Well I am a big kid at heart, like most here I am sure 8) The incident in Colorado has kinda put me off of this movie. I am not afraid of going to a theater, that's not it at all. I personally don't think I can go to my local theater right now and watch this with out thinking about what just transpired.
Perhaps I should share that I worked 23 years as a full time electrician and part time IT guy for 2 mental hospitals.
I found Terragen to be a relaxing distraction from people like this.
-Bill.
Yeah it's a shame and sad that TDKR is suffering due to this idiot. I can imagine that you feel it's not appropriate to go and see it now and especially enjoying it.
The tragedy and loss of the people is far more sad of course.
"Only in America", we say here in The Netherlands (as well), "where you can buy weapons legally, you can expect this to happen from time to time".
And as long as the citizens themselves do not see the problem of having a gun yourself at home then this will keep on happening again from time to time.
Guns should be illegal at any time and shooting ranges where you can shoot for sports, should keep the guns somewhere locked away only to be used on the range.
We should do it anyway. Enjoy the film, even if it means taking a couple of days to get things in perspective. This might be the best of the trilogy.
I won't miss it.
http://www.swedishwire.com/nordic/10742-survivors-of-norway-massacre-speak-of-horror-
Not only in America. And don't forget the Arab world where this thing happens on a much larger and more heinous scale, only more frikken unbelievable in scope and utterly without any reason whatsoever - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/world/middleeast/03iraq.html or http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/24/us-russia-blast-airport-idUSTRE70N2TQ20110124
So, when trying to disarm Americans, one of the few places allowed to protect ourselves from criminals, it aint gonna happen.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on July 21, 2012, 01:19:01 PM
Yeah it's a shame and sad that TDKR is suffering due to this idiot. I can imagine that you feel it's not appropriate to go and see it now and especially enjoying it.
The tragedy and loss of the people is far more sad of course.
"Only in America", we say here in The Netherlands (as well), "where you can buy weapons legally, you can expect this to happen from time to time".
And as long as the citizens themselves do not see the problem of having a gun yourself at home then this will keep on happening again from time to time.
Guns should be illegal at any time and shooting ranges where you can shoot for sports, should keep the guns somewhere locked away only to be used on the range.
Quote from: calico on July 21, 2012, 07:23:33 PM
http://www.swedishwire.com/nordic/10742-survivors-of-norway-massacre-speak-of-horror-
Not only in America. And don't forget the Arab world where this thing happens on a much larger and more heinous scale, only more frikken unbelievable in scope - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/world/middleeast/03iraq.html or http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/24/us-russia-blast-airport-idUSTRE70N2TQ20110124
So, when trying to disarm Americans, one of the few places allowed to protect ourselves from criminals, it aint gonna happen.
Calico you have really an interesting mindset ::)
The links you gave are about religion , politics etc.
They make them not right of course!
Abolutely not!
But in America the mass murders are mostly right stupid and only have some weird psychological reasons mostly . They are more selfishly etc.
But you can easily say " and utterly without any reason whatsoever" about the others. :o
"So, when trying to disarm Americans, one of the few places allowed to protect ourselves from criminals, it aint gonna happen."And what does your government do ?
Do they not protect you?
They have maybe other more important things to do like invading Irak ?
What do you do at nights do you wait with your magnum all night in fear?
How many arms do you have in your arsenal...ops home?
I understand that you will try to defend your country in some way,
but please try to make some reasonably comparison.
Because in this way you look more like a (excuse me) racist fascist .
I am not saying that you are one but with your post it really looks so.
Go to the hospital where the mother is and say to her your 6 years old girl is death but the Arabs and Muslims do much worse... :o
It is strange how you can try to put others in a bad spot by using this atack !
I am really sorry for everyone that suffered :(
Edit : This is an American too :
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/07/the_body_count.html
The right to keep and bear arms is a foundational, and fundamental right in the United States. It was made so by the people and is maintained by the people. Those who wrote the right to defend ones self against their own government or any group or individual, were among the wisest people of their time. And I have heard nothing here or any place else to make me believe that there is a better way to insure personal liberty than the right to own a fire arm.
I own two. And I will not give them up because of this tragedy any sooner than I will give up my right to free speech because someone else through words alone, inspires a bombing.
Limiting rights or flat out taking them away solves nothing. The problem is in peoples hearts and minds, not their hands. This is not the first mass murder in that city, it wont be the last. There is something sick in the culture there, and its not firearms.
Not going to see a movie does nothing to help the people who are suffering. Do you think Bat Man had something to do with this? Not going to see a film in order to pay honor to the dead is cheap and laughable, and terribly sad. Why not turn off your computers for a day? That makes just as much sense.
The Man who did these killings was also building bombs, by the way. Better that he used a gun than explosives.
I do not agree what you say in your post TheBadger but it is debatable what you say!
But Calico's aproach is not in the same way.
That is the reason i posted otherwise you have these kind of arguments for long years already and probably this will not the last one.
I do not know about Calico's. I did not read the links. I really am tired from this subject though. The first thing people say when things like this happen is, "lets get the guns!". No one ever says, "why was that man alone all the time. "Why is mental health in this country not a top priority?".
No. Its just, "lets get the guns! That will solve all our problems!". Its such simple minded bull shit I cant stand it.
How about this one... "The things you say make me want to be Violent. Therefore, I think we should cut out your tongue, so I will no longer feel violent." Its the same thing, to me.
TheBadger if someone here has really good reasons to have a gun he can.
My brother has one. It is legal . But you have to go through some bureaucratic stages.
And i am not against it. The problem is why should every one get so easily such guns?
The wise man you mention lived in a much much different period .
Are we really not better than those times now?
Are all what they said right and true 200 hundred years later?
If i lived at those times i would say the same as you, but now? No thanks!
People who are in a position that is understandable
(my brother has a house right in a forest ) could and probably should have a right to have a gun as they have here.
But why should be everyone entitled to this.
There are so much problematic guys everywhere.
In insisting that this is your right you open the door to many armed maniacs.
I am sure that you will shoot no one in your life , but they will , TheBadger that is the problem!
Hey Kadri. I was wondering where you were! Glad your talking again. Have to meet your points though, just cant help my self. Since I finished school I never get to argue with anyone. Well just my wife, but thats not any fun :)
QuoteThe problem is why should every one get so easily such guns?
Yes lets start restricting guns based on... income? Lets make it so expensive poor people cant get them. No, lets just ban them all together. Because in a nation of 300+ million people that will work. It works in Chicago! ::)
Sorry for the sarcasm but at this late hour I find its the easiest path forward.
QuoteThe wise man you mention lived in a much much different period...Are we really not better than those times now?
Things are much worse now. Now kids walk in to public places and murder large numbers of their own people for no reason.
Own people? Ok, you got me on that one. Probably we are nearly as divided a nation as before our civil war. Even almost 1/3 of my own people want to take away some of my constitutional rights, rights my Grandfather bled for, and screamed in his sleep from memories, until the day he died. Rights that I understand because he taught me. Rights that only people who don't understand, want to take away.
QuoteAre all what they said right and true 200 hundred years later?
The Truth is always the Truth. Only facts change.
QuoteBut why should be everyone entitled to this
Everyone is not entitled to this. Rights are not entitlements. Understanding the difference will go a long way to helping you understand why we have gun Rights... Everyone in the US does not have the right to own a gun, just a fact.
QuoteIf i lived at those times i would say the same as you, but now? No thanks!
No, but you live in a nation whos' people have suffered under one tyrant after another for thousands of years.
I consider Turkey an important member of western civilization since the times of the eastern empire. Do you really think that just because western and Eastern Europe, as well as parts of the middle east (including Turkey) have seen relative peace and prosperity for 50 years or so, that you wont see War and Tyranny again? The regions and lands I mentioned have been, up to WW2, in a constant state of war and tyranny for at least two thousand years. It will happen again.
I would think the peoples of the lands I mentioned would want the same rights I have. Without restriction I mean.
QuoteIn insisting that this is your right you open the door to many armed maniacs
I don't need to insist on anything. Owning a gun IS my right... I have not opened any doors in this mater. Its been this way for more than 200 years. And its worked pretty well over all.
And maniacs don't need rights to own a gun, they don't care about laws. The Law has never prevented a single crime, but only gives us a civil recourse after a crime has already been committed. The purpose of law is not to prevent crime but to provide justice. We do not need law to teach us what is right, we need it to compel us to do justice.
If he did not have a gun, he would have used a bomb, or gas, or an air plane.
QuoteI am sure that you will shoot no one in your life , but they will
I will kill any man who causes me to fear for the life of my Wife and Son. And for their sake I will defend my own life with violence. I will kill with out mercy or hesitation anyone who I believe represents an immediate and certain danger to my family, if I am able.
Believe it.
*Just to bring this back to TDKR. This same conversation that we are having was held in the film. Although it was in a funny sorta way. It was between cat woman and bat man, when cat woman saves bat man from baine (bane, bain?) by using a gun. Just wanted to mention that.
TheBadger you really stick to your gun :)
Bad times may come here but it seems your culture needs really some care .
If some one doesn't want to give up his "right" for owning guns for reasons you and others present ,
your country has some deep emotional,social ,psychological and what not problems.
The only ones who really benefit are the gun makers.
We have many problems here like suicide bombers from this or that side and many people die in the eastern parts,
but no one is crying loud that everybody should own guns.
I have not the urge to go further with this.
We clearly see this in a much different way :)
QuoteTheBadger you really stick to your gun
LOL! You are funny and very diplomatic! These are good skills Kadri, I am sure you do pretty well in your life. I think these skills are why people like you so much. 8)
QuoteWe clearly see this in a much different way
Of Course we do. We are different, we come from different places. This is not a bad thing at all.
Cheers Kadri! ;)
*PS
QuoteBad times may come here but it seems your culture needs really some care
Yes!!! There is something very sick in the heart of my country now. I think everyone is starting to take notice of it. I hope we can fix it.
Yes , Cheers :)
Quote from: calico on July 21, 2012, 07:23:33 PM
...
So, when trying to disarm Americans, one of the few places allowed to protect ourselves from criminals, it aint gonna happen.
...
This is exactly my point Rob. This idea is being spoonfed into every US citizen, but does it have a solid base? No.
The law and law-enforcement need to do that.
People can't be cop, judge and executioner at the same time. The majority is simply too dumb for that.
Quote from: TheBadger on July 21, 2012, 09:30:38 PM
The right to keep and bear arms is a foundational, and fundamental right in the United States. It was made so by the people and is maintained by the people. Those who wrote the right to defend ones self against their own government or any group or individual, were among the wisest people of their time. And I have heard nothing here or any place else to make me believe that there is a better way to insure personal liberty than the right to own a fire arm.
The wisest doctors over a century ago performed a lot of unnecessary amputations and thought that blood-letting cured everything. Now, we know better ;)
Maybe it was a good solution then, but it's not of this time anymore. Or is it when you consider that a lot of US citizens are still kind of brainwashed by this 'foundation' and 'fundamental law'??
I see why Rob (calico) churned out links about politics and especially religion.
Keeping weapons at home for your own protection is a fallacy and embraced as a religion? Or am I exaggerating?
What about my rights to NOT be terrified of your "right" to terrify me with your guns!.
Its a beautiful sunny Sunday in England's Somerset, the birds are singing and there is not a cloud in the sky. However this tranquil idyll is punctuated by the local gun club having a shoot in the field close by. It's their right, apparently. It's their right to hold a killing machine and wave it about like a flag advertising their freedom and ownership. There is also a public right of way footpath through said field.
Maybe I should walk over there and politely ask them to stop.
Maybe they could shoot things when the rest of us are not resting.
Or do it indoors, or not do it, or take up archery!
Maybe they find the sound of gunfire restful.
I don't!
Guns terrify me and anybody who has one terrifies me too. That includes the police.
What about my rights to NOT be terrified.
Richard
S:going to see Dark Knight on Wednesday :)
Interesting debate, but as often, people don't talk about the same thing, mix things up and then the discussion becomes pointless.
I will attemt to be precise in the following::
1 - the killing in Colorado would not have been prevented by a fire arms ban in the US, or elsewhere for that matter. Psychopaths across the globe will be able to get access to guns for money everywhere in the world. Because they go on killing with a (sick) purpose, fueled by their madness of some sort, fire arms ban = useless
2 - Now, most of the death toll by fire arms aren't attributed to psychopaths running amok. Most of the deaths happen in criminal environments, in robberies, drug wars, turf wars, and..... But also alot of them in anger, in affect, often combined with drugs or alcohol. In cases like these, when a relativel normal person is being angered, and he doesn't have gun at his disposal, chances are he isn't going to kill anyone, feel strong and invincible. The person might still resort to violence, or depending on the situation, retreat. For that benefit alone, I think societies should ban guns. Then secondly, there are situations such as a person threatening you with a gun, wanting your purse. Now, if I don't have a gun, I will render the purse, and most likely survive. If I had a gun, I might be tempted to defend myself, in which case at least one death will be inevitable, most likely mine.
Bottom line, nothing will ever prevent maniacs from runing amok. But banning guns will save a lot of lives regardless, for those situations mentioned above.
Frank
T-U,
QuoteThe wisest doctors over a century ago performed a lot of unnecessary amputations and thought that blood-letting cured everything. Now, we know better
I would say that those Dr.'s were not very wise. But the wisdom of Americas founders remains.
I have to say I am surprised by your strong opinion on this matter, relative to you clear lack of knowledge of american history, culture and values, and our constitution. For example, the insinuation that your opinion of the American constitution is some how equal to, or greater than the knowledge and wisdom of Americas founders, and the american people is a little silly. Its almost as though you believe that if Americans have rights, than it some how effects your nation? Its really strange.
cyphyr,
QuoteWhat about my rights to NOT be terrified of your "right" to terrify me with your guns!.
I did not know the American people had invaded England and were terrorizing you with civilian weaponry. There is a total news black out here! Tell us who's winning?!
I'm sorry guys, but your posts are making no sense at all.
*(edit) cyphyr! Sorry man, I re-read your post and realized I completely misunderstood what you were trying to say. Please disregard my sarcasm.
FrankB,
Thank you for thinking! There by giving your personal opinion on this matter some value. But I do disagree most strongly with your final point:
QuoteBut banning guns will save a lot of lives regardless, for those situations mentioned above.
The FACT is, that guns have been banned in Chicago for a long time, and even now it is very hard for a Law abiding citizen to get a gun. Yet Chicago has the highest gun death rate of any city in the U.S. You pointed out that criminals kill criminals, but in Chicago innocent people are dying because they have almost no rights to defend them selves. The gangsters get guns from all over the world, they even steel them from the Police. But honest Chicagoans cannot even protect them selves in their own homes.
Point of fact: police departments in the U.S. have no legal obligation to protect anyone, or enforce any law. It is voluntary department by department. There are some very good reasons for this.
The U.S. death toll in Chicago is higher than the U.S, death toll in Afghanistan. The numbers: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html
You were right about almost everything except the notion that,"banning guns will save a lot of lives regardless". In this you are terribly wrong, it has in fact increased the death toll. JUst like it does in many places around the world. Innocent people die because of gun bans. Criminals die anyway.
Hi Michael,
your observations are most probably right. However, Chicago is a "gun free island", amid a country where guns are easily obtained. How hard is it to leave Chicago, buy arms, then return back home? Probably not hard at all. So for the people in Chicago, it must seem that the citizens have been disarmed, while criminals haven't. That's an unfair battle.
Michael, my conclusion was rather that a gun ban will prevent people from making use of guns when things go wrong, in anger, in affect. How hard is it for a young man in a socially unstable / poor part of the town to get a gun. How far do you need to go to anger the young man so that he draws the gun? Not far at all I reckon. How is the youth crime rate in the US citites?
However, you have also touched on another important point earlier. Banning guns will not help as such. There is a long way to go to care for the mental health of people in the first place. Also, to bridge the vast divide between rich and poor, between educated and illiterate, between justice and injustice. That is the true task for a sane society, and ideally it goes along with a ban of firearms.
regards,
Frank
Quote from: TheBadger on July 22, 2012, 05:49:00 PM
T-U,
QuoteThe wisest doctors over a century ago performed a lot of unnecessary amputations and thought that blood-letting cured everything. Now, we know better
I would say that those Dr.'s were not very wise. But the wisdom of Americas founders remains.
This is probably the finest example of cognitive dissociation :)
Everything is relative, as I explained. Those doctors back then were really the smartest/wisest, but didn't know any better than we do to today.
There's little to no arguing in that and that it would also apply to the founders of America. As the doctors their wisdom isn't ever lasting, so is the wisdom of America's founders,unless one considers America's founder's wisdom of biblical proportions which closes the loop with associated cognitive dissociation.
So what I mean; what else is there to be discussed if one uses arguments like these?
It's the same between men of science vs. men of religion where after a debate the men of religion always says "it remains to be seen the methodes of science are true, I actually don't believe in them, they are not right and never have been" = end of discussion.
Things have changed, but the foundation doesn't change accordingly.
Consider the music industry who's businessmodel is dying, because the world changed.
So, Frank says the following:
Quote from: FrankB on July 23, 2012, 04:05:41 AM
...
However, you have also touched on another important point earlier. Banning guns will not help as such. There is a long way to go to care for the mental health of people in the first place. Also, to bridge the vast divide between rich and poor, between educated and illiterate, between justice and injustice. That is the true task for a sane society, and ideally it goes along with a ban of firearms.
regards,
Frank
The latter is important. Why does Europe have a ban of firearms? How did they get to their sane society as Frank mentions?
Briefly, it's in the foundation. Why?
"We" Europeans (not as the Union per se) grew up/are used to a socially structured society with lots of social services.
The foundation is to have very accessible (higher) education. Consequently you eliminate illiteration and the effect is that one's chances of being "succesful" are a lot more equal than in the US, because everyone simply gets the same opportunities and possibilities to develop himself.
Later on in life some people made good use and some didn't because they could be from a lower social class for example with less social skills, less connections. Just to name a few. However, the big difference is that they are not illiterates, have social security and despite there low salaries they still can make a living. The whole society pays for this. I pay for people who didn't make use of opportunities or in the worst case do shit/nothing. That's the system. But they stilll have a house, food, education and healthcare.
The foundation of US's society is that one takes care of himself. I can compare the paragraph above line by line but I think the point is clear.
There's one big advantage over Europe and that is that when you are succesful and worked your ass off then you can keep it almost entirely for yourself. However, it makes the gap between the rich and poor bigger and blablabla...
So as long as US people keep voting on rednecks from Texas to play war- oil-games instead of building up a social system for healthcare for example then there's a looong way to go.
I was so horrified to see Obama being depicted as Hitler on Union Square in San Francisco and I couldn't believe it was considered normal by the people I spoke with there (mostly the average guy sitting next to me in a pub). If that's how sane society is?
p.s. I did like travelling through the US nonetheless ;)
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on July 23, 2012, 04:37:00 AM
...
I was so horrified to see Obama being depicted as Hitler on Union Square in San Francisco ...
Really? How dumb is that? How do people make the connection between Hitler and Obama? Duh....
Yeah, I guess my post didn't make much sense, sorry about that.
I was awoken (slight hangover) to the sound of gun fire and this thread was at the top of my page. The rest is history as they say.
I have to say I completely agree with Frank, however you do make some interesting points.
It may be true that the experiment in Chicago with banning guns has failed and the reasons are pretty clear, you can still get guns elsewhere. Maybe it's too late for America. Gun ownership has become too ubiquitous, too "normal", to be easily turned around. However in the UK it is still a relatively rare occurrence, most people do not own guns even in the countryside, hence my anger at seeing/hearing it practically on my door step.
QuoteI did not know the American people had invaded England and were terrorizing you with civilian weaponry. There is a total news black out here! Tell us who's winning?!
You didn't!? I'm surprised.
The effect of Hollywood and popular culture exported from America is well documented. If Batman and similar films had no guns or violence I would doubt their success or appeal. Guns give their owners almost god like powers, being able to extend ones reach way beyond the personal sphere. The result is intoxicating and proven to be extremely dangerous.
A couple of links showing the deaths due to fire arms world wide.
USA=31,918 UK=14 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms)
USA=10.27/100,000 UK=0.52/100,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate)
The data from these links is varied (due to sourcing methods and interpretation) but the trend is consistent and the difference between the USA and western Europe is quite dramatic although Switzerland dose stand out as a country where gun ownership is actually required and gun crime is low (so it "can" work).
I think Frank and Martin have just expressed my views very well especially about social services and education.
Cheers
Richard
@cyphyr
Hi Richard, I edited my post that was in response to what you wrote above. I re read your post and realized I totally miss took what you were saying. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I still disagree with your position, but as it is a personal one I can at least respect it.
@FrankB,
Hey Frank.
Since I used Chicago as an example, I should make some things more clear.
The gun laws in Chicago are stricter than the rest of the state of Illinois, of which Chicago is the largest city, but the state of Illinois has nearly the same laws.
You can think of Illinois like france, and Wisconsin (for example) like Germany in terms of size and proximity to one another. And if you were to talk to someone from Chicago and someone from Wisconsin you would hear a difference in the language. In terms of culture, the two states may as well be two different countries. I have a reason for putting it this way that will be clear in a moment.
In Wisconsin where I am from, not only can you wear a gun on your belt without a permit, you can also take a safety course and obtain a permit that allows a citizen to wear a firearm in a concealed manor. Additionally, in the state of Wisconsin, one can buy and own a fully automatic machine gun and military grade sound suppressor. Although on the suppressor and machine gun there is a lot of bureaucratic hurdles at both the state and federal levels. And in order to obtain those military weapons you must give up some rights. For example, the ATF can enter your home without notice or warrant to check the status of the weapons.
Illinois and Wisconsin have the same social and economic problems at the individual and community levels. Yet Wisconsin has non of the violence and corruption that you see in Chicago and in other parts of Illinois. Even in Milwaukee, Wisconsin's largest city, where there is some serious problems, there is nothing like what you will see if you live in Illinois. The two states may as well be two different countries. One upholds the U.S. constitution and the other does not. Guess which state has all the problems?
So when you want to import illegal guns into Chicago, you don't just have to leave the city, you have to leave the country, so to speak. So I ask you, how hard is it for a criminal in berlin to cross a border and bring back a single hand gun? Not hard I bet. Or are you saying that there is no gun crime in Europe?
If you look at the statistics in the States, you will see that the gun crime is all in the places with gun bans. I do not know which came first. But I think that It is better to shoot than to be shot.
You asked about the youth crime rate, but I'm afraid I don't know about the ages of people, I have read repeatedly that within the inner cities it is very high, especially in minority communities.
You keep saying that a gun ban will stop something, "How far do you need to go to anger the young man so that he draws the gun?". You mention social status, economics and education. You say that it is poor uneducated people who are the danger, so much so, that we need to ban guns for everyone. But I am, I think, highly educated relative to most of my peers, I am also very poor as a result of that education. I can tell you I never learned morality in school, and even though I am poor I have never even thought to do a murder out of anger.
Violence and gun murders do not come as as a result of poverty and a lack of education, but from a lack of morality. From evil. From the animal side of man. You can not ban those things, so banning guns will not fix or stop them. But having a gun, and knowing how and when to use it can save you from those things.
To your last point, good Sir. You say that the task of a sane society includes gun bans. But I say anyone who gives up their right to defend themselves and their families is insane, or a coward. I will not forsake my duties as a husband, father, son, or brother, and I will not depend on others do what is entrusted with me. I hope that I will have help if I ever need it, but I wont rely on it, that would be stupid.
Also, Tactical shooting is a great sport, one that I think is superior to golf and baseball. I know you guy like 'football' over there. But I like sports that are more about self improvement. And all though shooting is a sport, it is no game. Im to old to be playing games.
@T-U
Just about everything you said in your last post is either factually, historically, or observationally incorrect. But your post was to long and brought up to many different topix to respond to just now. But I will when I have slept ;) Stay tuned.
* Edit)
The shooter in Denver, was not poor, and he was highly educated. Point of Fact.
I don't know, Michael, you seem to cherry pick a certain side of the story, then put it into focus and through that neglect the bigger picture... But then maybe I am doing the same? Not sure, but I am not pretending to know the truth.
However, I wouldn't think of you as a coward if you had no guns. In fact I think you are a good fellow who I respect. :)
I wish you could see that a gunless society is possible and has benefits.
Regards,
Frank
Quote
* Edit)
The shooter in Denver, was not poor, and he was highly educated. Point of Fact.
He was also the legal owner of the guns used. Therefore the licensing process plainly did not work.
By the way I also found it almost funny (of course not funny at all) that the FBI quickly put this down to being an "isolated incident" and not "terror related". Both concepts I find very difficult to understand.
Richard
Quote from: TheBadger on July 23, 2012, 06:09:39 AM
...
You can think of Illinois like france, and Wisconsin (for example) like Germany in terms of size and proximity to one another. And if you were to talk to someone from Chicago and someone from Wisconsin you would hear a difference in the language. In terms of culture, the two states may as well be two different countries. I have a reason for putting it this way that will be clear in a moment.
...
Illinois and Wisconsin have the same social and economic problems at the individual and community levels. Yet Wisconsin has non of the violence and corruption that you see in Chicago and in other parts of Illinois. Even in Milwaukee, Wisconsin's largest city, where there is some serious problems, there is nothing like what you will see if you live in Illinois. The two states may as well be two different countries. One upholds the U.S. constitution and the other does not. Guess which state has all the problems?
The way you describe and introduce this statement makes me think it is not the constitution but rather the cultural difference between the 2.
What is it with/in the constitution which makes the difference then?
Quote from: TheBadger on July 23, 2012, 06:09:39 AM
If you look at the statistics in the States, you will see that the gun crime is all in the places with gun bans. I do not know which came first. But I think that It is better to shoot than to be shot.
Perhaps we've come at a point where making statements is still fine, but preferably supported by source information?
Quote from: TheBadger on July 23, 2012, 06:09:39 AM
You keep saying that a gun ban will stop something, "How far do you need to go to anger the young man so that he draws the gun?". You mention social status, economics and education. You say that it is poor uneducated people who are the danger, so much so, that we need to ban guns for everyone. But I am, I think, highly educated relative to most of my peers, I am also very poor as a result of that education. I can tell you I never learned morality in school, and even though I am poor I have never even thought to do a murder out of anger.
Violence and gun murders do not come as as a result of poverty and a lack of education, but from a lack of morality. From evil. From the animal side of man. You can not ban those things, so banning guns will not fix or stop them.
But having a gun, and knowing how and when to use it can save you from those things.
Yes it is true that one at least have to be "primal" to murder/shoot someone. So lack of morality fits that profile.
I see the lack of morality as a result of survival.
If everyone only has to take care of himself and the society isn't supporting through social security, education etc. then everybody is on their own and as soon as someone is in your way. Things can get primal pretty quickly then I can imagine.
I've isolated your last sentence because I like how it makes an example of what's wrong in the way of US citizens thinking.
Having a gun gives a false feeling of safety. If you have one, like carrying a knife for defense, the more likely it is you will use it.
Your previous statement that "it's better to shoot yourself than being shot" proves this.
If you're being attacked and you're unarmed then you cooperate and no blood is shed.
However, if you carry weapons then you're VERY likely to retalliate with force.
If both parties carry guns then there's ALWAYS a casuality.
Banning guns makes both parties unarmed.
Of course, in reality, through illegal channels, criminals still have guns but it's harder to get since weapon traffic is strictly controlled.
The scope of the problem is then at a certain size which can be controlled by the police.
Quote from: TheBadger on July 23, 2012, 06:09:39 AM
To your last point, good Sir. You say that the task of a sane society includes gun bans. But I say anyone who gives up their right to defend themselves and their families is insane, or a coward. I will not forsake my duties as a husband, father, son, or brother, and I will not depend on others do what is entrusted with me. I hope that I will have help if I ever need it, but I wont rely on it, that would be stupid.
Also, Tactical shooting is a great sport, one that I think is superior to golf and baseball. I know you guy like 'football' over there. But I like sports that are more about self improvement. And all though shooting is a sport, it is no game. Im to old to be playing games.
Defending is often mixed up with killing the burglar/criminal. Defending, by law, means to use similar force to prevent disownage or personal damage. But shooting a burglar through the head is in no way defense. Of course, this is mostly semantics, but not entirely irrelevant I think.
Your last paragraph is just an opinion. I don't see though why other sports than Tactical Shooting are not about self improvement.
And I definitely don't see why it is not a game, but I have a feeling it must be connected to your feelings that you must be able to defend yourself and are only happy with headshots ;D No serious. Why so serious? ;) (About Tactical shooting) Is it not a game because you think you need to be a good shooter? I guess people who can't hit a tin can from 3 feet are still good fathers or good Americans?
Quote from: TheBadger on July 23, 2012, 06:09:39 AM
@T-U
Just about everything you said in your last post is either factually, historically, or observationally incorrect. But your post was to long and brought up to many different topix to respond to just now. But I will when I have slept ;) Stay tuned.
I'm pretty sure what I say is historical incorrect :)
Most things happened earlier/later or slightly different, but broadly speaking I don't have the feeling it's that far off.
Factually and especially observationally I'm pretty confident about what I say though.
You can have a very complex number of reasons or combination of factors to describe and hypothesize a problem, but you can also try to look for the simplest one which has the same outcome. It's like Occam's Razor.
The simplest explanation is the right one.
I'm happy I'm observing though. I know I can explain my observations as facts from time to time ;) but I really try to look at problems from a broad perspective without too much emotion or prejudicement. As much as possible of course, because it's impossible to be completely objective.
However, I think as far as your reasoning and way of argumentation here isn't really about observation and reasoning, but mostly filled with patriotic feelings.
Hence you mention you're too old for games indicates for me you're a 'true American' which are known/renowned(?) for their patriottic and conservative point of view.
I don't know your age though and maybe you said "too old for games" to explain you're not easily fooled. So you could be even a lot younger than I. In that respect I can only observe the symbols on the screen and guess.
Quote from: TheBadger on July 23, 2012, 06:09:39 AM
* Edit)
The shooter in Denver, was not poor, and he was highly educated. Point of Fact.
So? As long as we don't know a motive then you can't draw conclusions yet.
Quote from: cyphyr on July 23, 2012, 05:43:19 AM
I have to say I completely agree with Frank, however you do make some interesting points.
It may be true that the experiment in Chicago with banning guns has failed and the reasons are pretty clear, you can still get guns elsewhere. Maybe it's too late for America. Gun ownership has become too ubiquitous, too "normal", to be easily turned around. However in the UK it is still a relatively rare occurrence, most people do not own guns even in the countryside, hence my anger at seeing/hearing it practically on my door step.
I so extremely agree with that. In my eyes it's indeed too late. In that regard US is just 'lost'.
Also, the fact that you describe your anger tells about the difference in cultures and a social society.
Michael, don't get me wrong. Europe isn't any better because we don't have the gun-problem here (ok you think you don't, but for this one sentence we assume you're wrong and the rest is right;)). For instance, we're constantly being screwed by the banks of London and we're so used of being taken care of by the government and all the systems I explained here before that we can't come up for ourselves anymore.
We should burn the assholes of the banks of London for screwing global economics, but nothing happens. And honestly, that's because of the over-evolved social system. There's always a next 'thing' which can save your ass (at least, here in The Netherlands). Living on the streets here is a choice, really.
As a result there are many problems also now with the integration (rather lack of) of Islamic people. Only in France they have the guts to say they want to keep France France. I don't see that happen to the US quicly because of people like you. We only have one here, Geert Wilders, who is being personally protected 24/7 for many years now because he shares the same kind of emotions like you and the people/poltiicians in France.
All in all I don't think being patriottic and conservative isn't that bad, hence the example above, but some ideas are maybe better to become a bit more weakened.
Quote from: FrankB on July 23, 2012, 07:35:42 AM
I don't know, Michael, you seem to cherry pick a certain side of the story, then put it into focus and through that neglect the bigger picture... But then maybe I am doing the same? Not sure, but I am not pretending to know the truth.
However, I wouldn't think of you as a coward if you had no guns. In fact I think you are a good fellow who I respect. :)
I wish you could see that a gunless society is possible and has benefits.
Regards,
Frank
Ghehe yeah both parties probably do this, so me too perhaps.
I share the same wish but also the same respect to you Michael.
Although you're a gun-cuddler you're good to have around ;D
Martin,
"I would say that those Dr.'s were not very wise. But the wisdom of Americas founders remains." Me
"This is probably the finest example of cognitive dissociation" T-U
While your powerful arguments have convinced me that anyone who disagrees with you is very clearly, and deeply internally conflicted, perhaps even mentally ill, and certainly brainwashed (not to mention stupid). I nonetheless submit to you that it is not consensus that proves wisdom, but the passage of time.
"what else is there to be discussed if one uses arguments like these" T-U
It was your argument. I said something and than you said something that had nothing to do with what I said, and then you lambasted me for it. I spoke of philosophy and sovereignty and you brought up medicine. You write about the music industry and all manor of things never answering the first question. Does a man have the right to defend him self or not? If you say yes and then offer a "but", then your answer is really no. If the answer is just yes, than you cannot ban guns. Regulate perhaps, but ban, no.
Yes I read what you wrote about the difference between defence and killing. Perhaps when you awake at 3am to find a burglar in your home you will offer him a free psychoanalysis, try to find out if he planned only to steal from you, or if he was going to kill you and rape your wife and daughter too. Tell him about Sigmund freud. As everyone in your country is literate, he will know what you mean. Afterwords you can take him to the pub for a tall one.
As for me, my assumption is that anyone who breaks into my home is there to kill me. So yes you are correct again, someone is going to end up a casualty. I would rather die than fail my wife or son. Just to put this in perspective, When I was a baby my house was invaded, we were robed, and a family member was assaulted. That family member, to this day, cannot stand being alone in a house at night.
So Damn the social conscience of "progressive" thinking, and Don't tread on me!
"We Europeans" T-U
My response here is long and complex, but fun. So please read, since I read you:)
No, everything is not relative as you explained. I am not a secular humanist. The only things I hate more than post modernist thinking is modernist thinking, and the fact that I cannot escape either one internally or externally... One thing in particular I hate about modernism, is the requirement that history be forgotten, or rewritten to suit purpose.
Now I do not believe that a creative mind can be nihilistic, since a nihilist cannot create. But it is creative people who most often claim to be nihilist, particularly among musicians and image makers. A strange trend, but one which I believe is observable. The shooter in Denver claimed he was the Joker, did you see The Dark Knight Returns? The Joker represented Nihilism in the film, that is not just an opinion, that is the obvious philosophical cloak of the character in the film. They all but say so several times in the movie.
All mass murders are Nihilistic in their thinking. Not just the little dogs like in Denver, but the big dogs too; Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco. Then of course Europe has its little dogs just like the U.S.; Ryan, Michael Robert, Borel, Eric, Leibacher, Friedrich, Dornier, Christian, Bird, Derrick, Izquierdo, Antonio And Izquierdo, Emilio, Palic, Vinko.
Most if not all of these people denied the existence of God, if not verbally than by action, and thus any meaning to life. They believed they descended from animals, that they were animals. My point is not a religious one, but rather that atheism churns out Nihilists. Since if an atheist is honest with himself, he must become a nihilist, or he must delude himself to avoid it. I am not referring to ideas of religious people here, but of frederick niche.
And before anyone jumps on me about the mass murders committed by religious people, let me just say that by definition God must be just, and therefore cannot abide murder. A man *can* be religious, and an atheist at the same time. A man *can* be religious and a nihilist in his thinking and actions. Thanks to modernism and postmodernism. But whats my point?..
The point is that Europe's social system is producing Nihilists like a factory. And you have totally disarmed your selves! I am not talking about the little dogs, I am talking about the big dogs on their way! Was 50 years ago really so long ago? If the European Union fails, which it may very well do, you are all screwed! And I repeat, to disarm yourselves in this world is insane.
To close on this point, a Nihilist can do only one of two things; 1)Nothing. And, 2) Destroy.
You also said you grew up in a socially structured society, but all societies are socially structured. What you meant, based on the rest of what you wrote, is that in your society the social structure is such that the individual is less important than the community. That because, as you said, you are dependent on the state and cannot readily "fend for your selves" that it is a necessity to preserve the group over the individual.. You are Borg, resistance is futile.
You say that because everyone in your country in literate that you have a more equal chance at being successful. Then why, even per capita, is the U.S productivity so much higher than in europe? I submit to you that the appearance of any success from your beloved social policies comes much more as a result of your small population(s) relative to national GDP(s). That is to say, it is much easier to feed 10 million, than it is to feed three hundred million. What does this have to do with firearms? Nothing, I'm just responding to your attack. Yes, your arguments were much more bite than brain; See paragraph one of this post.
The reason some people refer to Hitler and stalin and Obama in the same breath, is not that people think obama is what they were. But the rhetoric is more of a way to describe Obamas cult of personality.
His followers here have literally done crazy tyrant style things. For example,
replacing the name of Jesus in religious songs with Obama and making public school children sing it.
Public school teachers have on several occasions, verbally attacked students for voicing doubts about Obamas quality or qualifications as President.
Also because of his repeated statements that America is unworthy, unfit, and backwards.
He insults our nations traditional religions while defending religions that have no real spiritual history in the U.S. And by defending I mean promote as equal. But if those religions have not done equal work to build America, how can they be equal.
There is a ton of reasons, not the least of which is his lack luster support for the jewish state, and several media Images of him in a Halo.
Then again there is his association with and appointment to office of, people who have expressed very extremist positions. No Im not going to find all the images and videos for you.
Oh yeah, then there is the Nobel Peace prize for not bringing peace to anyone or anything. People are really bothered by him, but his supporters will tell you its all about race.
Some of his supporters think Obama is the literal second coming of Christ.
I really am sick of the fighting over Obama. I personally do not find the rhetoric useful or intellectually sound. I just want him defeated in the next election. I simply don't think he has done a good job at anything.
You asked about the constitution.
If a man has a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, than the constitution must allow for the right to keep and bear arms. If a man does not have the right to defend his life and property, than he does not have a right to life. Rights do not come from men, if men give them, they can take them away. But You cannot take away my rights. Why is that? If you think the answer is simple, you a have the wrong answer.
"lack of morality as a result of survival".
Morality has nothing to do with survival. A righteous (morally upright and Just) man remains a righteous man in the face of adversity and tragedy. A wicked man is just as easily revealed by conflict. Consider those who gave their lives to save others during the shooting in denver. And compare them to the shooter.
Modernism, and post modernism especially, deny the existence of good and evil, right and wrong. One mans terrorist is another mans hero and so on. But what man can say a killer of babies is a hero, and also say of him self that he is righteous? So the belief system must exclude the notion of right and wrong or else the thinking must fall apart.
"Having a gun gives a false feeling of safety"
Only if your untrained. And not really prepared to shoot someone, then your screwed. I was a professional armed courier working with banks. so I am trained. Im not an expert, but I got a leg up on crack heads. Anyway most shooters take classes. You make to many assumptions and bold statements based on nothing, Martin.
"I really try to look at problems from a broad perspective without too much emotion or prejudgement" T-U
Try harder.
"So? As long as we don't know a motive then you can't draw conclusions yet"
I didn't draw a conclusion until this post above^^. Read more carefully.
"The foundation of US's society is that one takes care of himself" T-U
NOOOO!!!! You are absolutely completely and totally wrong! The foundation of america was that the people took care of one another, and left only defense, international relations and a few other things to the federal government. Everything else was left to the People, the state, and the CHURCH. Who took very good care of one another!
You have no Idea what your talking about here. None!
Ok
So I am impassioned and I fight, but I am not angry and yes I respect you, Martin, for a lot of reasons. But on this I do not think we could ever find agreement. But that is perfectly fine, since neither of us can vote in the others country, we can't effect one another. So I am safe from your ideas, and you are safe from mine. But believe me, I find your ideas as dangerous as you find mine.
I am glad to have met you in these forums, and I'm always glad to talk with you. Peace! :)
FrankB,
I was not cherry picking lol, I was debating fine points. Perhaps not as well as I needed to? But I would have cherry picked if I had the chance to plot tactics! lol, you guys did not give me the chance to be lazy.
To answer your statement, "I wish you could see that a gunless society is possible and has benefits?"
Yes, it is possible and has benefits. Germany was a gunless society for awhile, did your father, or grand father tell you about it? My grandfather on my mothers side told me about it. He was born in Germany, he left just in time to escape the "benefits of a gunless society". He eventually returned to his home land though, but he was caring a tank then. All of my uncles are named for dead men.
So I know about the benefits of your gunless society. And no, we are not jewish. Protestants actually, at least historically.
And yes I respect you too Frank, I hope my tone does not betray my good feelings for everyone here. I appreciate your calm and diplomatic approach to debate, very much. I hope we can passionately disagree again in the future. :)
T-U and I will certainly argue again, it seems neither one of us can stop our selves! ;D
Peace Richard! (through superior firepower) ;)
You guys have exhausted me, I quit.
Quotelet me just say that by definition God must be just, and therefore cannot abide murder.
lol, that's just too funny
:)
Richard (atheist an lovin' it, I don't need a fantasy to know right from wrong or to give value and meaning to life)
As far as I am concerned, we've debated this enough, but I really want to end with that atheism doesn't produce nihilism. Just through denying the existence of god, the same person doesn't automatically deny all order of value, society and existence. Atheism and nihilism are very different from each other, and again I wish you would not base your thread of conclusions on your interpretation of the relation between the two.
Having said that, "Europe" isn't churning out nihilists like a factory. Actually most people I have ever met have a very sane set of values they live by and teach their children (of cause there are exceptions), really the majority is just fine, although they might not believe in god, or at least neglect the church as god's representation on earth.
I think religion must be kept out of this particular discussion - it has very little to do with it.
I have also said enough now :-)
Regards,
Frank
May be I'll have 1 more go tomorrow, but for now I only want to explain briefly what cognitive dissocation means. Or better english is cognitive dissonance I realize now.
First of all I should probably not try using a bit too specific/specialized terminology, because it clearly confuses people and could make them feel offended or give any undeserved negative feeling. So sorry for that.
Cognitive dissociation/dissonance is not a mental state of illness (not from a medical point of view or not really from a psychological point of view).
So when you have/do it, you're not ill, dumb, weak-minded or whatever.
It happens when one is confronted with information, argumentation etc. which makes him/her realize the information or argumentation is valid and weighs "stronger" than his own information and arguments. Yet, still he/she denies it because it doesn't fit with his/her general ideas/beliefs. A kind of short-circuiting occurs and the subconsciouss screams to your cognitive functions "noooooooo". Not much to do about that.
It's like people trying to convince me Ronaldo is better than Messi. I know you don't like football so you probably don't know them, but rest assured, Messi is the best, ever ever ever. See my point :)
So in the context of my argument it meant that I can carry on thousands of examples why I think your logic fails in regard to deterioated wisdom, it won't help because the things I say do not fit with your ideas/beliefs. It will never be in my power/possibilities to persuade you.
Whether this happened here can be debated about, but it was how I experienced and see it and I just want to assure you that I do not have any intention to make you look like a feeble minded dude. Therefore I thought I would be need to explain this particular issue before going to bed :)
Cheers!
TheBadger was talking about Nietzsche's nihilism.
And if you adopt Nietzsche explaination of nihilism and apply it on European youth, I must say he's right.
So you can be atheist and still have values or morale.
That said, TheBadger, I don't think it is right to compare 2 states of the USA and France and Germany.
We don't speak the same language. We don't have the same religion. We don't share the same ideas on politics, education's system, etc...
Not mentioning the three wars we've been through together.
Do not make the mistake to think the EU is like USA. EU is a pack of countries united economically and partially politically by their leaders.
That said, we are truely separate countries and I know a majority of people that won't say "we feel european". You should know that french people voted "no" to Europe and that our leader did it nonethless and you will understand that we are definitely not like the american people. We do not have the feeling that Europe is ours and that we shoud defend it, etc...
So much for patriotism !
That should explain to you why every patriotism, nationalism or any kind of "love your country" feeling is not very well accepted in part of Europe.
Ask Frank how he would react to 10 guys singing german anthem ;)
Considering the death caused by gunshot, USA statistics prove that USA have a ratio of eight times what economically and politically similar countries have. Incredible !
There is truely a huge guns' problem in USA. As they have huge problem with drugs, poverty and violence.
I didn't find the statistics about the owners of the killings : I don't know if the majority of murders with guns were perfomed with legal or illegal weapons, but I seriously doubt criminal usually use legal guns ;)
Therefore I am not sure that to forbid guns is the solution. The problem is education, mental health, and a part of the medias, showing gangstars and crazy dumb serialkillers as heroes.
It is not because of the media itself (like for the gun) but a problem of parenting. Even if I do love serial-killers movies, I won't allow my kids for example to watch some crazy violent movie just because it is THE movie you have to see to be like everybody in school. Same for games.
I used guns and rifles often the last 10 years and I think it is a really nice sport and I found it very close to my past martial arts experience.
If guns would be allowed more easily in France, I would buy one (well more than one considering that my wife is a better shooter than I am). For collection, for sport and for protection.
I know that saying : it is not the gun that killed people but the guy who had it in his hand, is sometimes a bad and overused argument. But come on guys, we didn't forbid knives ! And how many people died by stabbing through past decades ? through past centuries.... ? And I can even buy an axe, a sword, or even a chainsaw in every tools shop !
More people die because of salt in food than because of guns (at least in France). And still, we put salt everywhere. Advertise for it. Give it to kids in school...
Would you find it normal to forbid salt because people don't use it as it is supposed to be used ?
I understand the humanist kind of thinking about the fact that humans don't need weapons to protect themselves because the gvt should be the only one to protect you.
But I am not into it.
And considering evolution of politics, all around the world, I think that we should all be armed.
I wanted to stay out of this thread because of its dangerous and slippery potential. But you guys made your points politely, but firmly. So I couldn't resist to post.
Maybe the issue here is the word "banning" and I would have to agree that a TOTAL blanket ban would be impractical and ultimately unworkable, however as the suspect in the theatre shootings was completely legal in his ownership of his guns (an AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington 870 12-gauge shot gun and a .40 calibre Glock handgun + 6000 rounds of ammo!) shouldn't there at very least be much tougher gun control laws. Interestingly he would not have been able to buy the assault rifle in many other US states.
:)
Richard
Seth,
Sorry, I ment only to create a visual understanding of the boarders between the two states, and draw a comparison between size and distance. I did not mean to suggest that the people or cultures are the same. I regret my bad example in this debate. However, with clarification perhaps it works as an example a little better now? I'll try harder next time. :)
We are right about Nihilism, there is a lot of writing on this.
You sound like you read a lot, including things that you disagree with. Please consider reading "My life Among the Death Works" http://www.amazon.com/Life-Among-Deathworks-Illustrations-Aesthetics/dp/0813925169 it is about Art, and Truth and lies. I think you will dig it. Also "For the love of beauty" http://www.amazon.com/For-Love-Beauty-Foundations-Aesthetic/dp/0765803011 I know the writer of this one. You may not agree with what it says, but I think you will like the discussion. On France and the EU, I am sure you know I sympathize with you.
On your statements about violence in America, I totally agree with you, it is a real problem as I said several times in this tread, we have a problem with nihilism here too. I never denied that. I just reject the taking away of my rights to deal with someone else's evil and insanity.
FrankB and T-U,
Your statements about what I wrote show you did not understand what I said. Is that my fault or yours?
T-U,
You where condescending and insulting from the top of this thread to the bottom. Its clear that hurling insults is the same as making an argument to you. "cognitive dissociation" is what you wrote in your first use of the term, I do not need it explained to me. I understood you the first time. As to the post by me that your referring to, did you not see all of the commas? It was a listing all the insults you used as arguments. It is a little funny that you now sound offended by what I wrote.
I am not looking forward to your next set of insults, I doubt I will respond. You probably think that because no one else is debating you that they must therefore agree with you.
Richard, your english is better than Seth's but he understood what I was saying better. So what am I to make of this? Did I not express what I was trying to say very well, or what?
I guess I didn't quit.
Look at Switzerland. Loads is weapons in all house of the country. No guns violence. Again, the gun is not the problem. People is.
Hmmm...well...never mind then.
If you can't see or understand the difference between actually being insulted or feel insulted by someone's completely different opinion and way of thinking then there are no viable conditions for a good debate.
I'm sorry you feel that way and I hope you understand, again, that it is not my intention as I explained before.
I've noticed in your very long reply that you don't quote paragraphs or sentences, but just tiny sections of what I and others say.
By that you isolate it from its context and give it a completely other meaning, most of the times making me/the others look ridiculous, but mostly you focus on that tiny specific thing and not the "bigger picture" I/the others are trying to explain.
However, I don't feel that way and understand why and how.
It's this combination why I'm out of this discussion.
I'm perfectly fine if you consider this as a win, sometimes you've to let go and this is what I'm doing now :)
Cheers!
Quote from: Seth on July 23, 2012, 06:21:35 PM
So you can be atheist and still have values or morale.
That is exactly my point. I made the point because I have interpreted Michaels post in a way that he would assume that not believing in god would lead to a total loss of values. Perhaps that was a misinterpretation on my part.
This is it. And the U.S. seems to be extreme on so many things-
- Some believe it is a sin to drink one sip of beer and still call for prohibition, while others nearly kill themselves with alcohol poisoning because they drank too much.
- Commercials with nudity are banned, while some of the grossest and most heinous porn videos come out of the U.S.
- Some people cry "prejudice" about any slight misunderstanding, while others still bar blacks and Mexicans from their establishments (here in the U.S.A.!).
- Some people are giving away much of their lives to help others, while many bankers here in the U.S. seem to always look for some way to steal from the poor to make the rich richer.
It's this extremism that is nutty.
Quote from: Seth on July 24, 2012, 03:52:00 AM
Look at Switzerland. Loads is weapons in all house of the country. No guns violence. Again, the gun is not the problem. People is.
Martin,
I did not mean that you should shut up because I disagree with you.
I reread what I wrote and I see that I tried to be funny/clever when I should have just said what I meant.
That is, I was angered by you saying that americans don't see things the way that you do because we are "brainwashed". You said or implied in a few places, that americans who defend or believe in the right to Self-defense, of which having the choice to own a fire arm is a necessity, are stupid.
So your arguments read to me like this: "Americans are stupid because they don't ban guns. Therefore, Americans are stupid."
You also made points I thought were good, but it was hard for me to focus on them when they were prefaced and followed with negative ad hominem attacks. The discussion was sour from the start for me, so for may part it ended sour. Its still hard for me to believe that you don't see it.
I do not think I won the argument, I don't think it can be won at all. Winning was not the reason I joined the discussion. I am sorry that it went this way.
FrankB,
I think I did a bad job at constructing my statements. For one, I should have made the assumptions I was basing my statements on more clear. I have to admit that I was a little lazy. After some sleep I think some of the misunderstandings are mostly my fault.
Of course an atheist can have morals and values! No doubt about it! And of course a father is a good father if does not own a gun! I am embarrassed that something I said could have left the impression that I thought otherwise.
Please allow me to clarify to you what I meant.
I was trying to talk about the future consequences of post modernism in contemporary Europe, and the danger of disarming the public at large.
I was not making a statement about religion. Obviously a man can be an atheist and is likely to have values and morals and a complex believe system. Likewise a man can believe in God and have no religion, or have religion and no morals and not even believe in a god.
I have already said that, thanks to the modernist and post-moderenst explanation of reality, that a religious person can become a nihilist. This is because it is not necessary for someone to believe in reason or justice or purpose or even a God or gods to be religious.
Please note that when I say "God" I am talking about beliefs in western civilization as we now know it. And so the assumption must be that Any reference to God implies, also, a necessary belief in a reason for being. But this is not to say an atheist cannot believe in a *reason* for existence.
Finally, to be clear, when I say God I am not talking about natural processes for the development of life on earth (the *how*), but the metaphysical question of *why*.
So my meaning was not that an atheist must become a nihilist. Rather it was that an atheist, if he lacks a reason for being, is more likely to become a nihilist, even, that he must become a nihilist. This is because the nihilist must necessarily believe that there is no purpose for existence. It is not that an atheist does not have morals, it is that it is impossible for a nihilist to have them. On the other hand, it is impossible for someone who truly believes in God to become a nihilist without first abandoning his belief in God, because his belief in God necessarily requires a belief in reason and purpose and also justice.
But yes, a man who believes in a god can also do injustice as history has shown us. So you see I was not saying that atheists are worse people than people who believe in a god.
Nihilism does not make a man fearless, so like a narcissist, the nihilist through inward logic and rationalization (or mental disorder) must also become sociopathic, if he is already not so. Once this happens people die.
What I was talking about in that other post was that, the more nihilists in europe there are, the more likely that it is one will come to power, again. And that the more atheism there is, the more Nihilism there will be.
So having already voluntarily disarmed yourselves, and with the looming possibility of economic collapse of the EU, and the economic depression that would follow. not forgetting the constant threat of world war3 in the middle east, namely Iran, Syria, and Israel, and the related issues.
So I stand by my statement that disarming your selves (especially so completely) is more than a little crazy. Particularly given the lessons of WW2.
At the very least The EU should have waited a good while longer to disarm to see if all this "Sane Society" stuff was going to work out for the long run. Because given Europe's very long, very bloody history, in combination with mans animal nature, I'm not holding my breath.
Everyone,
Whatever role I had in creating a negative environment for discussion, I apologize. But still I stand on my principals. We will not disarm.
Hope everything will be fine between us.
Quote
That is, I was angered by you saying that americans don't see things the way that you do because we are "brainwashed". You said or implied in a few places, that americans who defend or believe in the right to Self-defense, of which having the choice to own a fire arm is a necessity, are stupid.
So your arguments read to me like this: "Americans are stupid because they don't ban guns. Therefore, Americans are stupid."
The brainwashed part can be deduced from me saying "spoonfed", so yes, correct.
However,
"Americans are stupid because they don't ban guns. Therefore, Americans are stupid." is incorrect inductive reasoning.
I have never said that, nor implicated anywhere. It's not the way I think either.
I wasn't very sure what to think about the part where you explained that our disagreement is fine because we aren't neighbours or fellow Americans. What if I am your neighbour?
I don't mind disagreeing, but the very selective cutting from quotes destroying its context, misreading or drawing incorrect conclusions and
especially the feeling we're both talking to a wall, made me think it's better to just move on.
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/aurora-colorado-gunman-forgiveness-for-the-shooter-30052339.html
damn, not available in France.
or the uk ...
@Seth and @Cyphyr -
Basically, a young man who was in the audience when it happened is saying it is better to forgive this man and move on - life is better than this. He's young, but I think he's right.
Of course, if it was my family murdered by this man, it would be important to forgive and still he needs to get what's coming. But, maybe that means therapy. Still...he's probably going to cross the "Jordan" someday sooner than later. I can't believe our society will allow him to live.
Interesting event from the beginning of the summer. Has some relevance I think.
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx
:)
And to participate in what the title was about, I saw it today, after re-watching the 2nd one. I recommend this movie to anyone who has seen the first two.
Hmm, saw it last night, unimpressed ... but I've not seen the first two of this trilogy.
Richard
Richard, Richard, that was a mistake. ;D No, well, seriously, it might have helped to watch him get to where he was in the 3rd film just to get the big picture - helps to have the background.
Quote from: cyphyr on August 03, 2012, 04:53:41 AM
Hmm, saw it last night, unimpressed ... but I've not seen the first two of this trilogy.
Richard
I had argued earlier that where I live stuff like denver does not happen. Unbelievably, today it happened. Many injured several dead.
It looks now, based on news reports , that it was a deliberate terrorist attack, and not a random crazy mass murderer. Terrorist, because the attack apparently targeted a specific group of people for political, racial, or religious reasons. Looks like mumbai india, style, in terms of the action. This guy did not get that far though.
Really fucking Unbelievable!
To the best of my knowledge, nothing like this has happened here in my lifetime.
My heart goes out to these people, as you say unbelievably sad :(
I don't think any gun control law would have made any difference here. Do we know if he was a legal gun owner?
If it is "real" terrorism then no law would have any effect on people with that level of religious or political zeal.
I say "real" because it looks more like ignorant racism than an act with a "genuine" political motive (the Sikh victims are unfortunately often confused with Muslims, not that that should have any relevance!)
Richard
Apparently he was a "white supremacist"
I have to say I'm not superstitious at all! But the fact that this has happened here, right after our argument, has unnerved me :-\
As far as banning guns goes. He used one hand gun. Probably an imported Glock. But this does not make me want to ban guns. If anything, I want to add two Black Russian Terriers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snAsiuydydU Or maybe two Giant schnauzers? to my house. And maybe move to a castle. :-\
Its a shitty shitty time in our history, for so many reasons.