Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Wrong Mindgate, I was not attention seeking, just the opposite.... I wanted to say I disagreed with you, but decided that it would be best and serve no purpose to rile you up, so I changed my mind and stated exactly that... But I guess I failed and got you riled up anyways and for that I apologize.
I'm trying to change and not be so argumentive here... State my position and move on knowing that most here will disagree, but its bad form to come back and poke at someone because it doesn't accomplish anything positive... I'm still working on it, and again, I apologize
Feel free to disagree with me. I don't mind. I stated my opinion, and you can state yours. No big deal. Not that my opinion matters towards anything anyways. I can't vote or run for office or anything. I just spew the thoughts in my head onto this site. Feel free to tell me what you disagree with.
1) The new bill that was passed, S. 1867, says that any American, or otherwise, that is considered a "traitor" can be held in custody indefinitely by the military. What defines a traitor? Well, that definition can change depending on the situation and how it fits the needs of the people who can consider people traitors.
2) Peaceful protesters are being attacked by police and arrested senselessly. Ex: In Boston, I believe, police stood and watched, and even cleared a path for protesters to move onto a bridge. Once they were on the middle, the police circled the protesters and used excessive force to arrest everyone they could that was in the circle. A blatant trap made by police. The police made it seem okay for them to go, only so that they could arrest them later. Another example, police officers in NY took a law from (I think) 1800 which claimed you could not wear a mask if you were in a group of more than (so and so) people. This law was not acted upon until these protests started. These are just two examples of the numerous accounts of random/senseless arrests taking place. Plus, you've seen the videos I assume of all the police brutality.
3) Certain Americans keep pushing to take away the rights of gays, non-Christians, and other such people. Hell, people like Bachmann and Perry nearly want to make America nearly a theocracy. Look how close some of these people got to being the Republican nominee.
4) The war on drugs is a failed war and just causes people to go needlessly to prison. Same goes with prostitution and online gambling, but that is debatable. And then the prison system breeds even more criminals.
5) The war thing again. We are going to have to just agree to disagree. I think we were (and still are) in the war too long and needlessly as well. I believe that a lot of the happenings were fueled by greed from politicians/corporations. But, people have their different opinions. Oh well.
There’s logic to wanting a gun when many people have guns. When all sorts of idiots can just go to the store and by a gun, maybe I need to have on too.
But when there are not so many weapons around, it’s a different picture. I can go and talk to the neighbors when they are screaming and shouting and throwing stuff at each other in the middle if the night. (I can ask if they’re all right and if they would be so kind to let us get some sleep). And I will know that I can probably handle the situation. The neighbors are very likely not having a gun on their cupboard. If someone really is out of control maybe he could get something to hit or stab me with; but I can run pretty fast when I have to, so I can take that risk.
I can imagine you don’t feel safe when everyone has weapons and you don’t. But it’s not like that in Europe. Very few people have a gun, and even when they do, they will think twice before threatening with it, because that will get them arrested and the gun confiscated immediately. That feels safer - I suppose - than putting your gun in your coat when you go talking with the neighbors, just to be sure.
The English are not going to re-occupy America when the handguns are gone. I think they will promise that if it would make you feel better.
I live near London, UK. I can't imagine guns being allowed here. I like to know that it's very unlikely for me to get shot. Its a nice thought to own a gun for my defence, but so will other people have guns and more likely than not people will use them carelessly. It will be much easier for someone to shoot me than to stab me with knife. Police over here now use the controversial taser guns, I wouldent mind having one of those though for my defence against the chavs.
This whole discussion for the majority warms around the pride Americans have about their guns and the 2nd ammendment. Zeneff speaks sense, yes in Europe there are guns in circulation, but even I could not get hold of a gun if I wanted to when I was in the UK, and I was within various circles of people, some of which were big fishes lets say.
The police do not need to have guns, they have a special unit which does, but it is small and only really located in London and Manchester. It goes back to what I have said before, all of these countries have EVOLVED past the notion of needing a gun, transcended that ideology that guns are cool because they are not. Like Machino Kacu said, everyday he sees things around him that suggest we are moving forward as a species, coming together more and more with less violence. But wait, where are the wars right now, and who is front lining them? Who are they with? America against undeveloped countries. Why, greed and ignorance. If this does not change and America does not EVOLVE with the rest of the deveolped world, even if it is slowly, then we are doomed within the not too distant future.
I strongly agree with you on the 4th point Mindgate, and I also agree that we were/are in the wars to long... Even though I was glad to see Sadam removed from power, but not necessarily killed, I can't argue that Iraq was a mistake... I'm glad to see us finally getting out of there. Afghanistan was necessary, just my opinion, at the time the decision was made, but the failure of establishing a good exit strategy adds much stink.
Your 2nd and 3rd points are what I was trying to avoid... I don't know how to discuss this without arguing, so agree to disagree is a good term.
There is a difference between arguing and discussing. Can you not discuss something without getting angry? I am open for discussion, that is why I am posting, but I am not angry, it is just my point of view on the matter.
There is a difference between arguing and discussing. Can you not discuss something without getting angry? I am open for discussion, that is why I am posting, but I am not angry, it is just my point of view on the matter.
I can up to the point someone tells me I'm wrong, which always happens with political banter, then I get riled up and catch myself doing the same thing.
@mindgate South park ref! I am not taking anybodies job MG lol. No but seriously telly, I am not going to say you are wrong, or anybody is, it is just my opinion and everyone is entiltled that are they not.
As I read the founding documents of the USA, I notice that the 'Creator' 'endowed' humans with three 'inalenable' rights - all of which can be limited or removed entirely by the state. The same 'Creator' does not appear to have endowed us with the right to firearms or even edged weapons.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot *technically,* according the the Declaration of Independance, be taken away from us by the states. Thus the term unalienable rights.
Alas, MindGate, states imprison (remove liberty), execute (remove life) and limit or define what each person is permitted as 'happiness'. No inalienability there, I fear.
please disregard, I changed my mind about wanting to post
This post unnecessary and is attention seeking. If you do not want to post now because you disagree with something - post about what you disagree with, or don't post. If you do not want to post now because what you wanted to say was already said, then say you agree with the post or say nothing at all. Simple as that. No need to post "I'm not going to post."
There’s logic to wanting a gun when many people have guns. When all sorts of idiots can just go to the store and by a gun, maybe I need to have on too.
Only if you have the guts to actually use it....
The Swiss all keep a gun in their home, nobody ever uses it. I don't understand all the gun hype in the US.
I understand it, but it is foolish. It is based around something long gone, something that was declared years and years ago that many people CLING TO. Understanding that is easy IMO
There’s logic to wanting a gun when many people have guns. When all sorts of idiots can just go to the store and by a gun, maybe I need to have on too.
Only if you have the guts to actually use it....
The Swiss all keep a gun in their home, nobody ever uses it. I don't understand all the gun hype in the US.
There are strict regulations on purchasing and owning guns in Switzerland. Despite that, of course, there have been incidents, just as, in the UK, we have had tragedies. Such illegality does not, however, invalidate the law, any more than burglary invalidates the law against it.
My basic objection to the unlicenced ownership of deadly weapons, be they firearms, bombs or edged weapons, is based on the truth taught in the Dhammapada that "mind goes before all things". Arming oneself betrays a mindset that we are preapred to use said weapon. The myth of 'mutual deterrence' does not take into account that a mind to kill is still a mind to kill.
I missed the news about the first point you list, MG. Could you put up a post about it under "Current Events"?
The public voted on harsher laws and sentences, that's why the prison population has grown. The public wanted a "Three Strikes and You're Out" policy. Maybe 3 Strikes--You're Out should be repealed.
I think that there is a return to a more punitive attitude towards criminality, replacing the 20th century notion of rehabilitation. From my point of view, as a Christian Buddhist, I hold to the view that, whilst it is clearly necessary to protect society from the criminal, we must do so with deepest humanity and with the view of enabling the healing of the criminal. I am appalled at the attitude that seems to prevail that criminality is an ineradicable character trait.
With the 3 Strikes-You're out, a lot of people get locked away who otherwise would have done community service and other types of punishment with just a minimum sentence, if that. But part of the 3 Stikes law mandates a certain number of years in prison. There's no room for judicial leniency. I think this came about when there was a public perception of exponentially increasing crime, but now I wonder if that hadn't been partially media-driven, by certain interests. IIRC, crime has gone way down in the US.
But it's such a mess with drugs easily available (apparently). I don't understand why there's such a huge demand for illegal drugs, that Mexico, Central America and Columbia are having huge drug turf wars over the supply lines. It's insane.
Prison is more often than not a non-effective way to treat a criminal. If you treat them like animals (locking them up), they often will behave like animals. They also learn a hell of a lot more to add to their criminal knowledge, going to prison is like going to criminal university. I personally know of 4 people who have been to prison, one guy was in there for 9 years, and the other three much less sentences but they re-offend.
I heard something about a woman who my GF works with. She is oldish, around 55 and she is a practicing buddhist. You may say that in thailand that must be common, but no, most people see it as a form of getting good luck. But she has on two occassions seen someone sleeping rough close to her house and let them stay with her. These people never took anything from her, never treated her badly or anything of that nature. This makes me think of that saying, 'if you treat people greatly, they will show themselves to be great'.
It happened again. I was surfing a thaivisa website and came across this on the world news. Twice in 2 days? Or is it 3 days?
2011-12-10 18:01:20 GMT+7 (ICT)
HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA (BNO NEWS) -- A gunman opened fire in the famous Los Angeles district of Hollywood on Friday, randomly shooting at people before being killed by police, local media reported.
The gunman, a young white male wearing a white tank top, was seen standing in the middle of Vine street in Hollywood when he opened fire at passing motorists at random. He also fired in the air, causing panic as people ran for cover.
A 40-year-old man who was driving a silver Mercedes Benz was shot in the head and reported to be in a critical condition, according to the Los Angeles Times. He was rushed to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center after suffering a gunshot wound to his jaw.
The Los Angeles Police Department brought the shooting rampage to an end by fatally shooting the gunman in the middle of the intersection at Sunset Boulevard and Vine Street. Photographer Gregory Bojorquez, who witnessed the incident, told the Los Angeles Times that when police arrived at the scene and ordered the gunman to the ground and surrender, he began screaming he 'wanted to die.'
The gunman, who was also reportedly armed with a knife, then appeared to reach for his gun when a police officer opened fire and fatally shot him.
Both the gunman's identity and his motive were not immediately known, but the incident showed similarities to the phenomena which is known as 'suicide by cop'.
I've seen nothing about this in the news. Too bad he was fatally shot. We could have learned something about the psychology of events like this. Did he have a history of mental illness? If so, it was illegal for him to purchase or own a gun. Was he distraught due to events in his life? It's a good argument either way for stricter gun control. Somebody loses their home to foreclosure, their wife leaves them, and the next thing you know, he's opening fire on traffic or bystanders. But we've preserved his right to form a militia! That's the important thing. He may be dead or in jail now, but he could have formed a militia if there were a need to overthrow the government. We have our priorities.
I am sure that shootings go on daily across the states. If they happen in the UK or europe for that matter, it is front line news, a rare event to say the least. It is sad that guy had to die, there would have been many other ways of keeping him alive, the guy in the car out of hopsital and the rest of the people involved not involved
Shootings rarely occur in rural parts of America. It is mainly the cities. In rural parts, from experiences of mine, it is mainly gang/drug related violence.
But they happen... And I know they happen very often. I have seem enough 'follow pollice' programs in the US and seen enough news articles to know that. Just because they happen mostly in urban areas does not make much of a point in my opinion. You will still have gangs and drugs, but the guns are too easily available, that is the point. All you have to do is look at the stats.
illegal guns are not manufactured (usually?) by an illegal manufacturer. More guns are manufactured in US by far and thus there are both more legal and more illegal guns.
I know that many here who dislike the Tanakh think that it is only full of slaughter and jealousy but Isaiah says: "(The Lord) shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (Is. 2:4)
Hmm, not a lot of support for gun ownership here, if any at all. I own multiple firearms (no handguns) which for the most part, I use strictly for hunting (though I am more of a fan of archery). All of my weapons are fairly old, I consider them pieces of history. My favorite and most used rifle is my 1940 Soviet Mosin-Nagant. It is a bolt-action, holds five rounds and it takes longer to reload the thing than it does to cycle through the clip. Just because I own firearms does not make me violently insane. People here seem to assume that just because someone owns a gun that it will be their first recourse in an altercation. This is not always true and no offense, but it is very ignorant to think in this manner.
Where I come from (Northern U.S.) I was raised never to pull a weapon unless I intend to use it. Meaning it is a last resort in the most desperate of measures. And this applies to all weapons. From firearms to knives to a simple cudgel, you do not draw a weapon unless you fully understand that you may have to spill blood. I am trained extensively in weapons safety as well, which has a nice little side effect. I can disassemble most handguns and render them inert in just a few seconds. So even if I have a gun, and he has a gun, with a push of a button and a quick jerk it is very possible to separate the slide from an automatic pistol, thus rendering the situation a lot less dangerous than it once was. Not saying if it is just the two of us I'll do so, I'll run instead. But in a room full of people it would be much better to try and disarm the weapon than swapping lead.
I know many, many gun owners and all of them share my mentality. If someone is going to commit a violent and armed crime, they are the type of person who would probably do so whether they have a gun, or a knife, or what have you. Not everyone who owns a weapon is a mentally unbalanced violent psychopath and honestly, I am insulted that this seems to be the common assumption here. I am even more insulted at the holier-than-thou attitude that is being displayed here by non gun owners. It is all well and good that you decide not to be an armed individual, I actually applaud that. But just because I own a weapon does not make me less of a person than you, and you would do well to remember that.
A weapon is just an inanimate object. It is the person wielding it who is in the wrong, not the weapon itself. The amount of Hoplophobia here is quite frankly, nauseating and immature. If all of us are put in a dangerous situation, I think we would all act in the same manner, even if I happened to be armed. With the exception that if it gets right down to it, I have that last and desperate measure, and can save myself and others instead of making a fool of myself and winding up dead. Believe it or not, not everyone responds to non-violence rationally. Just because you show no signs of resisting does not mean the maniac causing the problem will just go "oh ok I understand" and then not proceed to kill you and those around you. It is a very beautiful world you all live in if you think this is the case.
Sometimes, violence can only be ended by violence. It is unfortunate of course but it is naive to think that this is never the case.
And for the record I'd rather have a gun pulled on me than a knife, as I have had both and still bear the scars of a rather bad knife fight between me and a mugger that decided to stab first and ask questions later. If my wounds are any indication, dying from a blade would be immensely more drawn out and painful than getting shot. Odd way of thinking I admit, but that is how it is. Not to mention going blade on blade with a crazy guy is an experience I never want to relive.
@Zayl Maybe it wasn't on this thread, we've had a couple of threads on this topic recently. But I've spoken up more than once for the right to keep rifles, the right for hunters to have guns. I recall posting that in one of the most restrictive countries, arms-wise (Russia), where even large kitchen knives aren't allowed, hunters are allowed to have rifles.
So I'm going to ask again, can our European members tell us how gun laws work regarding hunters, in your country?
So it is okay to hunt and kill animals, be it for 'sport' or for food, even though you can buy food in a store, but killing humans is wrong? I saw a few times on this cable network channel at a guest house, it was the outdoorchannel. Anyway, they would shoot elephants, all kinds of antilope and many animals. Every time they killed it, they would go over and say how beautiful it was, this animal is such a wonderful creature. Yes, and now it is dead...
Zayl, I think you may have misunderstood, I'm sorry you feel offended. This conversation is a continuation of one that started on another thread. The discussion has been about handguns, mainly, spurred by the incident last week at Virginia Tech. I've posted more than once about making allowances for hunting. I live in a state where much of the population lives close to a subsistence lifestyle, and many people depend on hunting to feed the family. The problem in the US is mainly handguns and assault weapons (machine guns, etc.). You must admit (?) it's completely unnecessary for citizens to own machine guns, ouzies, and the like. I'm into rifles myself, though I've never owned one. Zombiegirl even had a thread on enjoying rifles for sport.
But handguns can, and do, fall into the wrong hands. This isn't an easy issue to debate, it's complicated. But I'm tending to think that if many other countries can manage and their citizens feel safe without handguns, we shouldbe able to do the same. I don't have all the answers, and your opinion is more than welcome.
It's nice to see you around, by the way. It's been awhile.
I think right now it is reasonable for a citizen to *need* a handgun, because there are so many guns in circulation. The criminal has a gun and fear of life is actually a deterrent to crime believe it or not. In Europe the policeperson does not have a handgun which says to me neither does the criminal or else the criminal could just shoot the police when they get busted.
Thus to cure the problem of weapons designed for human on human violence I think there needs to be an alertative to leaving yourself and your family vulnerable to crime.
The above discussion would be relevant if we have already conceded that we may need weaponry to oppose tyranny.
So how do we go forward in disarming the human on human weaponry? The next logical problem in the U.S. is that the populace does not support gun disarming. It is not just the republicans or whatever who want to eliminate handguns. It is by far a majority of adults who do not wish to regulate handguns. Now you can get involved in adhominems towards those 'guns' people till the cows come home but it only is a seed of ill will in your own mind rather than any kind of a solution.
A separate question is whether there are bank robberies using handguns in Europe? It can't be that hard to get a gun in Europe. So what do the police do if some bank robbers show up with guns?
Often they are fake guns used believe it or not, or shot guns, rarely ever hand guns. Bank robberies are not so frequent anymore because people know it is really difficult to get away with it these days.
You have a better chance of robbing a post office and getting away with money, be it less, but still the chances are better.
But there still are handguns about, like it has been said. There was a gang in manchester called the gooch gang (gooch because that was the name of their street), lol. But they all got hand guns shipped over from russia. They got the toughest sentences in UK modern history due to their killings. Two of the members got 30 year each without chance of parole, which is a very tough sentence for someone in the UK.
Bank robberies are not so frequent anymore because people know it is really difficult to get away with it these days.
The Virginia Tech incident, according to Mountains, began with an unsuccessful attempt to rob a bank. After that, the gunman ran onto campus, and shot a cop, and eventually. himself.
But you're right, bank robberies are rare. Robbing convenience stores seems to be more popular.
Guns shipped over from Russia?! It must've been a black market thing in the UK.
@lama Oh yeah, I forgot about that film. Time to review it. Thanks for reminding us.
They just passed a law allowing the military to arrest and detain/imprison American citizens indefinitely, without a trial.
Point of order: No, it's a bill that passed the Senate. And, the Constitution is quite specific on this point. They can pass all the laws to the contrary they like; it won't stand.
No, he probably commented, changed his mind, and couldn't delete it so he added that filler text instead. Be careful of the motives you ascribe to others.
Point of order: No, it's a bill that passed the Senate. And, the Constitution is quite specific on this point. They can pass all the laws to the contrary they like; it won't stand.
Gotcha.
No, he probably commented, changed his mind, and couldn't delete it so he added that filler text instead. Be careful of the motives you ascribe to others.
Okay okay yes, I do agree that handguns and assault weapons could be completely banned or at the very least much more highly regulated. And as for the ethics of hunting, I do believe that may belong in another thread. All I will say is that I live rather far out in the middle of nowhere, and during the winter just getting from point A to point B can be lethal most months. I do not kill for sport, I kill for food.
May I, humbly, remind all who are posting here that many of us hold to the Buddhist ideal that hatred (and violence) cannot be ended by hatred (or reciprocal violence). That one or two countries enshrine the opposite view in constitutions or popular mythology cannot weigh in the balance against the Dharma. We also admit that following the Noble Eightfold Path is neither easy nor necessarily intuitive. If it were, there would have been no need for the Shakyamuni Buddha to Turn the Whell for us.
If you want to take buddhism to it's absolte, then you would not kill to defend your family, or even hurt them. They are people, not 'your's', just people like the person threatning them. If you take buddhism absolute, you would abstain from such actions as owning a gun, hunting anything, and even trying to abstain from thinking of killing. Fighting for your family involves an ego, wanting to hurt or kill involves anger and hate, named poisons by the buddha himself.
Hmm so that means if someone starts shooting my family if I wanted to take the absolute buddhist way I would simply ignore the situation, or at least handle it in a non-violent manner? I do not think I could ever do that. Individual ego not-withstanding I would immediately try to incapacitate the one trying to kill my family, or even innocents. Not because it is something I want to do to boost my own ego. But because if no one is going to stop the wrongdoing here, then who will, other than me? It is not a matter of seeing those people as "mine" it is a matter of giving others the chance to get out of a deadly situation with their lives. It is a matter of defending those who cannot defend themselves. Bad karma be damned. If it means I receive bad karma for letting others live, then I gladly accept that price in full.
I am not saying you should do anything, if you take buddhism for it's absolute, then you would not act. The buddha left his family, his son and wife. When their village was being ravaged and he was informed, he did not act. Who became enlightened...
It is not for me to tell anyone else how to behave. We each have to face our challenges in the light of who we are and who we want to be. For myself, my principle, ever since I read Kant, has been to act as I would want anyone else in the same situation to act. The argument about 'defending my family' applies equally to those who, for example, try to kill our soldiers in the theatre of war.
Comments
I'm trying to change and not be so argumentive here... State my position and move on knowing that most here will disagree, but its bad form to come back and poke at someone because it doesn't accomplish anything positive... I'm still working on it, and again, I apologize
1) The new bill that was passed, S. 1867, says that any American, or otherwise, that is considered a "traitor" can be held in custody indefinitely by the military. What defines a traitor? Well, that definition can change depending on the situation and how it fits the needs of the people who can consider people traitors.
2) Peaceful protesters are being attacked by police and arrested senselessly. Ex: In Boston, I believe, police stood and watched, and even cleared a path for protesters to move onto a bridge. Once they were on the middle, the police circled the protesters and used excessive force to arrest everyone they could that was in the circle. A blatant trap made by police. The police made it seem okay for them to go, only so that they could arrest them later. Another example, police officers in NY took a law from (I think) 1800 which claimed you could not wear a mask if you were in a group of more than (so and so) people. This law was not acted upon until these protests started. These are just two examples of the numerous accounts of random/senseless arrests taking place. Plus, you've seen the videos I assume of all the police brutality.
3) Certain Americans keep pushing to take away the rights of gays, non-Christians, and other such people. Hell, people like Bachmann and Perry nearly want to make America nearly a theocracy. Look how close some of these people got to being the Republican nominee.
4) The war on drugs is a failed war and just causes people to go needlessly to prison. Same goes with prostitution and online gambling, but that is debatable. And then the prison system breeds even more criminals.
5) The war thing again. We are going to have to just agree to disagree. I think we were (and still are) in the war too long and needlessly as well. I believe that a lot of the happenings were fueled by greed from politicians/corporations. But, people have their different opinions. Oh well.
Go ahead and put forth your opinion.
But when there are not so many weapons around, it’s a different picture.
I can go and talk to the neighbors when they are screaming and shouting and throwing stuff at each other in the middle if the night. (I can ask if they’re all right and if they would be so kind to let us get some sleep). And I will know that I can probably handle the situation. The neighbors are very likely not having a gun on their cupboard. If someone really is out of control maybe he could get something to hit or stab me with; but I can run pretty fast when I have to, so I can take that risk.
I can imagine you don’t feel safe when everyone has weapons and you don’t. But it’s not like that in Europe. Very few people have a gun, and even when they do, they will think twice before threatening with it, because that will get them arrested and the gun confiscated immediately.
That feels safer - I suppose - than putting your gun in your coat when you go talking with the neighbors, just to be sure.
The English are not going to re-occupy America when the handguns are gone.
I think they will promise that if it would make you feel better.
The police do not need to have guns, they have a special unit which does, but it is small and only really located in London and Manchester. It goes back to what I have said before, all of these countries have EVOLVED past the notion of needing a gun, transcended that ideology that guns are cool because they are not. Like Machino Kacu said, everyday he sees things around him that suggest we are moving forward as a species, coming together more and more with less violence. But wait, where are the wars right now, and who is front lining them? Who are they with? America against undeveloped countries. Why, greed and ignorance. If this does not change and America does not EVOLVE with the rest of the deveolped world, even if it is slowly, then we are doomed within the not too distant future.
Your 2nd and 3rd points are what I was trying to avoid... I don't know how to discuss this without arguing, so agree to disagree is a good term.
:nyah:
The Swiss all keep a gun in their home, nobody ever uses it.
I don't understand all the gun hype in the US.
The public voted on harsher laws and sentences, that's why the prison population has grown. The public wanted a "Three Strikes and You're Out" policy. Maybe 3 Strikes--You're Out should be repealed.
But it's such a mess with drugs easily available (apparently). I don't understand why there's such a huge demand for illegal drugs, that Mexico, Central America and Columbia are having huge drug turf wars over the supply lines. It's insane.
I heard something about a woman who my GF works with. She is oldish, around 55 and she is a practicing buddhist. You may say that in thailand that must be common, but no, most people see it as a form of getting good luck. But she has on two occassions seen someone sleeping rough close to her house and let them stay with her. These people never took anything from her, never treated her badly or anything of that nature. This makes me think of that saying, 'if you treat people greatly, they will show themselves to be great'.
2011-12-10 18:01:20 GMT+7 (ICT)
HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA (BNO NEWS) -- A gunman opened fire in the famous Los Angeles district of Hollywood on Friday, randomly shooting at people before being killed by police, local media reported.
The gunman, a young white male wearing a white tank top, was seen standing in the middle of Vine street in Hollywood when he opened fire at passing motorists at random. He also fired in the air, causing panic as people ran for cover.
A 40-year-old man who was driving a silver Mercedes Benz was shot in the head and reported to be in a critical condition, according to the Los Angeles Times. He was rushed to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center after suffering a gunshot wound to his jaw.
The Los Angeles Police Department brought the shooting rampage to an end by fatally shooting the gunman in the middle of the intersection at Sunset Boulevard and Vine Street. Photographer Gregory Bojorquez, who witnessed the incident, told the Los Angeles Times that when police arrived at the scene and ordered the gunman to the ground and surrender, he began screaming he 'wanted to die.'
The gunman, who was also reportedly armed with a knife, then appeared to reach for his gun when a police officer opened fire and fatally shot him.
Both the gunman's identity and his motive were not immediately known, but the incident showed similarities to the phenomena which is known as 'suicide by cop'.
He may be dead or in jail now, but he could have formed a militia if there were a need to overthrow the government. We have our priorities.
Unless they are made in mexico, S. A., or Canada
"(The Lord) shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
(Is. 2:4)
Where I come from (Northern U.S.) I was raised never to pull a weapon unless I intend to use it. Meaning it is a last resort in the most desperate of measures. And this applies to all weapons. From firearms to knives to a simple cudgel, you do not draw a weapon unless you fully understand that you may have to spill blood. I am trained extensively in weapons safety as well, which has a nice little side effect. I can disassemble most handguns and render them inert in just a few seconds. So even if I have a gun, and he has a gun, with a push of a button and a quick jerk it is very possible to separate the slide from an automatic pistol, thus rendering the situation a lot less dangerous than it once was. Not saying if it is just the two of us I'll do so, I'll run instead. But in a room full of people it would be much better to try and disarm the weapon than swapping lead.
I know many, many gun owners and all of them share my mentality. If someone is going to commit a violent and armed crime, they are the type of person who would probably do so whether they have a gun, or a knife, or what have you. Not everyone who owns a weapon is a mentally unbalanced violent psychopath and honestly, I am insulted that this seems to be the common assumption here. I am even more insulted at the holier-than-thou attitude that is being displayed here by non gun owners. It is all well and good that you decide not to be an armed individual, I actually applaud that. But just because I own a weapon does not make me less of a person than you, and you would do well to remember that.
A weapon is just an inanimate object. It is the person wielding it who is in the wrong, not the weapon itself. The amount of Hoplophobia here is quite frankly, nauseating and immature. If all of us are put in a dangerous situation, I think we would all act in the same manner, even if I happened to be armed. With the exception that if it gets right down to it, I have that last and desperate measure, and can save myself and others instead of making a fool of myself and winding up dead. Believe it or not, not everyone responds to non-violence rationally. Just because you show no signs of resisting does not mean the maniac causing the problem will just go "oh ok I understand" and then not proceed to kill you and those around you. It is a very beautiful world you all live in if you think this is the case.
Sometimes, violence can only be ended by violence. It is unfortunate of course but it is naive to think that this is never the case.
And for the record I'd rather have a gun pulled on me than a knife, as I have had both and still bear the scars of a rather bad knife fight between me and a mugger that decided to stab first and ask questions later. If my wounds are any indication, dying from a blade would be immensely more drawn out and painful than getting shot. Odd way of thinking I admit, but that is how it is. Not to mention going blade on blade with a crazy guy is an experience I never want to relive.
So I'm going to ask again, can our European members tell us how gun laws work regarding hunters, in your country?
But handguns can, and do, fall into the wrong hands. This isn't an easy issue to debate, it's complicated. But I'm tending to think that if many other countries can manage and their citizens feel safe without handguns, we shouldbe able to do the same. I don't have all the answers, and your opinion is more than welcome.
It's nice to see you around, by the way.
Thus to cure the problem of weapons designed for human on human violence I think there needs to be an alertative to leaving yourself and your family vulnerable to crime.
The above discussion would be relevant if we have already conceded that we may need weaponry to oppose tyranny.
So how do we go forward in disarming the human on human weaponry? The next logical problem in the U.S. is that the populace does not support gun disarming. It is not just the republicans or whatever who want to eliminate handguns. It is by far a majority of adults who do not wish to regulate handguns. Now you can get involved in adhominems towards those 'guns' people till the cows come home but it only is a seed of ill will in your own mind rather than any kind of a solution.
You have a better chance of robbing a post office and getting away with money, be it less, but still the chances are better.
But there still are handguns about, like it has been said. There was a gang in manchester called the gooch gang (gooch because that was the name of their street), lol. But they all got hand guns shipped over from russia. They got the toughest sentences in UK modern history due to their killings. Two of the members got 30 year each without chance of parole, which is a very tough sentence for someone in the UK.
But you're right, bank robberies are rare. Robbing convenience stores seems to be more popular.
Guns shipped over from Russia?! It must've been a black market thing in the UK.
@lama Oh yeah, I forgot about that film. Time to review it. Thanks for reminding us.