|AnimeGalleries [dot] Net||AnimeWallpapers [dot] Com||AnimeLyrics [dot] Com||AnimePedia [dot] Com||AnimeGlobe [dot] Com|
Last edited by Eris; 12-15-2012 at 03:26 AM.
Hey look, Japan made a movie about me!
Most schools have reinforced windows. It's going to take more than one thrown chair to break it, and if the killer is dumb enough to turn his back to a potential threat, then why would you throw the chair at the window when you could instead beat the killer with it?Originally Posted by Eris:2736241
But it really doesn't take that long to mix two things together. Hell, you could prepare it beforehand and just open the container there. Voila!
Eris said, anyone can use a gun. The point is, not allowing any citezen to possess a gun, legally or otherwise would minimise incidents such as this in the first place.
It pains me to say this, but in this day and age, the only way to ensure real protection of children on school premises is through millitary intervention, and so that essentially, innappropriate weapons are not allowed anywhere near school premises to begin with. Ideally, it'd be nice to see schools managing themselves without the presence of millitary personell at all (i.e. so that they look more like schools and less like detention camps); but the alternative is to risk more incidents like this. Of course, the obviousness as to what should be done to avoid mass school killings on this scale doesn't make it any easier to implement; ultimately the question is whether American taxpayers are prepared to pay more to their governent for the necessary protection of their children.
The alternative is for the surrounding society to look deep within itself and ask, "Why are these things happening?". Incidents like this are, however you look at it, a reflection on the surrounding society, and while it can't be held accountable for the killer's actions, it may well be partly responsible for the path he took in his life. Basically, I'm saying that one thing leads to another--actions are not born out of thin air.
In any case, the notion that guns are necessary to protect people is certainly not reflected in the US's crime statistics. There are other countries in the world that permit around the same standards of living and with them it's illegal for citezens (i.e. civillians) to possess firearms; (Japan and Austrailia to name but a few); yet most (if not all) do not have anywhere near as alarming crime statistics. In the end the difference boils down to social development.
As much as I wish the incident had not happened, I'm not at all surprised that it did--in fact I'd almost go so far as to say that it was enevitable. School killings (at least on this scale) seem to be a relatively recent phenomenon; to me this would suggest that something has gone fundamentally wrong with--and I'm going to say it because it has to said--western society as a whole.
Last edited by .:neuko:.; 12-15-2012 at 02:30 PM.
I can't believe such a person killed our future generation
Hearing stuff like this just makes me feel sick to the core.
How many more times is this going to happen before they decide that they need to impose some form of gun ownership restriction in the USA.
~Made by me~
(It's actually of my bassoon!)
It's too bad this kind of sheltered american pastime has degraded from high school shootings to elementary school shootings. Why doesn't this ever happen at Rockefeller University, at a bank, in parliament, congress, or a police station? No one should ever miss the people dead there. I am displeased with this.
Also, lol @ video interview:
"-Hundreds of shots?
-That's what she said.."
Sad times. However, the screw up with the other Lanza dude was a little chuckle inducing.
You want to know why crime is not EVERYWHERE, and only tends to be strong in "bad neighborhoods"? It's because people who are innocent, and legally have guns, can shoot criminals. Right now criminals are SCARED of their victims, which is why most people in their life NEVER EXPERIENCE A CRIME FIRST-HAND. Only about 1% of people in our society are ever a robbery victim. In a country with an absolute gun-ban, 99% of the people in the country would be robbed AT LEAST ONCE in their life, and at least half of those would be ARMED ROBBERY!
We often don't feel safe with guns being legal especially after a crime like this, but that "lack of safety with guns being legal" is merely AN ILLUSION! If you ban guns, you will TRULY NEVER BE SAFE AGAIN!!!!!
AND DON'T TELL ME TO JUST CALL 911. If someone breaks in to my house and I call 911 and the nearest cop-car is 1 mile away, it will still take ONE WHOLE MINUTE even if the cop car is going 60mph! And that's if I'm LUCKY enough that there's one a mile from me. However even one minute is MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME for a person to SHOOT ME, STEAL MY WALLET, AND ESCAPE. If I had a gun in my hand, and I met the burglar at the door as he kicked it in, with my gun in hand pointed at him before he even had time to draw his gun. He'd THINK TWICE ABOUT PULLING HIS GUN ON ME, and he would probably LEAVE THE HOUSE IMMEDIATELY!
WE NEED GUNS TO BE SAFE! AND ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS A CRIMINAL WHO WANTS TO EMPOWER CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right, Because everyone in the U.S. is carrying a gun on them. Oh and for a country with a gun ban, Japan seems to be doing alright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Japan#Statistics
Oh and there's this.
“You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here’s why.
It’s because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he’ll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN’s article says that if the body count “holds up”, this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer’s face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer’s identity? None that I’ve seen yet. Because they don’t sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you’ve just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man’s name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.”
I don't necessarily think a COMPLETE BAN is needed, but it should be quite difficult for ppl to own a firearm as there is no place for them in day to day life.
Read the rest.Less than 48 hours after the Connecticut school shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, which took place on Dec. 14, the Westboro Baptist Church is already making plans to picket.
Wow, did not see this coming. Like, holy crap, how unpredictable.
Last edited by Anoleis; 12-15-2012 at 10:21 PM. Reason: Sarcasm
Port Arthur Massacre
Monash University Shooting
Police can't promise end to Sydney shooting spree
It literally took longer to copy-paste the URLs into a post than it did to find those on Google. Two of them are AFTER the shift to draconian gun laws. Aside from these, please look up and post crime rates (violent and not) before and after said legal changes. Critical thinking is important.
In fact, I think more people have been killed by mass bombings (in the US alone and abroad) than by mass shootings. I'll have to double check that though.
What about people who go to a shooting range and shoot at targets just for fun? Shouldn't they be allowed to continue to own guns?
I don't know of any country that has a complete gun ban (as in there is no such thing as a "gun license" because there is no such thing as legally owning a gun in the country). And if there were, the petty criminals in that country would likely upgrade their crimes to violent robberies.
You want to know why even in places with tough gun laws there is less crime? It's because of the fact that it isn't a COMPLETE BAN. The fact remains that the criminal knows that the next person he attacks MIGHT have a gun, even if there's only a 1% chance of it. And that's enough to keep most criminals away from violent crime. But I believe that if 99% of the law-abiding citizens owned a gun, criminals would be so terrified, that they would make sure their crimes didn't get them shot, so the crime rate for violent crime would be almost non-existent, and the crime rate for lesser crimes (walking off with a wallet that someone accidentally dropped, etc) would also go down significantly because nobody would know when the wallet owner (who most likely was "packing heat") would turn around and see the guy trying to take the wallet, and fire a few shots his way. So (if 99% of law-abiding citizens owned guns) violent crime would be down to less than 1% of all crime, and the chance of any crime (even nonviolent) happening to someone at some point in their life (which is like 10% in our current situation) would drop to less than 1%.
Stupid leftists advocate for ABSOLUTE BAN ON ALL GUNS.
I advocate for A COMPLETELY ARMED SOCIETY. Right now, while criminals are fewer than goodguys, of the guns that are currently owned by a non-cop civilian more than 50% are owned by criminals, because goodguys are AFRAID under current law that (even though guns are legal to own with the proper license) that the law might change any moment making them criminals. To convince more goodguys to go out and buy guns, we need to GUARENTY people that there will NEVER be a complete gun ban in the US. If 99% of owned guns were owned by goodguys, then the criminals would have no more desire to commit crime, and would choose to live by the law, because they'd be TOO SCARED TO COMMIT A CRIME!!!!!
---------- Post added at 04:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------
I'm not here to argue on facts and figures, I honestly can't be bothered. It is simply my personal opinion that no good ever can or will come from people owning deadly weapons (except maybe the police)
You want to know why that shooting (or any mass shooting, whether at a mall, theater, school, or college) can happen in the US? It's because THOSE PLACES are "gun free zones" (you can't carry in those places, even with a gun permit). I guarenty you if even ONE GOOD PERSON in those places had a gun, THE BAD GUY WITH THE GUN WOULD BE DEAD AFTER HIS FIRST OR SECOND SHOT, CAUSE THE GOODGUY WITH THE GUN WOULD HAVE PUT HIM DOWN FAST!!!!!! If a teacher at that school had a gun and trained to use it properly, EVEN JUST ONE TEACHER, that guy would have had time to get get off a couple shots off before the armed teacher would have run to the scene, found the shooter and killed him on the spot. And if the first act of the gun toting madman was to confront the teacher with his, she probably would have been able to see it before it was leveled at her, as he was pulling it out to shoot, she would quick-draw HER OWN GUN (just like cops you see in the movies, if she was properly trained in gun handling like cops are) and fill him with lead before he even had his gun aimed and shot, meaning no shots from his gun before he was DEAD. In schools, teachers need to be able to do double-duty, be a teacher AND be the armed security force at the school to protect the students.
TEACHERS NEED GUNS!!!!! AND SO DOES THE PRINCIPLE!!!!
As far as the sex-crime rate in Japan, where's your data? If you're gonna make a compelling statistical comment have the facts to back it.
As for my facts http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/...34893820070828
Why are police excepted? Are they the only ones who are victimized by violent criminals? Should my safety, and the safety of my family and friends, be reliant on police presence and response?It is simply my personal opinion that no good ever can or will come from people owning deadly weapons (except maybe the police)
Warren v. District of Columbia
You need to read that. I can't quote the content because it's not suitable for the general forum. The findings are irrelevant; while the courts hold that police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals (yes, that's exactly what that case states), I can say first hand that police will do their damnedest to protect when they can. It's what happened that led to the case that I want you to read.
I well and truly envy you that you've not been put in a situation where you had to use force of any kind to protect yourself or others. Some of us, at least two on this forum no less, have been put in exactly that position before.
Despite what the media makes of it, and in spite of how awful these killings are, they are still rare. The United States is huge, both in size and population. Compare its land mass and population to other parts of the world and overlay its crime rates. The US gets a bad rap because it actually reports its crimes, where many (most?) other nations cover them up as much as possible, something that's becoming harder to do because the widespread ownership and use of smartphones and social media is making it nearly impossible to keep secrets (if you don't believe me, look up the reported crime rates of most countries that are only recently showing mass tragedies; European and Asian countries in particular are prone to this).
Before you, both you specifically Jasanime and to anyone else who holds the same opinion, start stating a need for drastic change, start looking at the whole picture. Facts and numbers shouldn't be an inconvenience to making policy that effects the lives of others.
I guess I'm just old fashioned and believe that violence is never the answer. Peace :-)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)