.Violence has been around long before video games, potato chips, dormant lifestyles, bad diets and every other emotional reason you can throw out there...

That's true, but acts of violence before were usually to gain something, like fighting over resources / money, food, etc, when nowadays there are these acts of total madness committed by people with serious mental problems.

 

Definitely the nature of violence has changed in western world. For example here in Finland between years 1800-2000 zero cases of some mentally diseased young people going into random killing spree in school, now then between 2000-2010 we had two of those and at least two or three smaller cases.

 

Personally I believe the cause for this to be in modern day culture centered around capitalism and its infinite seek for profit. Things all the way from education to actual working life are becoming more complicated, people are mentally pushed harder and harder in their jobs, traditional communities and family structure are gone and children grow all wrong when their parents and people around them have no time to support them.

That's true, but acts of violence before were usually to gain something, like fighting over resources / money, food, etc, when nowadays there are these acts of total madness committed by people with serious mental problems.

 

Definitely the nature of violence has changed in western world. For example here in Finland between years 1800-2000 zero cases of some mentally diseased young people going into random killing spree in school, now then between 2000-2010 we had two of those and at least two or three smaller cases.

 

Personally I believe the cause for this to be in modern day culture centered around capitalism and its infinite seek for profit. Things all the way from education to actual working life are becoming more complicated, people are mentally pushed harder and harder in their jobs, traditional communities and family structure are gone and children grow all wrong when their parents and people around them have no time to support them.

 

Or they are the same people who would have committed suicide holed up in a basement somewhere but because the Media makes them famous this is a way to go out and make a name for themselves... Perhaps if the media stopped reporting on the killers there would be no motivational...

Or they are the same people who would have committed suicide holed up in a basement somewhere but because the Media makes them famous this is a way to go out and make a name for themselves... Perhaps if the media stopped reporting on the killers there would be no motivational...

Well yeah, I think that does have an effect too, but still I also think the way modern day society works increases amount of people with this kind of severe mental problems...

I meant to limit the number of rounds in a clip. Presumably it takes time to reload constantly so there is more time for people to escape and authorities to deal with the situation.

 

One word....clueless. Before any1 even realizes he's reloading he'll be firing again. We're talking seconds here. And as far as the authorities reacting, he'll reload 10 times (easily) before they even show up. C'mon

One word....clueless. Before any1 even realizes he's reloading he'll be firing again. We're talking seconds here. And as far as the authorities reacting, he'll reload 10 times (easily) before they even show up. C'mon

 

+1. Agree 100% Seriously. Banning the number of clips does absolutely nothing dude. We don't have to take action and ban something everytime there is a shooting people

Clueless is not the right word. Gun control laws in the US seem strange to people from other western countries - you have relatively easy access to firearms, and a very high gun related mortality rate.

 

I'm not presuming to say you should change anything, but if you're out of step with the rest of the world you should at least stop and consider the options - which is actually what I see the US doing now.

 

 

 

Other countries gun controls are strange to many here. I have no desire to be like other Countries. I live in America how other countries govern themselves is up to them.

I'm sorry you don't get to attach stereo types, stigmas or any preconceived notions you have about America to me. I don't care at all how sovereign people choose to elect a d govern their country. I don't ever give it a second thought. That's up to them. I have enough to worry about here without trying to figure out what is going in across the ocean or across the North or South border. Sorry you feel so strongly but attaching those feeling to every American is quite silly and naive.

You might like to re-consider that.

Your country has a policy of "projecting" its power and if you can find another country that does'nt conform to the American Ideal, "coincidentally" has oil/gas/minerals and is militarily weak..........chances are America will In there with Guns/Tanks/Bombs etc, under the banner of exporting Western democracy.

 

Having a "bigger stick" than the next guy (and using it) is a mindset that runs through your country from top to bottom, from government all the way down to the Individual. The morals governing when the stick is used are unfortunately confused and have more to do with self empowerment than self defence.

You are in denial about it.

 

(edited to correct formatting)

 

Hey Burt, why don't you go spread your Anti-Americanism somewhere else, this isn't the place.

You might like to re-consider that.

Your country has a policy of "projecting" its power and if you can find another country that does'nt conform to the American Ideal, "coincidentally" has oil/gas/minerals and is militarily weak..........chances are America will In there with Guns/Tanks/Bombs etc, under the banner of exporting Western democracy.

 

Having a "bigger stick" than the next guy (and using it) is a mindset that runs through your country from top to bottom, from government all the way down to the Individual. The morals governing when the stick is used are unfortunately confused and have more to do with self empowerment than self defence.

You are in denial about it.

 

(edited to correct formatting)

Got to agree with Randy, most Americans dont spend much time worrying about what goes on beyond our borders. We have our own problems to deal with. From what I'm observing, most Americans would prefer to see our troops brought home along with tightening up the purse strings when it comes to sending billions of dollars overseas. But our government apparently sees things differently.

 

What I find amusing is the same folks that imply that the US government is using a "big stick" around the world are for the most part the same folks that want to disarm the American people. Wouldnt it be better for you folks to be sending us weapons?

You might like to re-consider that.

Your country has a policy of "projecting" its power and if you can find another country that does'nt conform to the American Ideal, "coincidentally" has oil/gas/minerals and is militarily weak..........chances are America will In there with Guns/Tanks/Bombs etc, under the banner of exporting Western democracy.

 

Having a "bigger stick" than the next guy (and using it) is a mindset that runs through your country from top to bottom, from government all the way down to the Individual. The morals governing when the stick is used are unfortunately confused and have more to do with self empowerment than self defence.

You are in denial about it.

 

(edited to correct formatting)

 

Your post is deleted.

 

This tirade goes against just about everything this thread stands for and the guidelines the administration set for it. Because it is Christmas Day I did not take further punitive action, but I hope that you will visably restrain such attacks in the future.

 

Merry Christmas.

 

Kind regards,

One word....clueless. Before any1 even realizes he's reloading he'll be firing again. We're talking seconds here. And as far as the authorities reacting, he'll reload 10 times (easily) before they even show up. C'mon

 

I think the statistics from around the world would indicate that I am not clueless at all. Canada severely restricted semi automatic weapons after the Montreal masacre and Australia did the same after a similar event. There have been a few school shooting since in Canada but not nearly the high level of casualties.

 

By the way, I have shot both rifles and hand guns at a shooting range...something I rather enjoyed by the way. Just no need to take them home with me.

I think the statistics from around the world would indicate that I am not clueless at all. Canada severely restricted semi automatic weapons after the Montreal masacre and Australia did the same after a similar event. There have been a few school shooting since in Canada but not nearly the high level of casualties.

 

By the way, I have shot both rifles and hand guns at a shooting range...something I rather enjoyed by the way. Just no need to take them home with me.

 

Actually the opposite... During the time period when assault weapons were banned in the 90's Gun crimes rose slightly...

 

From Fox News:

Data published earlier this year showed that while the ban was in place, from 1994 to 2004, the number of mass shootings actually rose slightly during that period.

Add to that the fact that most gun crimes in America are committed with handguns, and the gun lobby enters this debate with some potent statistics.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2G4awn1ug

Here is another view, from a slightly different viewpoint.

 

Ron Paul as quoted by Fox news:

 

"School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America," Paul said in a written statement.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...intcmp=trending

Here is another view, from a slightly different viewpoint.

 

Ron Paul as quoted by Fox news:

 

"School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America," Paul said in a written statement.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...intcmp=trending

 

Funny, I disagreed with just about everything he said until this:

Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets."

 

I have to say and this is just my opinion of course so it isn't worth the monitor it is typed on but if someone is against an armed officer in schools I have to ask are you more concerned with your child's safety or your own agenda? We are willing to protect our Elected officials, our money, our airports, our train stations, our borders, our Federal buildings with armed officers because again IMHO the only thing that can protect in a situation like this is to A. Be able to fight back or B. be able to take refuge and protection (ie a bunker or armored vehicle such as "The Beast")

 

Someone show me a more effective and proven method of protecting something than securing the building/vehicle or providing armed protection... So we can either make our schools into locked down bulletproof facilities (trust me the cost would far exceed an officer in every school) or an armed deterrent.

 

What are others proposing other than no officers and banning weapons?

 

So if you aren't willing to use the most effective method of preventing something my question is of course, Why?

 

Even in GB where the citizens don't carry guns the airports are patrolled by Machine gun carrying officers, so are some areas around London and train stations and some football matches... So even the Brits recognize when it comes to protecting high value targets, risks and areas, armed officers are the best defense/deterrent. I am not saying this should be it, we have serious mental health issues that need to be addressed but if we use armed officers all over the world to protect our most valuable assets why not use them to protect our kids?

 

What really blows my mind is how many of these people who don't want a professionally trained armed guard protecting their kids at school want one on their own flight when they travel... Where is the logic in that or should we ban FAM's because guns/bombs are illegal for terrorists?