blatant distortion yourself. You bet I'm pushing my side of the issue. Like I said, I'm interested in putting people opposed to gun control on the spot. If you think that means I won't listen to opposing ideas, that's your problem, but so far I haven't tried to shut down anyone that disagreed with me.

Quote:Original post by slayemin
You say that the deaths of three dozen people poisons the well. I'm opposed to gun control and I'm also opposed to the university shooting. Apparently with you, I can't be both. I think it would be a mistake to focus on just pro-gun or anti-gun control. As others have pointed out, it is a much deeper issue then gun control. Guns were the tool used to kill three dozen people, but killing three dozen people could have just as easily been done via other means. A bomb perhaps? cyanide in the drinking fountains? The method for killing people is limited by imagination.

Yes, those deaths poison the well. I haven't said you couldn't oppose this shooting and gun control, but I do think those positions are contradictory. To ask the question again, how many more deaths before we get real about gun control? Apparently Columbine wasn't enough. The Amish shootings weren't enough. 10,000 homicides a year aren't enough. This isn't a false dilemma and talk about this issue going deeper than guns does not serve to resolve the issue. It's the same old crap that keeps the issue going, perpetuates business as usual, perpetuates the false belief that there's nothing we can do about the problem and that basically whitewashes 10,000 murders per year as an acceptable level of damage. When you say that those three dozen people could have just as easily been killed by other means, you expose your efforts to present yourself as logical as nothing more than a charade. Virginia hasn't been occupied by 150,000 foreign troops for four years. Soldiers aren't breaking down doors in the middle of the night searching for munitions and screaming at Virginians in a foreign language. If this killer could just as easily used a bomb or cyanide or whatever fantasy you want to imagine, then why didn't he? And really, that's just my point. It was far far easier for him to get a gun then it was for him to get the components to make a car bomb or poison the water supply or what have you. And that ease of access to guns is the issue as I see it.

Quote:Original post by slayemin
I am also against the NRA for strong arming Jim Zumbo, and I think less of Zumbo for not sticking with his convictions about assault rifles and hunting. Does that make the NRA an evil organization? Can we condemn some things they do and praise others?

I agree that Zumbo should have stuck to his convictions. I happen to think that the NRA is an evil organization (even as I think that Michael Moore sandbagged Charleton Heston). I think the NRA should remove the word rifle from it's name because it hasn't been about rifles for a long time. The NRA has pushed the envelope so far that events like this one today give respectable gun owners a bad name.

Quote:Original post by slayemin
I'd like to hear what you think the United States should do about gun control. I'm willing to seriously consider your arguments and change my mind.

Thank you for the offer. I might take you up on that when I'm not as angry.

Quote:Original post by slayemin
Whats sad to note is that when more than three dozen people die in Iraq it barely registers on the richter scale of tragedy in America, but when three dozen American university students die, it is enough fuel to make headline news and provoke heated debate. Is there really such a difference in the value of human life?

I say this not to condone it but yes there really is such a difference in the value of human life.

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by slayemin
Whats sad to note is that when more than three dozen people die in Iraq it barely registers on the richter scale of tragedy in America, but when three dozen American university students die, it is enough fuel to make headline news and provoke heated debate. Is there really such a difference in the value of human life?

I say this not to condone it but yes there really is such a difference in the value of human life.

My eyes must deceive me. You, LessBread, actually said that. This explanation I've got to hear. Please pray tell, do tell...

I don't think this is about the media, or gun control. It's usually the same type of people who are suffering from severe depression, or have other huge emotional problems. People need to start recognizing the common symptoms, and make it easy to get help for the people who need it.

The real stories here aren't about guns, they are about people getting mistreated, or having horrible lives, and no where to turn for help, and eventually they get driven to this.

The guns are irrelevant. If there was no access to guns, they would use whatever else they could get their hands on at the time. You can kill just as many people with a single lit match.

Quote:Original post by Iron Chef Carnage

Quote:Original post by LessBread
I don't think ordinary citizens should be allowed unrestricted access to assault weapons, sub-machine guns or machine guns.

Your definition of "unrestricted" is apparently different from mine. I've got strong convictions about this topic, but I doubt that your position and mine would make for a civil discussion.

Is it safe to say that you think people should be able to purchase machine guns as easily as they do soap?

Quote:Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
I'll just go on the record as thinking you're a pompous, ill-informed sophist who prefers to win arguments and spout rhetoric to abuse and demean those who dissent with you rather than seeking a truly sound and applicable solution via open discussion.

[lol] Right back at you man! What kind of sound and applicable solution can you propose today that wasn't proposed in the wake of Columbine etc.? There was lots of talk back then but it didn't seem to have much of an impact - especially with regards to banning automatic weapons.

Quote:Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
That should save this thread a couple pages. Edit: I should have read the whole thing first.

Fair enough. My skin is thick. I'm angry but disinterested too.

Quote:Original post by Iron Chef Carnage

Quote:I'm not interested in an academic discussion. I'm interested in putting people opposed to gun control on the spot.

This is why we are enemies. You use the deaths of innocent people as an excuse to dredge up a largely unrelated topic and malign perfectly reasonable and respectable people by associating them with a crime that they deplore even more than you do. How many seconds passed between you hearing about this event and you thinking of ways to use it as a weapon against those you hate?

Enemies? Ouch! Fix bayonets!! [lol] Given that a gun was used to kill 33 people the topic of gun control isn't largely unrelated it's spot on. That point would be valid if a knife had been used or a samurai sword. If perfectly reasonable and respectable people truly deplore this crime then they need to get off their asses and push for a more responsible gun manufacturing industry and for more responsible gun ownership in general. Moreover, they should have done that after Columbine etc. but no they didn't and so they deserve to be associated with this crime. It takes a license to own and drive a car (and insurance in many states), but it doesn't take a license to own and use a gun. Why aren't reasonable and respectable people upset about that? Do we have to wait for an illegal alien to get drunk and shoot up school before we wake up to this idiocy? Is that what it will take for reasonable and respectable people to take responsibility for the problem? Or will reasonable and respectable people point their fingers at rappers and blame them for this tragedy in order to perpetuate their denials?

Quote:Original post by JBourrie

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by JBourrie
I think it is reactionary to discuss gun control in light of this incident.

I think it's reactionary to not discuss gun control in light of this incident.

Do you even know what reactionary means? Not discussing it (not reacting) would be the very opposite of reactionary. I expected better of you :)

Yes, I know what reactionary means. Apparently you think it's means reactive.

Quote:Original post by JBourrie

Quote:

Quote:This wasn't a kid. This was somebody who was old enough to legally own and carry a gun. That's what makes it so terrible: this situation can only be avoided by taking away one of our most basic rights.

I don't think we know enough about the shooter at this time to say those things.

True. I'm assuming that, being a college, that he was of college age (therefore legally old enough to own a gun, unless he's a child prodigy).

There have been reports that the shooter was a Chinese National, perhaps on a student visa. It may not have been legal for him to own or carry a gun.

Quote:Original post by JBourrie

Quote:

Quote:Things could have gone very differently if one of those students had a gun for protection.

Oh yeah, wild west vigilantism is the way to go... The 2nd amendment is only marginally important. It made sense when communities were smaller and under threat from the native population. It doesn't make so much sense today.

I'm sorry that you can't make the distinction between self-defense and vigilantism. If you point a gun to my head, I sure as hell hope I have a way to defend myself, even if it means pointing a gun back.

Sounds to me like you've been watching too many movies. Mexican stand off, take 10,000 ... If I point a gun at your head I intend to pull the trigger, no joking around. If we're going to play that way, I'm not giving you the chance to point back.

Quote:Original post by JBourrie

Quote:I'm not interested in an academic discussion. I'm interested in putting people opposed to gun control on the spot.

Quote:Please keep the discussion civil.

Then you are a hypocrite. You started a thread that you wanted to keep "civil" long enough to push your agenda. So it's not as much a discussion as it is your soapbox. Oluseyi made a great comment in the religion thread about listening to others point of view instead of just arguing your own, maybe you should go back and read it. I'm done here, theres no point to this thread if it was just made for trolling.

I'm not being a hypocrite at all. I can put people opposed to gun control on the spot and keep it civil. It's not my soap box. It's yours and theirs too. I'm not preventing people opposed to gun control from speaking. In fact, I'm calling on them to speak, to account for their position. Maybe Oluseyi should have written about learning how to read better, read with fewer assumptions, with a keener eye to parsing what others have written... Alpha_ProgDes asked a very important question to begin with, what do we mean by gun control? I admit that I haven't defined in a specific manner what I mean by gun control. I also haven't defined what I meant by "get real" either. I figured those terms would be fleshed out in the discussion.

Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDes

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by slayemin
Whats sad to note is that when more than three dozen people die in Iraq it barely registers on the richter scale of tragedy in America, but when three dozen American university students die, it is enough fuel to make headline news and provoke heated debate. Is there really such a difference in the value of human life?

I say this not to condone it but yes there really is such a difference in the value of human life.

My eyes must deceive me. You, LessBread, actually said that. This explanation I've got to hear. Please pray tell, do tell...

The facts indicate it. What does the US government pay for a dead Iraqi these days? $2500 or something like that? It was just in the news. And for a dead soldier it's $250,000 or $400,000 in insurance? And more to slayemin's point, Iraqi's have been dying in the hundreds for months now but have those stories lead the news or has it been stories about Anna Nicole, Don Imus and so on leading the news? Hours and hours of coverage for trivial celebrity matters and only minutes for the bad news coming from Iraq. It's sad but true, there really is such a difference in the value of human life. Iraqi lives don't matter as much to Americans as American lives do.

Quote:Original post by Vampyre_Dark
I don't think this is about the media, or gun control. It's usually the same type of people who are suffering from severe depression, or have other huge emotional problems. People need to start recognizing the common symptoms, and make it easy to get help for the people who need it.

The real stories here aren't about guns, they are about people getting mistreated, or having horrible lives, and no where to turn for help, and eventually they get driven to this.

The guns are irrelevant. If there was no access to guns, they would use whatever else they could get their hands on at the time. You can kill just as many people with a single lit match.

I agree that emotional problems are at the root of these mass shootings, but I disagree that guns are irrelevant. I don't recall hearing about a distraught person killing dozens of people with a single lit match. If there was no access to guns, they would use whatever else they could get their hands on at the time. And what do you think that would be? A fire extinguisher? an ax? Would it be something that they could use to readily kill two dozen people with?

Quote:
Ultimately it's culture. A self endowed feeling of manifest destiny that destroys the soul, making a human being into a heartless killer. You could take away every gun in American, and it won't reduce the number of deaths. Unless you made a fundamental shift in culture, introducing foreign ideas like humility, respect for others, and love for ones fellow man, the culture in America would just turn to boards with nails in them to kill each other.

I was thinking about this point and find that it makes a stronger case for the argument that Americans are too emotionally immature to possess guns than it does for the argument that guns aren't the problem. What would be more difficult to accomplish, fundamentally shift American culture or reduce the availability of guns in America? I think it will take a mixture of both. I also think it sad that it appears to require repeated tragedies like this for us to collectively grow up.


[Edited by - LessBread on April 17, 2007 3:36:40 AM]