• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

20 People Shot Dead on Virginia Tech Campus

ponderingturtle said:
So you accept that having a gun will make you more likely to innitiate violence against someone else, but only in societaly sanctioned manners, not in any of those anti social ways, like the individual in this case did. Why?
Click to expand...

Nope. Nice word twist, PT. I submit that having a gun, in accordance with concealed carry laws, makes you much more likely to take defensive and protective measures when required, in a socially sanctioned way. NOT in anti-social ways.

Defensive protection is a far cry from "initiating violence against someone else." And you know it.
 
Last edited:
Mephisto said:
I'll have to start out agreeing with BPSCG, which if you've been lurking in the forums for awhile you'll realize is no small thing.

We're both anomalies of a sort - he's a conservative who will admit when he's wrong, and I'm a liberal gun-owner who supports the death penalty. ;)
Click to expand...
Hmmm, nothing in there about being able to admit when you're wrong... :xtongue
 
ponderingturtle said:
Everyone who thinks that having a gun will change behavior so much that someone goes from compliance to resistance. Oddly these same people make arguements about how firearms do not change peoples behavior as a general statement. These are seemingly incompatable views
Click to expand...

The evidence I've seen tells me that the presence of weapons increases violent behavior in individuals. It also tells me that people will defend themselves when the are properly equipped. I submit that the presense of a gun, just like any other weapon, will increase violent and self-defensive behavior.

I support gun rights and the Second Amendment.
 
fuelair said:
Feel free to explain what was morally right about 33 people dying - many together - without even a chance to defend themselves in any effective way - as opposed to allowing any responsible and trained person to be legally armed. My full belief is that any system that cannot reasonably guarantee the safety of all its' citizens and does not properly punish all those who act to destroy that safety (murderers, rapists, muggers, etc,) has a moral obligation to assist and allow its' citizens to defend themselves. By my definition, proper punishment is punishment that guarantees it is better to not harm others than to harm others. Our system is pathetic at that.
Click to expand...

That is a very different question. I don't think anyone has argued that there was anything morally right about the people dying.

What they have argued, if I understand it correctly, is that a policy that restricts availability of guns will result in lower total deaths than one which does not. I do not consider that an immoral position.
 
shanek said:
I am. Against them, that is.
Click to expand...

Good, then you should not try to agrue numbers and being safer, but from a philosophical point of view.

The real thing is that many people are not really interested in determineing what is the safest enviroment and promoting that.

So for example it does not matter if more people die as a result of having more people cary guns because that is not the reason people are carrying them, it is not infringing their right to be able to kill people.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Depends what you mean by "good".

Reading and participating in threads on gun control on here have changed my view. Originally I was what you would call a "heavy gun control advocate". Over time that has changed and I think that there is no "one size fits all" answer. What is right for the UK (which I know most about) is unlikely to be right for the US and vice versa given the different existing situation/attitudes/background/culture. Some will call that good, some won't.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. People find various arguments more compelling. But no side really has real evidence for it.
 
BPSCG said:
Please give me the names of people here who have claimed that anyone who would not use a gun to defend himself is a "pussy," and link to the posts where they said so.

Could you please explain what the hell you're talking about?
Click to expand...

I am useing the definition of someone who meakly complies is a "pussy", and someone who resists is a "real man".

And your arguement is that a gun will change behavior, but only in socialy acceptable ways. You say that people will be more likely to resist violence if armed, but not more likely to initiate violence. Well which is it, do guns change behavior or not?

If not, then why would haveing guns matter, as people in this case where not actively resisting?
 
BPSCG said:
The proper quote is, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems start to look like a nail." Please show where I or anyone else here has said the the only solution to all problems, or even this one, is guns.
Okay, you've completely stopped making sense. Thank you for playing; good-bye.
Click to expand...

And you have made arugement in favor of terrorism, and that makes sense?

The whole an armed society is a polite society is a reaction to the percieved threat of violence. It is very much about intimidation and terror.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Depends what you mean by "good".

Reading and participating in threads on gun control on here have changed my view. Originally I was what you would call a "heavy gun control advocate". Over time that has changed and I think that there is no "one size fits all" answer. What is right for the UK (which I know most about) is unlikely to be right for the US and vice versa given the different existing situation/attitudes/background/culture. Some will call that good, some won't.
Click to expand...

The problem I have with such a view is where does it start and stop? Most people would say that kidnapping is not the way to start a marriage, but that is cultural. Also say honor killings. These are cases where saying you can not pick a superior culture is simply wrong.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And your arguement is that a gun will change behavior, but only in socialy acceptable ways. You say that people will be more likely to resist violence if armed, but not more likely to initiate violence. Well which is it, do guns change behavior or not?
Click to expand...

Oh! Oh! I got one like this! Pick me! Pick me!

*ahem*

...

And your argument is that guns are more dangerous than many other everyday objects. If a gun is more dangerous, it is more likely to keep another person with a gun from causing more damage than not, as it makes the playing field equal.

So which is it? Are guns more dangerous than knives or less dangerous?

If less, then why bother to control guns at all?

If more, then you should finally understand the argument here. If not, then I cannot help you, and probably never could.
 
BPSCG said:
Kariboo - It's a thoughtful post; no reason to beat you up
Click to expand...

Thanks BPSCG, always nice to survive the first round:D

BPSCG said:
Well, how do you stop someone from being violent? Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, it's by force, which may or may not be violent (physically restraining a violent person is force, but isn't necessarily violent). But when restraint is not possible, how else do you stop the violent person?

No. For starts, a threat isn't the same as violence. A threat is a warning or a promise of violence yet to come. There are lots of ways to deal with threats before they become violent, and I don't believe any rational person teaches his children that the way to deal with a threat is to immediately resort to violence.

In Mr. Cho's case, it appears to me that what he was taught had very little to do with his actions. I doubt his parents, or anyone else, taught him that the way to deal with the injustices he perceived in the world was to take up a gun and slay.

But that training is meaningless in the case of someone who is completely unhinged.

Sure. And that's what we try to do. And that approach generally works with people who are more or less reasonable and rational. But, sadly, there are people in this world who are evil, and there are people who are psychotic, and there are people who are both psychotic and evil, who wish to do us harm. No amount of persuasion short of physical force will suffice when dealing with them. That is why we have police forces, and why we have armies. And that is why some of us believe we should be allowed to carry weapons if we believe our safety is in danger.

Do you think that would have made any difference in Blacksburg on Monday?
Again, what do you do when all non-violent means of protecting yourself have failed?
Click to expand...

I appreciate your response because it helps me to think this through for myself. In doing so I realized that I have a hard time putting into words what I have in mind but I am going to give it a shot anyways.

Of course the fact that we are in a thread talking about an actual situation doesn't make it easier, since saying that I don't believe in responding with violence almost makes it seem like I don't wish it would have ended differently in Virginia.

I agree that once a person is actually violent and shooting sitting around and singing kumbaja is not going to do anything in that particular situation. My thoughts were more directed at violence in society as a whole and won't be directly applicable to a lone gunman out there today.

Spree killers, serial killers and their ilk are a vast minority in the amount of violence out there, and I don't think there is much you can do to prevent every single one of them from coming into existence.
However Isn't it possible to diminish the amount of people that do get violent by bringing them up in a less violent society?

Maybe it's a bad idea to talk about violence prevention in a situation like this since it is such a rarity and I don't think that making policies have that big an impact on rarities. I do think policies can have a big impact on "everyday" violence

Maybe what I am trying to say (finally!!) is that I think that by being less violent in general we can lessen the general amount of violence in a society, however that also means that you won't be able to defend yourself in a situation where someone who is unhinged is trying to kill you.
The other side of the coin would be that it IS a good idea to be armed to defend yourself in that particular situation but the result could be that there are more people out there who would make a bad judgment or would use violence in a situation where in hindsight there would have been better options.

I have a hard time trying to figure out if it is possible to have the best of both worlds, less violence in general but also the possibility to defend yourself when it is absolutely necessary.

So I guess I am the one without the solution just more questions.

I am really in the wrong forum....

BPSCG said:
For the record, Mrs. BPSCG doesn't yell. She smiles tightly and gets very sarcastic. And she's never pointed a gun at me. Yet.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what they teach in the "how to be a wife" classes. Usually husbands are smart enough not to try their luck;)

Kariboo
 
Maybe if we all turn out the lights, stare into our monitors, and say "Bloody Larsen, Bloody Larsen, Bloody Larsen", he will appear.
 
Darat said:
Does Virginia have the death penalty for murder?
Click to expand...
Yes. Hell, we have the death penalty for picking your nose while driving.

Which raises another question, mostly for people opposed to the death penalty:

If you (that's the editorial you, or "y'all" as we say in the South, not just "Darat you") are happy/satisfied/relieved that Mr. Cho ended the day by killing himself, would you be happy/satisfied/relieved had he been captured, and (assuming he'd been found sane and guilty) been executed?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom