That is interesting Super. What do you think about the idea that a 19 year old can walk in and buy a gun and just tick a box on form stating he has no mental problems?
Surely it would be better if he was a accompanied by a parent or guardian and had a doctors certificate or such like confirming his suitability. Or how about if anyone buying a gun supplied a reference from someone in a position of social responsibilty like a clergy man? It will never be a foolproof system but surely if you want to retain the right to bear arms there should be a slight tightening up in procedures?
I know there is the arguement - 'if someone wants to do it they will find a way', but living in the UK I wouldn't have clue where to start buying a gun, because I don't know any criminals...
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
That is interesting Super. What do you think about the idea that a 19 year old can walk in and buy a gun and just tick a box on form stating he has no mental problems?
Surely it would be better if he was a accompanied by a parent or guardian and had a doctors certificate or such like confirming his suitability. Or how about if anyone buying a gun supplied a reference from someone in a position of social responsibilty like a clergy man? It will never be a foolproof system but surely if you want to retain the right to bear arms there should be a slight tightening up in procedures?
I know there is the arguement - 'if someone wants to do it they will find a way', but living in the UK I wouldn't have clue where to start buying a gun, because I don't know any criminals...
Yes, that will always be a sticky problem. Per your last paragraph, I agree. Theoretically, it's like taking the car keys from 100 alcoholics; that would curb most of them from driving, but a few will find a way around that. A fraction of 100 alcoholics on the road is better than having all 100 behind the wheel.
However, I believe that America's problem is unique and some reasons that immediately come to mind are:
1) We are a nation ideologically built on strong civil liberties. I don't know of any other prominent developed nation that has its Constitution held in highest regard over and above anything else, including the Presidency or even the Monarchy; religion, no matter how major, doesn't even hold a candle against the U.S. Constitution. Any constitutional right, including "the right to bear arms" is a touchy point to breach, which would be akin to officially voiding the Bible or Quran. Even with the heightened terrorism awareness since 9/11, Americans have largely been opposed to measures that threaten privacy, which could include the tighter scrutiny of gun purchases, despite how ridiculous it is to have the ability to buy firearms at gun shows with virtually non-existent scrutiny...go figure.
2) America’s progressiveness and promise of social prosperity has drawn unprecedented amounts of people-groups to share the dream, which has the effect of rapid urbanization, which in turn breeds crime and hamstrings law enforcement in the major population centers.
3) Throw in America’s geographical situation of having a porous border with Canada, Mexico as well as South and Central America, the criminal demand for and influx of illegal firearms is near impossible to plug. The UK being an island state does not completely protect itself from criminal importation through ports, but I think that is a clear logistical advantage over the U.S. entry points, with less coastal area to monitor. Then again, the flip side to that agrument, is that the other countries on the list having low gun death statistics, have multiple borders; the question to ask, is how less porous are their borders?
I’m sure there are more causes that hasn’t come to mind, but the combination of these three factors, I believe, are the driving forces behind America’s gun problem specifically and violent crime in general; taper off any one of these, and the gun problem will dramatically lessen…if doing that is possible at all.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I know there is the arguement - 'if someone wants to do it they will find a way', but living in the UK I wouldn't have clue where to start buying a gun, because I don't know any criminals...
That is exactly the point. When your a kid you make rash decisions without thinking. If you are bullied at school you would think about maybe getting revenge. But anything more extreme than a fist fight is very difficult. I would not have the first clue on where to get a gun either and i'd imagine it would be very expensive. In the US a kid gets annoyed he can just go buy a gun and shoot someone. Making guns harder to get will disuade them from doing it because they have more time to think about what they are going to do. I know there are guns about in the uk and i'm sure some people have access to them but the majority don't. I would imagine that this is an issue with all gun crime in the US. If someone has a disagreement over here you may get a fight. In America because in a moment of anger you can easily get a gun the repurcussions are going to be so much worse.
I'm really surprised to see this thread on AJB. I thought that politics were off-limits here, and a few have indulged in them. Let's stop it right now. I'm pretty liberal, and I don't bash other people countries. But I have very strong opinions about people from other countries bashing mine. I won't be polite about it, either. Just fair warning, so there are no hard feelings later.
I think we would all be better off if we minded our own backyards and left it at that. Mods, let kill this thread. Just my opinion
I'm really surprised to see this thread on AJB. I thought that politics were off-limits here, and a few have indulged in them. Let's stop it right now. I'm pretty liberal, and I don't bash other people countries. But I have very strong opinions about people from other countries bashing mine. I won't be polite about it, either. Just fair warning, so there are no hard feelings later.
I think we would all be better off if we minded our own backyards and left it at that. Mods, let kill this thread. Just my opinion
Well I agree with you HH that this shouldn't be an America bashing thread, but judging by our last few posts it is possible for some of us to have an interesting discussion on the subject without being offensive. That said, if the mods feel it should be closed for the sake of good relations then fair enough.
I'm really surprised to see this thread on AJB. I thought that politics were off-limits here, and a few have indulged in them. Let's stop it right now. I'm pretty liberal, and I don't bash other people countries. But I have very strong opinions about people from other countries bashing mine. I won't be polite about it, either. Just fair warning, so there are no hard feelings later.
I think we would all be better off if we minded our own backyards and left it at that. Mods, let kill this thread. Just my opinion
Well I agree with you HH that this shouldn't be an America bashing thread, but judging by our last few posts it is possible for some of us to have an interesting discussion on the subject without being offensive. That said, if the mods feel it should be closed for the sake of good relations then fair enough.
Maybe so. But notice how the issue began as just that -- U.S. bashing. The fact that the thread morphed into dispassionate sociology a few posts ago doesn't wash the bad taste out of my mouth. Maybe that's because I'm the one being bashed and to be fair, I've come across a post of two from my countrymen over the year of so of my AJB membership that I found insulting to the Brits.
The point is, it's uncalled for -- especially for two people with as strong a link as the U.S. and the U.K. In my world, you don't kick your friends when they're down. And this subject doesn't belong on AJB. But again, it's just my view.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Maybe so. But notice how the issue began as just that -- U.S. bashing. The fact that the thread morphed into dispassionate sociology a few posts ago doesn't wash the bad taste out of my mouth.
Dispassionate sociology? Excuse me? I'm mulling out loud issues that I think are behind this tragic massacre...i.e., I'm trying to cope with it. I think that the gravity of this evil thing that happened far outweighs any bruising you can get from "U.S. bashing" that you perceive to be happening on this page.
I haven't seen any nation bashing on this page of the thread, which I think has been exchanges of civil, situational statements based on both fact and opinion. These "statements," might have other implications to a reader, depending on how you in particular processes ideas and opinions. Why limit restraint only on political or religious issues? What about other forum discussions? With the way people have carried on in the CR forum for example during the past couple of years, why don't we all start working on respect for the thoughts, opinions and sensibilities of fellow members?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I haven't seen any nation bashing on this page of the thread, which I think has been exchanges of civil, situational statements. These might have other implications to a reader, depending on how one processes ideas and opinions.
They might, But they don't for me: I process ideas and opinions just fine, Superado. Read my last post. I make reference to the belated "dispassionate sociology" of the more recent offerings. It's some of the posts that I object to. Belatedly perhaps, but what can I say? -- I just saw the thread. That doesn't make them any more palatable me. I guess you could say I call them both "as" I see them and "when" I see them.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I haven't seen any nation bashing on this page of the thread, which I think has been exchanges of civil, situational statements. These might have other implications to a reader, depending on how one processes ideas and opinions.
They might, But they don't for me: I process ideas and opinions just fine, Superado. Read my last post. I make reference to the belated "dispassionate sociology" of the more recent offerings. It's some of the posts that I object to. Belatedly perhaps, but what can I say? -- I just saw the thread. That doesn't make them any more palatable me. I guess you could say I call them both "as" I see them and "when" I see them.
Sorry for my passionate response, High, or do you prefer Mr. Hopes? Anyway, the more heated portion of this thread (before this page) ended amicably enough, after which point I thought it appropriate to join and discuss the actual issue at hand.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
That a man who suffered so much in his lifetime would lay down his life for others, in the face of unmitigated horror, is something that gives me hope for our species.
And I certainly hope it's Professor Librescu who people will remember in the future.
Can I piggyback on your post to mention Waleed Mohammed Shaalan? Although already injured , Shaalan drew Cho Seung-Hui away from another wounded student. That act of compassion cost him his life. I'm in awe of the selflessness of these two men, knowing that I wouldn't have been capable of the same.
Imo the discussion started due to tragedies like this is only a good thing. If anything good could possibly come out of it, it is seeing the courageousness of some people and also the fact it may force changes which could prevent similiar things happening in the future. From the last few posts it just shows how very passionate people in the U.S are on the issue of guns. That a simple discussion about the pros and cons of a countrys point of view regarding gun laws, can be taken as insulting. To be quite frank some people/countries are alot more forceful in forcing their opinions on other people/countrys. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
For every superado and words who can discuss things civilly and intelligently, there's a s96024 who seems to revel in the fact that such a thing took place in the US.
I usually love discourse on any subject, but I'm begging...shut this one down.
Comments
Surely it would be better if he was a accompanied by a parent or guardian and had a doctors certificate or such like confirming his suitability. Or how about if anyone buying a gun supplied a reference from someone in a position of social responsibilty like a clergy man? It will never be a foolproof system but surely if you want to retain the right to bear arms there should be a slight tightening up in procedures?
I know there is the arguement - 'if someone wants to do it they will find a way', but living in the UK I wouldn't have clue where to start buying a gun, because I don't know any criminals...
Yes, that will always be a sticky problem. Per your last paragraph, I agree. Theoretically, it's like taking the car keys from 100 alcoholics; that would curb most of them from driving, but a few will find a way around that. A fraction of 100 alcoholics on the road is better than having all 100 behind the wheel.
However, I believe that America's problem is unique and some reasons that immediately come to mind are:
1) We are a nation ideologically built on strong civil liberties. I don't know of any other prominent developed nation that has its Constitution held in highest regard over and above anything else, including the Presidency or even the Monarchy; religion, no matter how major, doesn't even hold a candle against the U.S. Constitution. Any constitutional right, including "the right to bear arms" is a touchy point to breach, which would be akin to officially voiding the Bible or Quran. Even with the heightened terrorism awareness since 9/11, Americans have largely been opposed to measures that threaten privacy, which could include the tighter scrutiny of gun purchases, despite how ridiculous it is to have the ability to buy firearms at gun shows with virtually non-existent scrutiny...go figure.
2) America’s progressiveness and promise of social prosperity has drawn unprecedented amounts of people-groups to share the dream, which has the effect of rapid urbanization, which in turn breeds crime and hamstrings law enforcement in the major population centers.
3) Throw in America’s geographical situation of having a porous border with Canada, Mexico as well as South and Central America, the criminal demand for and influx of illegal firearms is near impossible to plug. The UK being an island state does not completely protect itself from criminal importation through ports, but I think that is a clear logistical advantage over the U.S. entry points, with less coastal area to monitor. Then again, the flip side to that agrument, is that the other countries on the list having low gun death statistics, have multiple borders; the question to ask, is how less porous are their borders?
I’m sure there are more causes that hasn’t come to mind, but the combination of these three factors, I believe, are the driving forces behind America’s gun problem specifically and violent crime in general; taper off any one of these, and the gun problem will dramatically lessen…if doing that is possible at all.
That is exactly the point. When your a kid you make rash decisions without thinking. If you are bullied at school you would think about maybe getting revenge. But anything more extreme than a fist fight is very difficult. I would not have the first clue on where to get a gun either and i'd imagine it would be very expensive. In the US a kid gets annoyed he can just go buy a gun and shoot someone. Making guns harder to get will disuade them from doing it because they have more time to think about what they are going to do. I know there are guns about in the uk and i'm sure some people have access to them but the majority don't. I would imagine that this is an issue with all gun crime in the US. If someone has a disagreement over here you may get a fight. In America because in a moment of anger you can easily get a gun the repurcussions are going to be so much worse.
I think we would all be better off if we minded our own backyards and left it at that. Mods, let kill this thread. Just my opinion
Well I agree with you HH that this shouldn't be an America bashing thread, but judging by our last few posts it is possible for some of us to have an interesting discussion on the subject without being offensive. That said, if the mods feel it should be closed for the sake of good relations then fair enough.
Maybe so. But notice how the issue began as just that -- U.S. bashing. The fact that the thread morphed into dispassionate sociology a few posts ago doesn't wash the bad taste out of my mouth. Maybe that's because I'm the one being bashed and to be fair, I've come across a post of two from my countrymen over the year of so of my AJB membership that I found insulting to the Brits.
The point is, it's uncalled for -- especially for two people with as strong a link as the U.S. and the U.K. In my world, you don't kick your friends when they're down. And this subject doesn't belong on AJB. But again, it's just my view.
Dispassionate sociology? Excuse me? I'm mulling out loud issues that I think are behind this tragic massacre...i.e., I'm trying to cope with it. I think that the gravity of this evil thing that happened far outweighs any bruising you can get from "U.S. bashing" that you perceive to be happening on this page.
I haven't seen any nation bashing on this page of the thread, which I think has been exchanges of civil, situational statements based on both fact and opinion. These "statements," might have other implications to a reader, depending on how you in particular processes ideas and opinions. Why limit restraint only on political or religious issues? What about other forum discussions? With the way people have carried on in the CR forum for example during the past couple of years, why don't we all start working on respect for the thoughts, opinions and sensibilities of fellow members?
They might, But they don't for me: I process ideas and opinions just fine, Superado. Read my last post. I make reference to the belated "dispassionate sociology" of the more recent offerings. It's some of the posts that I object to. Belatedly perhaps, but what can I say? -- I just saw the thread. That doesn't make them any more palatable me. I guess you could say I call them both "as" I see them and "when" I see them.
Sorry for my passionate response, High, or do you prefer Mr. Hopes? Anyway, the more heated portion of this thread (before this page) ended amicably enough, after which point I thought it appropriate to join and discuss the actual issue at hand.
Can I piggyback on your post to mention Waleed Mohammed Shaalan? Although already injured , Shaalan drew Cho Seung-Hui away from another wounded student. That act of compassion cost him his life. I'm in awe of the selflessness of these two men, knowing that I wouldn't have been capable of the same.
For every superado and words who can discuss things civilly and intelligently, there's a s96024 who seems to revel in the fact that such a thing took place in the US.
I usually love discourse on any subject, but I'm begging...shut this one down.