|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 26, 2007 3:01:41 GMT -4
Yes there is a similar case in Canada leading to a gun control legislation. Ah, but I said aimed at changing the laws. This shooting did result (after a lot of time and lobbying efforts) in the gun registry and its half-assed implementation. This was not the result of a government initiative but rather the result of intense lobbying that was done by the sister of a victim. If this girl had not lobbied nonstop for many years, there would have been no effect on legislation. In 1978 Canadian Parliament passed legislation requiring a Firearms Acquisition Certificate be filled out before purchasing a rifle. Politicians who thought more could be done heatedly debated the legislation. In the end, NDP leader Tommy Douglas said, "Half a loaf is better than none … I believe that someday we will have the techniques to register all guns." The Gun Control Story in Canada www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheGunControlStory.htmlThis was not the result of a government initiative but rather the result of intense lobbying that was done by the sister of a victim. If this girl had not lobbied nonstop for many years, there would have been no effect on legislation. Well.the sister of a victim served as an emotive effect. The petition was started by students of l'Ecole Polytechnique and professional lobbyists. The Gun Control Story in Canada www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheGunControlStory.htmlDecember 1989 - January 1990 - There is a massive response to the murders in many segments of Canadian society. Attention is focused on violence against women, on gun control and on the role of women in male-dominated professions such as engineering. The students of l'Ecole Polytechnique begin to circulate a petition calling for a ban on military weapons. At the same time, in Toronto, a small group begins to work on developing a comprehensive approach to gun control, and becomes the nucleus of Canadians for Gun Control. Early participants include: Wendy Cukier, a Professor at Ryerson Polytechnique University; Bob Crampton, a Metro Toronto Police Officer and author of a 1984 report calling for stricter gun control; Jim Kingston, a retired Police Officer and then Executive Director of the Ontario Provincial Police Association; Darryl Davies, a criminologist; Peter Hiscocks, a Ryerson Electrical Engineering Professor; representatives of women's groups, health-care organizations and others.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 26, 2007 3:51:32 GMT -4
Go ahead and ask. Would I have gone in there? The answer is yes. I couldn't live with myself otherwise. You can't know that until you're confronted with the situation. I probably wouldn't, largely because I move too slowly to do anyone any good; all I could do would be to get myself shot without helping anyone else; why would I bother to sacrifice myself that way? Don't you realize that a lot of Christians do fear death, and that a majority of suicide bombers (who logically must not fear death) aren't Christians?
|
|
|
Post by donnieb on Apr 26, 2007 10:39:35 GMT -4
I'm a non-believer, and I don't fear death. What's there about non-existence that I should be afraid of?
I certainly have a healthy fear of pain, but I don't think that has much to do with my (or anybody else's) faith (or lack thereof).
Beyond that, my only feelings about death are that there may be a few people -- mostly family -- who would feel sad if I died. That's not a great prospect, but it hardly makes me fear dying.
It strikes me as ironic that certain Christians (including feelfree Dead Hoosiers here) accuse non-believers of excessive fear of death, thus supposedly making us less capable of heroic sacrifice; while others (even the same ones!) accuse us of insufficient fear of death (since we have no fear of eternal punishment) which supposedly leads us to undervalue our own and others' lives. For example, Stalin supposedly felt no remorse for his brutal killing of millions of Russians and Soviet-bloc citizens -- not because he was a monster, but because he was an atheist and didn't have to worry about going to Hell.
And there's still a third position I've run across: that non-believers put too much emphasis on the physical world (for example, trying to rectify injustice, poverty, or environmental degradation) when our real focus should be on the afterlife. The weird thing is, I can't quite tell whether we're being accused of undervaluing or overvaluing life in this case.
Edited to refer to the correct member (apologies to feelfree).
|
|
|
Post by donnieb on Apr 26, 2007 10:49:31 GMT -4
Concerning Dead Hoosiers accusations about the police response at VT: This story from the AP states that the main killings (the ones in the classroom building) took place in a total of nine minutes. It took three minutes for the police to respond and get to the building, and five more minutes to get through the doors that Cho had chained and padlocked shut. One minute later Cho was dead. Seems like they handled it as well as could be expected, given the situation. That five minute delay in getting inside is the critical issue, not the cops' response time or courage.
|
|
|
Post by VALIS on Apr 26, 2007 20:50:02 GMT -4
Response to valis: Do you believe that the US population could win a war against its own military with the weapons currently in circulation?No. If nations such as Canada are ready for the plucking by their own government, what are they waiting for exactly? The arrival of "the One."
Ok, after the first answer I would have asked why the American government doesn't start this war if they can win it. But I guess your second answer clarifies it: the American government also waits for the One (and I don't expect it's Keanu Reeves). On the bright side, it means the One is not here yet, right? Assuming that the prophecy you mention is unfolding right now, how do you make the difference between psychos (agenda or not) and government conspiracy? [/b] Government conspiracists are psychos with an (political) agenda. I think I already answered this. Are you asking what I think the difference is between a killer with a political motive and a killer with a personal, selfish motive? [/quote] No, it's not what I had in mind. Please excuse me if I don't always express myself very well; English is my second language. Feelfree mentions the Polytechnique killer. This guy had a political agenda: he hated feminists and thought it would help his cause to kill female engineering students. This guy was a psycho with an agenda. But he was also a lone nutter (I think Feelfree hints that he disagrees with that last statement) My question was, how do you make the distinction between a lone psycho like that and one that is part of a conspiracy?
|
|
|
Post by VALIS on Apr 26, 2007 21:10:06 GMT -4
In 1978 Canadian Parliament passed legislation requiring a Firearms Acquisition Certificate be filled out before purchasing a rifle. Politicians who thought more could be done heatedly debated the legislation. In the end, NDP leader Tommy Douglas said, "Half a loaf is better than none … I believe that someday we will have the techniques to register all guns." The Gun Control Story in Canada www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheGunControlStory.htmlWhat are you talking about exactly? Yes, there was gun control even before the Polytechnique slaughter. All it shows is that the prohibition will not prevent all events. Well.the sister of a victim served as an emotive effect. The petition was started by students of l'Ecole Polytechnique and professional lobbyists. Of course it had an emotive effect. And the lobbying succeeded to cause the creation of the registry, which is widely regarded as a failure. It probably won't last very long. Just to be clear, are you implying that this slaughter was planned by the government to change the laws?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 27, 2007 0:46:50 GMT -4
In 1978 Canadian Parliament passed legislation requiring a Firearms Acquisition Certificate be filled out before purchasing a rifle. Politicians who thought more could be done heatedly debated the legislation. In the end, NDP leader Tommy Douglas said, "Half a loaf is better than none … I believe that someday we will have the techniques to register all guns." The Gun Control Story in Canada www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheGunControlStory.htmlWhat are you talking about exactly? Yes, there was gun control even before the Polytechnique slaughter. All it shows is that the prohibition will not prevent all events. Returning to the Virginia case topic. IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN ONLY ‘ONE CIVILIAN’ WITH A WEAPON TO STOP THE MADMAN. THIS IS WHY GUN CONTROL SUCKS!
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 27, 2007 2:14:41 GMT -4
[Returning to the Virginia case topic. IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN ONLY ‘ONE CIVILIAN’ WITH A WEAPON TO STOP THE MADMAN. THIS IS WHY GUN CONTROL SUCKS! And what would you be saying if that one civilian with a weapon had been shot by a police officer who thought they were shooting the gunman?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 27, 2007 2:37:01 GMT -4
It would have only taken one student playing hero to a) shoot another student playing hero, b) shoot a cop, c) been shoot by a cop, d) been shot by Chao and given him another gun to use.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Apr 27, 2007 7:26:41 GMT -4
Returning to the Virginia case topic. IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN ONLY ‘ONE CIVILIAN’ WITH A WEAPON TO STOP THE MADMAN. THIS IS WHY GUN CONTROL SUCKS! A little scenario for you: You are in the area of the next shooting with your gun and you see someone with a gun shooting at someone else who you can't see, what do you do?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 27, 2007 9:27:16 GMT -4
IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN ONLY ‘ONE CIVILIAN’ WITH A WEAPON TO STOP THE MADMAN. THIS IS WHY GUN CONTROL SUCKS! It would have only taken one student playing hero to a) shoot another student playing hero, b) shoot a cop, c) been shoot by a cop, d) been shot by Chao and given him another gun to use. The idea behind this is not one student playing heroe.. But if at least one student have a gun among those who were killed the situation would have been different. In other words the fact that students are all disarmed make them vulnerable. Note I am not suggesting that in elementary school students must be armed.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 27, 2007 10:58:06 GMT -4
There are two possible scenarios: a) Students who legally qualify are allowed to carry guns on campus and can therefore defend themselves from muggers, shooters, etc. with the understanding that there may be occasional accidents. b) Students are not allowed to carry guns on campus, and cannot defend themselves from regular crimes. Maniacs like Cho will be able to kill unopposed until the police arrive.
Risk/benefit again. Does the risk of accidental shootings outweigh the risk of being largely defenseless against criminals and maniacs?
Virginia Tech's answer was no, and Cho's massacre was the result.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 27, 2007 11:11:04 GMT -4
Or, as "students who legally qualify" de facto includes "maniacs" like Cho, the place could wind up looking like a war zone every week....
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 27, 2007 11:41:15 GMT -4
Would Cho have still chosen Virginia Tech campus as the site of his rampage if he didn't know that no law-abiding citizen could legally have a gun there? He was trying to maximize the number of people he took with him, and he chose a target that forbade guns.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 27, 2007 11:41:47 GMT -4
There are two possible scenarios: a) Students who legally qualify are allowed to carry guns on campus and can therefore defend themselves from muggers, shooters, etc. with the understanding that there may be occasional accidents. Legally qualifying to own a gun doesn't always result in their safe use. If that were the case then there would be no gun crimes or accidents at all. No matter how well trained and well intentioned a gun owner is, there is always the risk they will kill or injure an innocent person... especially in a scenario like Virginia Tech. Having undergone driving training and obtaining a driver's license doesn't guaranty you won't get into an accident. The difference between cars and guns is that car serve a purpose other than injuring or killing. Cho obtained his guns through currently legal methods. Up until the point where he pulled the trigger the only rule he violated was the University's ban on guns. You can't assume that if gun ownership was illegal he would have still been able to obtain one illegally. Cocaine possession is illegal... I have no idea how to obtain it even if I wanted it because dealers don't advertise their services openly. Make gun ownership illegal and the majority of people will obey that law, and those of who still want one will have a harder time obtaining it because most people don't know how to interact with the black market. Plus, people would be worried about getting caught in a police sting and would avoid the black market for the most part. Only the most intent criminals will get guns. I still don't believe that having more guns in the school would have resulted in fewer deaths, and I can just as easily see it resulting in more. If accidental shootings had bumped the death count up to 40 rather than 33 then yes. Stun guns could have prevented this just as easily, without any loss of life other than what Cho managed before being subdued. Friendly fire from a stun gun is nowhere near as big a concern. There are other defenses against the rare muggings etc. You don't need a weapon capable of killing in order to defend yourself. And again, the kind of criminals who are willing to risk prison time in order to own a gun likely won't be small time muggers. The best defense against a mugger is to simply hand over your wallet. I don't carry much cash, credit cards can be canceled and have safeguards against unauthorized purchases, and my driver's license etc. can be replaced. Heck, letting a mugger use my credit card briefly could even lead to his arrest because his purchases can be tracked. Handing over my wallet is not the end of the world, and it's certainly not worth risking my life for. I also wouldn't be able to live with myself if I shot and killed a mugger over the $20 in my wallet.
|
|