This time it got worse...andyb wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ampus.html
Fortunately only 2-killed this time.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/12/1 ... 9020121214
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
This time it got worse...andyb wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ampus.html
Fortunately only 2-killed this time.
I have no idea who this woman is but your description reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote.She is a really tough, manipulative old bat, who is blind to any argument except her own.
Your Churchill quote sums up Ms. Hammer well. And, I misspelled her name in the above posting, it is "Hammer," not "Hamer."andyb wrote:I have no idea who this woman is but your description reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."Andy
In US anyone over 18 can buy a gun. In most of the other countries, you need a gun permit which is usually linked with psychiatric check. That is the reason why do you have such big difference. In US it is harder to get beer than to get a gun.flapane wrote:There's a non linear growth that must be explained somehow.
Below is a link to a blog or article that goes a long way to answer your question. Read it through. While it doesn't explain everything that is wrong with the U.S. today, it does explain a lot, a whole lot. In doing so, it starts with the shooting and its causes, then goes into other things, but it all relates to the problems that this entire thread covers. And too, notice that he points out the liberal's contribution to the problems too. It really is not just the conservatives, the liberals share the blame too.andyb wrote:I will repeat something that I have said before.
Why does this happen in America so frequently relative to the population.?
Canada, has a similar quantity of gun ownership to America and yet there is considerably less gun crime overall (per capita) and a lack of frequent school massacres (per capita).
The difference especially on the Massacre question rather than the overall gun crime question must be in the American psyche and not the Canadian psyche.
Andy
Tens of millions of people all over the world play graphically violent computer games very day, just a few hours ago I was playing Far Cry 3, I am not about to go on a murderous rampage of indiscriminate violence, and neither are the tens of millions of other violent computer games players. In exactly the same what that people who play car racing games don't jump into their piece of shit low performance car and drive like they are trying to beat their personal best time driving from A to B, real-life is real, computer games are obviously not real."We also accept as a normal state of affairs that children stare into little stupid screens 24/7 playing violent video games that greedy nihilistic a-hole game designers churn out."
Home schooling is a pretty big deal for the Christian right in America. It's the only way of avoiding that pinko commie liberal Darwin heresy that schools keep on pushing.andyb wrote:"President Obama has asked for "Drastic Solutions" to stop future school massacres in America. The Republican Party have responded by suggesting that schools should be banned."
What I posted was actually a minor re-wording of a "joke" I found on the internet, I didn't aim for it to be conveyed as anything other than to ridicule (some) American politicians and gun Lobbyists. I failed to check the actual words that Obama usedI watched both Obama speeches--I didn't notice any call for "drastic solutions," just "meaningful" action. In the Newtown speech, though, he indicated that Americans had reached a crossroads, and he seemed pretty fed up with the gun lobby. More power to him, but let's see what action will result.
"Schools should be banned": i.e., home schooling. Well, good luck with that. That, surely, cannot be the solution.
And what would it help ? Ok, it would beep. So what ? Do you really think that solves anything ? What stops the shooter from shooting the guard at the metal detector and then ignoring the metal detectors ?flapane wrote:Would the introduction of metal detectors in public offices (schools included) be fool? It wouldn't be a "drastic solution" that would be opposed as much as a Constitutional change.
So why not firing TSA agents? They're useless, after all a terrorist could detonate a bomb in front of an agent, he'd surely kill a lot of people.faugusztin wrote: And what would it help ? Ok, it would beep. So what ? Do you really think that solves anything ? What stops the shooter from shooting the guard at the metal detector and then ignoring the metal detectors ?
They're not useless if they dissuade someone from a terrorist act. Stopping a terrorist act is much harder than dissuading someone from doing it in the first place.flapane wrote: So why not firing TSA agents? They're useless, after all a terrorist could detonate a bomb in front of an agent, he'd surely kill a lot of people.
Or you could walk around it, or pass your bag full of guns around it. People do this to avoid anti-theft barriers in shops so I think you'd find the same thing happening. It's a stupid approach. Are you then going to reinforce all emergency exits so that they can't be broken into? And are you also going to seal up all windows and put bars over them to stop anyone breaking in with weapons?flapane wrote:So what's the point in passing under a metal detector while entering in a State Capitol? I could easily shoot at the guard and ignore the beep. Is a State Capitol any different from other public offices?
Of course I was ironic. However, dissuading makes a good point of avoiding something bad.edh wrote: They're not useless if they dissuade someone from a terrorist act. Stopping a terrorist act is much harder than dissuading someone from doing it in the first place.
A public office (or even better, a US Capitol bdg) is supposed to be controlled better than a small shop. I've been through security in Iowa Capitol, they have metal detector at Texas Capitol, too. I can't see nothing wrong in them, neither the poor dead children parents do (I guess).flapane wrote: Or you could walk around it, or pass your bag full of guns around it. People do this to avoid anti-theft barriers in shops so I think you'd find the same thing happening. It's a stupid approach. Are you then going to reinforce all emergency exits so that they can't be broken into? And are you also going to seal up all windows and put bars over them to stop anyone breaking in with weapons?
I don't think this is gonna happen anytime soon, that's why I think that dissuading would be a nice starting point.edh wrote: Just control the weapons instead.