Guncrazy USA

CNN - Pennsylvania students cope with shooting spree - April 25, 1998

 

May 9, 2001 - A stampede at a packed soccer match between two of Ghana's leading teams killed at least 100 people Wednesday night, hospital officials said. Accra's Hearts of Oak was leading Assante Kotoko 2-1 with five minutes left in the game when Assante supporters began throwing bottles and chairs onto the field, witnesses said. Police then fired tear gas, creating panic in the stands.

 

Dudenamedrob: I read your post #113, and although we obviously strongly disagree with each other, I hope that you also realize that doesn't mean I disrespect you as a person. I am sure that we have other things in common where we would agree and have a laugh.

This has shown to be a very interesting debate, however, and in many ways elucidating in the way we each see the world we live in.

Perhaps it is wrong for me, even though I have a large house in California where I stay once a year, to speak my opinion on this tragic matter. Even though it was the main item of news in almost every country in the world.

But I would like to thank Dirk Pitt for providing the most observant reply in this matter:

At last, the voice of reason. Well done, Dirk.

Imagine this, ladies and gentlemen, I am currently sitting on a train travelling towards Brussels. That's in Belgium. Using the technology available I am having a debate with some intelligent people across the Atlantic in my favourite forum.

I am not holding a gun. I am using words to express my opinion.

And yet, some, not all, are getting very worked up, over a debate which in all essence is aimed towards their safety.

So, yes, thank you again Dirk, because imagine now when citizens of other countries do not get the chance to debate over what's good for them. Instead they get cluster bombs, invasions, followed by civil wars. How must "they" feel?

Not nice, is it? If you can't handle a few words, and even "immature" name-calling, how the hell are you going to walk down the road like Clint Eastwood with a piece in your back pocket?

Xenophobic? Europeans? Hmmm....

Apart from nacht, who seems to be mentally deranged, I have not seen any threats, mortal or otherwise, made by Europeans. In fact I would welcome, a few more Americans to state their opinion against the possession of arms, but those poor people are too intimidated to venture in here from the smell of testosterone.

Mandell, if you want to shoot me, because I believe in a society where you and your children will not have to walk around in fear then you are quite welcome. Next time I am in California, I will PM you and I will leave my back door open. There will be no guards. There will be no retaliation. Or you can just come along and we can play Texas Hold 'Em by my pool and have a beer.

Shane 99X: Phew! I'll take my hat off to you! You have blown me out of the water with your arguments and hyperlinks to single-opinionated sites. It will actually take me a week to go through all that, but I get the gist.

Do I think tighter laws would have stopped Cho?

Well, hmm... let's see...

GUN CONTROL SCENARIO #1


(Cho walks into gun shop without gun.)
CHO: Can I have a gun, please?
GUN SHOP OWNER: No, you're not allowed.
CHO: OK.
(Cho walks out of gun shop without gun.)


It's a difficult one that Shane. You got me there, dude.

Dude, I've got news for you, and I don't want you to take this badly. If you want, take a seat, because this might come as a shock. Those films you saw... "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Hero" with Jet Li, and "Flying Daggers"... they weren't real, man. Sorry for this scoop and to spoil your fantasy, but I mean swords as deadly as a Gloch 9mm? I don't want to laugh at you dude, please don't make me do that, because I'm not a bad person, but you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, and there has to be a reason for that!

 

i completely agree with you.
after looking at the internet and news at what heppened i was so sad. nothing like this ever happens in new zealand and just thinking about how something like that is going to effect the lives of every single person and family that has anything to do with that school. kids are going to be scarred for life and familys are going to be broken. friendships ruined and conflict between people and groups at the school will arise. when will peace come?

but yes definitly the laws should be made stricter.

 

Oct. 20, 1982 - Moscow; 340 are reportedly killed at a European Cup match between Soviet club Spartak Moscow and Haarlem of the Netherlands. Police are blamed for pushing fans down a narrow, icy staircase before the end of the match. When a late goal is scored, exiting fans try to re-enter the stadium and create a "human mincer." Moscow officials dispute the claims made in the publication of the Soviet Sports Committee, saying only 61 died and police did not push fans.

 

May 29, 1985 - Brussels, Belgium; 39 people are killed at the European Champions Cup Final at Heysel Stadium when riots beak out and a wall separating rival fans of England's Liverpool and Italy's Juventus of Turin collapses.

 

April 15, 1989 - Sheffield, England; 95 people are crushed to death at an English FA Cup semifinal game between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, when police open gates to alleviate crowding outside Hillsborough Stadium. The resulting rush of people onto the already filled terrace sections traps fans against riot control fences ringing the field.

 

Is there any point in telling us of things that happened in footbal stadiums 20 and 30 years ago? Has this got anything to do with Guncrazy USA? Am I missing the point?

We can start talking about lemonade if you prefer or find the subject too polemic.

 

ha ha ha ha !
So how come in the whole of Europe last year only something like
600 people were killed by guns last year and yet in the United States
11,000 people were shot dead in illegal murders. You people are fucked up. You just dont see it do you ????? you just dont get civilisation. I thought you were an anarchist and now you say lets keep the bloodbath going.

White Scorpion said it

You just stop the sale of guns thats it and then you have an amnesty on guns and after the year long amnesty anyone found in possession of a weapon gets life in prison, no ifs or buts, no mitigation simply execution for murderers and life for those who carry a weapon - problem solved !

 

This is the kind of warped logic I keep seeing all the time, this idea that the solution to the gun crime problem is more guns! This is, prima facie, absurd. The problem is the widespread availability of guns in the first place, arming the whole country to the teeth will see gun crimes soar rather than fall. That's obvious.

But lots of Americans clinging on to their right to own firearms just don't see it - in fact I think many of them deep down probably do see how absurd it is, but their attraction to this symbolic right of self defence means they embrace these absurd sophistic arguments in support of their instinct. The arguments used against gun control are many and varied, and none of them make much sense on their own, but they get used in conjunction the way anyone who has a weak argument tries to support their position with lots of weak points shoring each other up.

The question is, why is there such a deep and fatal attraction to the idea of being armed in the USA? I really can't fathom it... it doesn't have any place in a modern liberal democracy. It needs to be stamped out.

 

Proud

You must realise just how spurious this connection is and how weak the argument anyone that actually though about it for a few seconds would see just how silly it is.

OH well since it has been brought up –

First off many of these events lead to changes in rules, regulations and laws.

For example the Hillsborough Stadium tragedy lead to changes in the law making large stadiums all seater and brought about changes in design and stewarding procedures.

“The inquiry into the disaster, the Taylor Report, named the cause as failure of police control, and resulted in the conversion of many football stadiums in the United Kingdom to all-seater and the removal of barriers at the front of stands”
Wiki

So do you see?

The deaths highlighted a problem, this was examined, options were discussed and the outcome was a change in the regulations and laws in the hope of curtailing future occurrences.

This seems to me to be both sensible and rational.

Now if we compare this with many pro-gunners attitude to such loss of life as the VT tragedy, it doesn’t seem sensible or rational at all.

To me the thing to do would be to examine what problems with the present system that were highlighted in the Virginian incident and see what could be done to curtailing future occurrences.

To take one example I’ve already proposed (with help from Pitt) that it might be prudent to make it the law that anyone wanting to purchase a gun would first have to pass a psychological evaluation, only those certified as being mentally stable enough to own a gun would be able to purchase one.

As Pitt has pointed out many of the people that have gone on such killing sprees have had a history of disturbing behaviour that would very likely be picked up in any psychological evaluation.

(But if I remember right Proud you rejected this, is that still your opinion?)

**

If anyone looks at Decline’s list they will see that most of the occurrences involve the design of the stadiums, such as unsuitable access and structural deficiencies.

But it must be obvious to anyone that these stadiums were not designed as weapons they were not built expressly to injure or kill.

The architect and the people that owned these building were not intending to injure or kill.

With guns it is a different matter all together.

**

I’m not a great fan of football and wouldn’t care if it were banned tomorrow but many of my (deluded ) friends think it great. But to me it seems silly to blame the game of football itself for the deficiencies of building and the procedural systems of the organizers and stewards. The sensible thing to do if these end up causing death or injury is to change the regulations to make things better and try to stop it happening again.

Your view seems to be that football is the fault and so should be banned and if it is not banned then the people watching just have to put up with dangerous stadiums and possible future accidents.

That just seems silly.

As I’ve made clear many times I’m not calling for guns to be banned but I do believe they should be properly regulated and controlled so that the risks involved are minimized.

Again your view seems to be simplistic and silly – If guns are the fault then they should be banned and if not banned then innocent people just have to put up with the possibility of being shot, injured or murdered.

But then Proud you are the one that said you wouldn’t care if a million innocent children had to die it would still be worth it to be able to own a gun.

“If it could be proven that so-called "reasonable gun control" would save 1,000 lives per year, I would still not advocate or condone such control. Same story with 10,000 lives per year. Or a million. If the lives in question were those of the sweetest, most innocent rosy-cheeked children imaginable, I would not sway in my position”
Post 179
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921&page=18&pp=10

 

Shane

Well the whole policy of a personal MAD has already been dismissed by such a pro-gun figure as Pitt.

And honestly anyone that believes that everyone should fight it out so the population drops as you seem to have in the past ("the right have the better arguement" thread) seems closer to Cho’s thinking than my own.

 

Pitt

But we have covered all this before and you still seem to be using stuff that has been shown not to be as concrete as you seemingly continue to claim.

For example you rely a lot on comparative statistics but as shown in post 367 of the MAD thread
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921&page=37&pp=10

This isn’t very reliable as the justice department says – “nor does BJS encourage comparisons of national data due to differences in classifications of crimes and methodological differences” Bureau of Justice Statistics

And as one non American statistician puts it – “For example, the USA and Canada do not appear to include minor assaults, intimidation, and threats within their definition of violent crime”

**

Also not one of your points actually seems to repute the theory I presented earlier.

It seems to be more about the suppression of problems through the use of possible violence rather than a desire to actually deal with the societal problems that are the reason why the suppression seems to be needed.

So it in fact if anything it back up my theory.

**

“If you look at the history of "school Shooters" almost all have a history of disturbing behavior. Even this guy Cho Seung-Hui, didnt this guy have a professor recomment counseling previously?”

We’ve discussed this at length it was why I proposed after talking with you that –

““Anyone wanting to purchase a gun would first have to pass a psychological evaluation, that evaluation would have to be retaken every year, failure to have an up to date evaluation would result in the confiscation of the gun and a heavy fine.”

Now I don’t think Cho would have passed such an evaluation and so could not of being able to purchase those guns.

Wouldn’t this be a good idea to be made into law?

**

As to the clichés they are always overly simplistic and often contain little of truth as I’ve pointed out to you in the past.

For example “A Gun is like a condom I would rather have one and not need it than need it and not have one”

Remember you used it in post 371
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921&page=38&pp=10

Here is my reply in post 379 -

[Pitt]“Again its like a condom, I (me personally) would rather have one and not need it, than not have one and need it.

[Balbus] But using a gun to protect you from crime is not like having a condom, what are you saying that a woman is going to ‘threaten’ you with sex and you are going to ‘deter’ her by waving a condom at her? Wouldn’t you want to use the condom but I presume that you would not want to use the gun?

The condom was invented as a means to gratify a desire for sex without (hopefully) suffering the consequences that may arise due to having sex.

The gun is what? Well primarily it was invented to kill people.

Also as we have covered in several places in the thread you admit that you don’t always carry a gun. So it is not a matter of having a gun at all times just in case it is needed but of somehow knowing in advance that you might need it.

Which seems to imply a foreknowledge of an attack.”
Post 379 Page 38
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921&page=38&pp=10

**

As to the thing about people being the ones that kill not guns, it’s a matter of harm reduction and access.

A person with a knife might get one or two
With a hand gun a few more, with a machine gun a lot more with a block of C4 a lot more still and with a nuke a hell of a lot.

Are you then saying that you think it a good idea that everyone have access to any weapon they wish, since it isn’t the weapons fault if it is used?

If someone with mental problems then blow up a whole city would you be as dismissive of the harm caused?

**

 

May 9, 2001 - A stampede at a packed soccer match between two of Ghana's leading teams killed at least 100 people Wednesday night, hospital officials said. Accra's Hearts of Oak was leading Assante Kotoko 2-1 with five minutes left in the game when Assante supporters began throwing bottles and chairs onto the field, witnesses said. Police then fired tear gas, creating panic in the stands. 2001 was not 30 years ago.

 

April 11, 2001 - At least 43 people were killed at a football match between South Africa's two biggest teams. The stampede began as a crowd tried to get into Ellis Park stadium in Johannesburg to watch the match between Kaizer Chiefs and Orlando Pirates.

 

Oct. 16, 1996 - Guatemala City; At least 78 people died and about 180 others were injured during a stampede at a stadium before a World Cup qualifying match between Guatemala and Costa Rica.

 

Oh come on Pitt, we have been through this before, are you going to keep going around in circles again?

As pointed out comparisons between the US and UK are difficult because the societies are different.

You said on page one of ‘Gun ownership is MAD?’
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189921&page=1&pp=10

That from the statistics you had read “violent crime in the UK has risen dramatically since the famous "gun Ban"

My reply tried to put “gun related homicides for the UK and US in context

UK – 73 (2001, BBC)

USA - 11,348 (2001, University of Utah)

The UK has 60 million people compared with the USA’s of 250 –280 million so lets boost the UK’s figure

60 million – 70 deaths
120 million – 140 deaths
180 million – 210 deaths
240 million – 280 deaths
300 million – 350 deaths

In fact I believe to get to the USA’s levels of gun related homicides we would need to increase the UK’s population some 160 times to 9,600 million people, the worlds population at this time is only 6,500 million”

I would ask you who do you think has the greater problems?

 

oh by the way here is the breakdown from post 24

"the total number of gun related deaths in the US in 2001 was 29,573

Suicide 16,869
Homicide 11,348
Accident 802
Legal Intervention 323
Undetermined 231

The total number of gun related deaths in the UK in 2001 was 167 of which 73 were crime related and the others suicides and accidents. There were no police fatalities in that year.

Think about it, the US’s ‘Undetermined’ gun deaths far exceed the UK’s total figures"

 

Pitt


Again your pushing of the idea that guns are a good way of suppressing social problems is just backing up my theory.


**

 

Decline go read post 141 it was meant for you as well as proud

**