Students Gunned Down at Montreal College

[AG124]

:o At least no one is dead yet, although at least eight are in critical condition. What a sick world we live in.:nope:

12 shot, eight critical, 2 serious, 2 injured. Two gunmen dead, one escaped. Latest news.:nope:

EDIT - Update - Only one gunman dead (actually, the only one present), one innocent woman dead, 20 injured in various degrees. Will continue to update.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/09/13/shots-dawson.html

[Perilscope]

Indeed, it is sad news, I hate this type of stuff. I went to that college just last year for a PHP crash course. This is the second shootout here in Montreal. WTF is happening here?:damn:

[flyingdane]

Yes very sad indeed.....:(

[SubSerpent]

It's gotta be that damned "DOOM3" game that caused this! That's what they'll be saying anyways! Or Grand Theft Auto, or Bad Day LA. What a sick world we live in when it's so easy to tag computers and the programs they run for the mental problems and instabilities of humans! :nope:

It's clear as day that this guy's mental operating system crashed!

[STEED]

A proper investigation is needed to sort this issue out once and for all. About the connection of violent video games and violent acts; I am not convinced that there is any strong evidence what so ever. It’s so easy to pass the buck. :nope:

[HunterICX]

:stare: Yet again an school has been striked by VLLAF

Violent Low Life Armed *******faces.....

and why do they pick on those inocent fellow students :nope: bastards...shooting at people for no reason at all....

[AG124]

Edited first post to reflect changing information.

[Skybird]

Jajaja... it's never the action games I love to play. It's also not the action movies I love to see. And certainly not the guns in my parent's household, and the fetish my society is making of them. All what I like has nothing to do with it...

Sounds familiar? Well, rightfully so. The discussion is old.

Truth is: culture and media output both are symptom and expression of the state of human mind and society - and affect that human mind in a feedback loop at the same time. If you are dumb, you do stupid things, that turn your culture into a stupid culture - which makes you even more dumb. Its kind of a codified interaction between society, and individual. If parents steal items in their companies and offices, do not be surprised if their kids steal in the supermarket and are not aware that what they do is not right. If medias teach you from young years on that all your social problems can be solved with pulling a trigger simply, don't be surprised if violance itself becomes an idol, and a focus. If no other and more valuable idols and ideals give orientation during the years a young human seeks orientation and borders that help him to define his structure - don't wonder when he falls for wrong idols, raw messiahs and a way through life that wills to easily pull a trigger. You become what you do and like, you like what you are used to, you are used to what you have done often. The debate of wether it is a given personality structure or a given media causing people to turn into freakheads is pointless. It works both ways simultaneously. that way, people's wishes become limited in scope, and canalised by market strategists. The argument that the market only delivers what is demanded is a foul excuse. In the above mechanism, people are no longer able to want certain things, and are fixated to want other things. There is no freedom of choice if you never have learned the ability of excercising freedom and think it is only doing what you want, without responsebility, only rights: no duties. The degree of your freedom is defined by the number of your options. And you can be made not to be aware of options you have. That way, the market gains control over your behavior, especially consummation and buying behavior.

Not only with video games, btw.

If I were a father, I would have a close eye on what my son or daugther is playing. Mindless violance orgies would be off limits, that means most egoshooters setting place in a war ambient like WWII, Vietnam, or War on terror, and all ego shooters that are only that: shooters. More complex sims, strategy, and others would be allowed. I also would set up a contrast program that is obligatory. If he/she is playing a war-setting-game, he/she also would have to see docus showing the cruel reality of war in all shocking brutality, or reflective movies on the matter as well. Information, not just the display of miltary action, like the many looping warmovies CBS is showing here in germany and that seem to be adverts for how great modern weapns take out this or that kind of target and what a picnic war is if you only wear the right uniform. Realizing what is going on in human minds when they fall for this leader or for that ideology that propagates war. And so on. Scepticism. A doubtful, but awake, alert mind asking questions and accepting no answer untested.

[scandium]

It's gotta be that damned "DOOM3" game that caused this! That's what they'll be saying anyways! Or Grand Theft Auto, or Bad Day LA. What a sick world we live in when it's so easy to tag computers and the programs they run for the mental problems and instabilities of humans! :nope:

It's clear as day that this guys operating system crashed!

Its about on par with blaming it on the person's religion, and if the shooter happened to be Muslim then this would automatically be Jihad and a "Muslim thing" or an "Islamofascist thing".

Fortunately the police response was extremely rapid and effective, which is exactly where the emphasis and funding should be on preventing/responding to anything of this sort (that and on intel).

[HunterICX]

No scandium , these days they would call it an ''Terrorist Attack''
:shifty: whatever these shooting guys where thinking its sure it wasnt healthy:down:

[The Noob]

Skybird,

I have Been Playing So Called "Shooters" very long now, and still i'm not ( At Least not Totally) Crazy. My Opinion is, if something like this happends, People want to Blame it on something. And thats, very often, the media, inculuding Video Games, Movies ect. And your "Strategy and simulation restriction" won't work anymore, since games like "Company of Heroes" for excample are no different to a shooter in therms of Violence. The only Difference is that you don't pull the trigger.

People who do such stuff are usually Menthaly Crazy. It ain't happend so often anyway. Once in a Few years. People will learn to live with that, like with terrorist attacks.

[Perilscope]

A proper investigation is needed to sort this issue out once and for all. About the connection of violent video games and violent acts;...They can start doing the investigation right here in my house. I have tree young children, 5, 7 and 9. They all play the wildest, most disturbing games around. They watch extremely violent movies often with content not suited for their age, I often use bad words in front of them and all other stuff that a good Christian would freak out about and condemn me as parenthood. Especially if they hear me say to my kids my famous saying, "There is no gods, but only evolution"

Anyway, you get the picture, we must be the worst, right. My kids must be bullies, with bad grades and they are always fighting, and use foul language at school and home, right?

WRONG!

Let's start with the young one, it's a girl, she's five and goes to pre-school. So to tell you the truth we can't really know how she performs in society. So let's skip to the others.

My two sons are so similar they can be spoken of as one.
Home they respect us and are obeisant, point.
At school, they are simply the best, the best grades in class, best behavior and loved by all teachers, nothing less.

The more they know from youth, the better they can confront life on a daily basis and have a good philosophy of life. And grow fair-minded far from any false notion one would want to impose to them.

And to come back to my daughter, I think she's even smarter than the two boys when they were the same age, she catches even faster. So I guess I can predict she is going to glow at school too, behavior and academic wise.

Therefore, it all comes down how we teach our kids about life and how to behave and interpret all types off circumstances. Anyway, it is working for me and my wife, and we are proud of it because we think we will never yield idiots that will start shooting people because they feel rejected a way or another.

In my house, a game is a game, a movie is a movie, and life is reality, plain and simple.

[mog]

It's gotta be that damned "DOOM3" game that caused this! That's what they'll be saying anyways! Or Grand Theft Auto, or Bad Day LA. What a sick world we live in when it's so easy to tag computers and the programs they run for the mental problems and instabilities of humans! :nope:

It's clear as day that this guys operating system crashed!

Its about on par with blaming it on the person's religion, and if the shooter happened to be Muslim then this would automatically be Jihad and a "Muslim thing" or an "Islamofascist thing".
It's nothing like blaming it on someone's religion. Games are recreational, whilst Islam is a way of life.

[goldorak]

I wonder why this kind of violence is so specific to the north american continent (usa + canada) ? :hmm:

[waste gate]

I wonder why this kind of violence is so specific to the north american continent (usa + canada) ? :hmm:

What are you implying? Do you live in a land where murder does not exist?
Do you have a theory you'd like to share with us?

[SubSerpent]

I was just saying I think the media and parents blame games and movies too often for violence in society. I think it's the parents to blame mostly for the younger kids under 18 that commit these types of crimes and perhaps a few that have grown up a little past 18. Maybe up to 25 even. I think if you could have gone back in time and put a camera in the house of some of these nut jobs prior to their criminal act, you would see that most of their issues were derived from abusive parents that fought a lot in front of them. Dad or mom may have been a bad drunk and possibly abused them (mentally or physically or both). The kid probably turned to playing video games (their happy place) to release their anger. It was their escape from reality and allowed them to release their anger without killing someone in real life. Games are a good thing!

What tends to happen is these kids grow up and their whole life seems pointless. They become jealous of people who go to work happy when they don't. They are jealous of people who have a happy relationship going on. They are jealous of how so and so has more money than them. They are jealous of skinny people, or strong people. Their whole world seems like one lonely and depressing void that they can't escape from anymore. Games don't even seem to help them now because they realize their problems aren't ever going to change. In their mind they escape from reality and then the whole world seems to become like a video game or movie to them because their mind wants to be entertained and happy. Like Leonardo Dicaprio in the movie "The "Beach". He was banned from his peers and just went plain crazy and thought he was Super Mario Bros. or something.

Movies DON'T create psycho's, Movies only make psycho's more creative". -Scream

Once this mental breakdown comes into play they have become oblivious to what is real and fake anymore and I honestly think they just don't know what the hell they are doing. They probably think they have "unlimited ammo or God mode" running in the background and nothing can stop them. There becomes no remorse or consequences to them anymore. If anyone felt like that they would do something crazy. When you feel invincible you would do anything you wanted to do. Of course drugs and alcohol would just add to the fire and intensify their mental lapse, possibly furthering their rage if they were upset about something or someone in particular.


Note:
This brings me back to the weed thread I started not too long ago. I think weed might be the fix to problems like this. Honestly, how many people do you know go on a shooting spree while high as a kite on weed? ZERO! All you want to do on weed is eat, eat, eat some more, and then maybe just a bit more, and then pass the hell out happy as you can be.

Weed could be a good thing and stop violence! :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

It's gotta be that damned "DOOM3" game that caused this! That's what they'll be saying anyways! Or Grand Theft Auto, or Bad Day LA. What a sick world we live in when it's so easy to tag computers and the programs they run for the mental problems and instabilities of humans! :nope:

It's clear as day that this guys operating system crashed!

Its about on par with blaming it on the person's religion, and if the shooter happened to be Muslim then this would automatically be Jihad and a "Muslim thing" or an "Islamofascist thing".
It's nothing like blaming it on someone's religion. Games are recreational, whilst Islam is a way of life.
Bingo! :yep:

Scandium still doesn't get it. :nope:

Periscope, have you considered the next generation? :hmm:

[TteFAboB]

I wonder why this kind of violence is so specific to the north american continent (usa + canada) ? :hmm:

It isn't. You just don't get it on your news sources when it happens elsewhere.

[scandium]

It's gotta be that damned "DOOM3" game that caused this! That's what they'll be saying anyways! Or Grand Theft Auto, or Bad Day LA. What a sick world we live in when it's so easy to tag computers and the programs they run for the mental problems and instabilities of humans! :nope:

It's clear as day that this guys operating system crashed!
Its about on par with blaming it on the person's religion, and if the shooter happened to be Muslim then this would automatically be Jihad and a "Muslim thing" or an "Islamofascist thing". It's nothing like blaming it on someone's religion. Games are recreational, whilst Islam is a way of life. Bingo! :yep:

Scandium still doesn't get it. :nope:

Periscope, have you considered the next generation? :hmm:
Perhaps because there is nothing to "get". Within any society, no matter its form, how peaceful it is, or how violent it is, you are going to have a certain amount of animal like behaviour; because when you strip everything else away, then that is what you find at our core, that we are animals. All of us. We all have the capacity hardwired into us to commit all manner of crime and mayhem, it is instinctive and it is biological. That most of us, no matter what our religion, ethnicity, gender, age, socioeconomic background, income, occupation, family background, marital status, or any number of other factors don't act as animals while others do is not because of any single variable. That is what you and others like you, who hold yourself up on some kind of pedestal and divide mankind into two categories based on their religion, don't get.

What all those variables can do, however, is find some correlation among certain things and, factoring in cultural variables, explain why certain criminal behaviours are more prevalent in some societies than others, or why one society expresses its aggression in one form and another in a different form. But there are no simplifications. For instance, studies have shown that fewer married men commit suicide than single men (controlling for age, income, and other variables). But so what?

What you don't get is that, though there are almost reasons for everything, they are almost never predictable, easily explainable, or attributable to any one set of variables; even in lifetime identical twin studies where both have the same genes and are raised in identical circumstances, there is considerable variation in the paths these individuals will take. Yet you think you can reduce everything to a religion that is practiced by 1.2 billion people and draw conclusions attributable to the entire vast group from a single variable, their religion, as it is used by a tiny subset of the entire group. That is a joke. Especially when you consider that the number of people killed in North America by our Muslim populations (and we have tens of millions of Muslims in Canada and the US alone), whether immigrant, native born, or whatever, are but a drop of water in the ocean compared to the number of people killed in our countries by members of the predominant religions for all manner of reasons.

The Muslim boogeyman under the bed is just the latest cynical political ploy to keep the population compliant and distracted from the bigger issues, the ones that result in the deaths or exploitation of thousands daily which people have become desensitized to in their need to defeat terror so they can feel secure from it, and neither will ever be accomplished. Terrorism is a tool, not a state or a person. You can no more defeat it than you can defeat robberies or ordinary homicides. You can try and prevent it, and you can capture or kill the perps/organizers, but the problem itself will never go away. It will always manifest itself wherever it can be used by those desperate enough, or fanatical enough, to employ it and who have no legitimate means available to accomplish their objectives. It is as simple as that. And if you think bombins mosques or gassing or sterilizing Muslims, or practicing other more subtle forms of religious suppression and/or genocide, will accomplish anything other than inflaming the underlying illness, then not only do you not get it, but you are part of the problem.

[Yahoshua]

Oh yes, we can just ignore the Islamic campaigns against the dhimmi coming from Mohammedans.

We can ignore the fact that the Arab world has invested more in terrorism, arms exports and exporting Islam than in infrastructure. All "for the good of the people."

We can ignore the fact that Mohammed violently seized power in Arabia.

We can ignore the fact that Islam has made more violent conquests than the Crusades.

We can ignore the fact that Islam has massacred civilians for refusing to convert to Islam.

We can ignore the fact that Islam is bent on World Domination

We can ignore the fact that Islamic clerics have repeatedly called for the destruction of the west in accordance with Islam.

We can ignore the fact that in Islam there is no freedom but what Islamic doctrine dictates.

After all, just ignore the problem and it'll go away.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Quran.htm

And it's true. The fact that the dhimmi exist is a problem for Mohammedans, therefore the "solution" is to kill all the dhimmi.

Ignore the threat, ignore our rights, ignore our freedom, ignore our life and it'll all go away.

Since you're such a vocal advocate of this solution scandium, would you like to volunteer first?

[The Avon Lady]

Perhaps because there is nothing to "get". Within any society, no matter its form, how peaceful it is, or how violent it is, you are going to have a certain amount of animal like behaviour; because when you strip everything else away, then that is what you find at our core, that we are animals.
I disagree with your premise that humans are animals but that's less relevant than your essential assumption.

Tell me, would you agree that Nazis were more evil, violent and animal-like because the evil was preached and coded, taught in schools, published in books and accepted by a great proportion of Germany's nationals as the goals and virtues of their country?

More, though I don't know why I bother - it's so elementary:
All of us. We all have the capacity hardwired into us to commit all manner of crime and mayhem, it is instinctive and it is biological.
Do you have a book or teacher or philosopher that you accept as of divine origin that teaches that such things are good and righteous?

Muslims do.

I don't.

Do you?
That most of us, no matter what our religion, ethnicity, gender, age, socioeconomic background, income, occupation, family background, marital status, or any number of other factors don't act as animals while others do is not because of any single variable.
Yes, it's all coincidence. No pattern recognition here. Let's go analyze fractals in our spare to. Move along!
That is what you and others like you, who hold yourself up on some kind of pedestal and divide mankind into two categories based on their religion, don't get.
There are dozens of religions. Why are people like myself not dividing up mankind into numerous bits and pieces?

And why not look in the opposite direction, toward Islam. Is it not the ultimate pedestal standing to claim the world MUST globally adhere to their interpretation of divinity, that to do otherwise warrants war, death, terror and subjugation, all according to a highly documented and codified 1400 year old system.
What all those variables can do, however, is find some correlation among certain things and, factoring in cultural variables, explain why certain criminal behaviours are more prevalent in some societies than others, or why one society expresses its aggression in one form and another in a different form.
Yes, the anthropology of Islam's origins among the Arabian pagans of the 7th century is very fascinating but it doesn't change the fact of what the essence of Islam is, claims to be and teaches and obligates its adherants to do and obey.
But there are no simplifications. For instance, studies have shown that fewer married men commit suicide than single men (controlling for age, income, and other variables). But so what?
Maybe there's a connection. Maybe not. Start another thread. If there is a correlation, saying "so what" is sheer ignorance.
What you don't get is that, though there are almost reasons for everything, they are almost never predictable, easily explainable, or attributable to any one set of variables; even in lifetime identical twin studies where both have the same genes and are raised in identical circumstances, there is considerable variation in the paths these individuals will take. Yet you think you can reduce everything to a religion that is practiced by 1.2 billion people and draw conclusions attributable to the entire vast group from a single variable, their religion, as it is used by a tiny subset of the entire group.
Define "tiny subset."

What is tiny about almost half of the 46,000+ Arabs recently polled by Al-Jazeera being in favor of Osama bin Laden.

Put your head back in the sand, Scandium. Enjoy the darkness.
That is a joke.
Your warped sense of humor is duly noted.
Especially when you consider that the number of people killed in North America by our Muslim populations (and we have tens of millions of Muslims in Canada and the US alone), whether immigrant, native born, or whatever, are but a drop of water in the ocean compared to the number of people killed in our countries by members of the predominant religions for all manner of reasons.
Who told you that Jihad is solely waged by war and killing? Pity the ignorant.

But if we must talk about wars and killings, be my guest (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm) - again, all justified by an established and accepted religious code of law that to deny it is to be blasphemous.

There are no coincidences here nor randomness.
The Muslim boogeyman under the bed is just the latest cynical political ploy to keep the population compliant and distracted from the bigger issues, the ones that result in the deaths or exploitation of thousands daily which people have become desensitized to in their need to defeat terror so they can feel secure from it, and neither will ever be accomplished. Terrorism is a tool, not a state or a person. You can no more defeat it than you can defeat robberies or ordinary homicides.You can try and prevent it, and you can capture or kill the perps/organizers, but the problem itself will never go away. It will always manifest itself wherever it can be used by those desperate enough, or fanatical enough, to employ it and who have no legitimate means available to accomplish their objectives. It is as simple as that. And if you think bombins mosques or gassing or sterilizing Muslims, or practicing other more subtle forms of religious suppression and/or genocide, will accomplish anything other than inflaming the underlying illness, then not only do you not get it, but you are part of the problem.
What a sad little man. Preventing terror is religious suppression but subjugation to Islam isn't.

Enough said. Skybird, I'm with you. Waste of time here. :yep:

[Spoon 11th]

It's gotta be that damned "DOOM3" game that caused this! That's what they'll be saying anyways! Or Grand Theft Auto, or Bad Day LA.

Can't blame shooting games. Not enough head shots in this incident.

[scandium]

I disagree with your premise that humans are animals but that's less relevant than your essential assumption.
Then what are we? We belong to the same genetic family as the great apes (genus hominidae) and share 95% of our DNA with chimpanzees. What makes us "special" are our opposable thumbs and well developed neo-cortex, the first making us especially adept at making and using tools, and the second giving us the ability to reason and to think analytically; and that part of our brain is constantly at war with the various portions of the lower brain that are responsible for our emotions, intuition, and instinct. Strip away those two advantages and we would, like our ancestors further up the evolutionary timeline, have become extinct thousands of years ago since we are physically very weak when compared to our natural competitors.

Tell me, would you agree that Nazis were more evil, violent and animal-like because the evil was preached and coded, taught in schools, published in books and accepted by a great proportion of Germany's nationals as the goals and virtues of their country? This is the kind of simplistic generalization that gets us into so much trouble with so many different people, though it fits in perfectly with your take on Islam and Muslims so it actually makes sense coming from you.

The Nazis could not have come to power, and their "evil" could not have been preached, coded, taught in schools, etc, without the support of the German business community and aristocratic class, which they had, and all of this before Adolf Hitler ever became Der Fuhrer. Were all of these business people (not all of who were even German, there was much iternational support early on as well) and aristocrats who enabled, directly, Hitler's rise to power and supported him throughout his reign "evil"? They were, every one of them, card carrying members of the Nazi party and supporters of it; though only a very few, mainly the ones who were later appointed to government positions that brought them into direct contact with policy, ever stood trial for war crimes.

And how about those Nazis with more intricate party ties, including participation in war crimes, who never stood trial at Nuremburg but were instead recruited by the intelligence and defence agencies of both the US and the USSR (those involved with the V-2 rocket program were especially valuable, and at least two former Nazis went on to play a big role in America's emerging space program, becoming founding members of NASA) - were they "evil"?

What you are describing are the traits associated with those involved with the camps, as described in "The Theory and Practice of Hell" (written by sociologist and camp survivor); though if you read say Primo Levi's "Survival in Aushwitz" (a Jewish Italian survivor who, in his later years went on to commit suicide), things aren't so clear cut: many of the prison kommandos, the inmates who were put in charge of their fellow inmates, were often more callous and brutal than the Nazis running the camps, and this was true no matter what colour triangle they wore... and man's inner animal nature is a theme that runs throughout that book, in tandem with the efficient, beauracratic, inhuman, indifferent, machine-like atmosphere that pervaded the inner workings of the camp from top to bottom. That was one of the things that was the most "evil" of all - how otherwise ordinary nobodies could wield so much power over life and death with so much indifference. Anyway, that is a bit of a tangent.

Do you have a book or teacher or philosopher that you accept as of divine origin that teaches that such things are good and righteous?

Muslims do.

I don't. You don't? When did you give up the Jewish faith, or do Jews no longer believe that they are God's Chosen People and therefore separate and distinct from the gentiles?

Do you? No, because I don't buy into any of the monotheistic religious BS no matter what it calls its god, its holy book, or its place of origin. And the big three all have more in common than do differences.

There are dozens of religions. Why are people like myself not dividing up mankind into numerous bits and pieces? You're not? You are one of what, 12 million? Yet you clearly believe yourself and others of your faith are entitled to that which you're so ready to deny 1.2 billion others who are not - the right to practice their own religion, the same as you do your own; in fact, you live in a state that goes a step beyond that, in that it practices apartheid based on religious/ethnic differences, and even bases citizenship on whether or not one is Jewish, despite the fact that it is the birthplace of all three monotheistic religions and sacred to each.

And why not look in the opposite direction, toward Islam. Is it not the ultimate pedestal standing to claim the world MUST globally adhere to their interpretation of divinity, that to do otherwise warrants war, death, terror and subjugation, all according to a highly documented and codified 1400 year old system.

Yes, the anthropology of Islam's origins among the Arabian pagans of the 7th century is very fascinating but it doesn't change the fact of what the essence of Islam is, claims to be and teaches and obligates its adherants to do and obey.
Right now I would say the ultimate pedestal is the one that has a 200,000 strong footprint in a region it has no historical ties to, based largely on its own ideological interpretation of divinity (the god given right to American style freedom) and which also maintains a military presence in almost every region of the world, has the world's largest military budget (which it spends more on than the rest of the world does, combined, on their own militaries) and owns, by far, the world's largest inventory of nuclear weapons - enough to destroy the world hundreds of times over. Then there is the economic hegemony, but never mind that... its the 7th century we're stuck on here, and how anyone can fear the man in a cave armed with a club when we're defended by every kind of modern weapon ever invented, is just beyond me. I mean... why stop there? There are lots of things that can kill you, and most of them more likely and many of them entirely natural. The whole point of terrorism is to spread fear, and if you've not only bought into but are helping to spread it yourself then who do you think is profitting?


Define "tiny subset."

What is tiny about almost half of the 46,000+ Arabs recently polled by Al-Jazeera being in favor of Osama bin Laden.

Put your head back in the sand, Scandium. Enjoy the darkness. How many deaths is Bin Laden personally responsible for? There's the 3,000 on 9/11, and maybe a few thousand more (if I'm not giving him too much credit) in the various suicide bombings before and after that he has been personally tied to.

By any poll, GWB enjoys the support of at least 1/3rd of Americans (and millions more from other countries), so we are easily talking well over a hundred million people, just to be on the conservative side, when we take into account his international support... and he is responsible for how many innocents killed in Iraq? By the most conservative of estimates, and even I believe by his own admission, 30,000+ Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11 and have never attacked America or its allies... so its all a matter of perspective. Personally I don't put GWB on the same level as Bin Laden, though I do think he's done enough to deserve impeachment and trial at the Hague for war crimes once removed from office (to be more specific, I think he should stand trial for 'planning, initiating, and waging a war of aggression and crimes against peace', which was one of the more common charges at Nuremburg, and which this war with Iraq certainly qualifies as, "coalition" or no coalition... if I recall Germany had a coalition too).

Anyway, that is enough for now. I am typed out.

And on re-reading what I wrote its just as well... my grammar and spelling are definitely not improving with time.

[Skybird]

Quote:
What you don't get is that, though there are almost reasons for everything, they are almost never predictable, easily explainable, or attributable to any one set of variables; even in lifetime identical twin studies where both have the same genes and are raised in identical circumstances, there is considerable variation in the paths these individuals will take. Yet you think you can reduce everything to a religion that is practiced by 1.2 billion people and draw conclusions attributable to the entire vast group from a single variable, their religion, as it is used by a tiny subset of the entire group.
Define "tiny subset."

What is tiny about almost half of the 46,000+ Arabs recently polled by Al-Jazeera being in favor of Osama bin Laden.

Put your head back in the sand, Scandium. Enjoy the darkness.

By any poll, GWB enjoys the support of at least 1/3rd of Americans (and millions more from other countries), so we are easily talking well over a hundred million people, just to be on the conservative side, when we take into account his international support... and he is responsible for how many innocents killed in Iraq? By the most conservative of estimates, and even I believe by his own admission, 30,000+ Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11 and have never attacked America or its allies...

Hijacking this thread? Well, only one minor participation from me, Concenring those 46000 from Al Jazeera, and 1/3 of Americans supporting Bush.

One third of Muslims in Great Britain were found in a representative analysis published by the BBC just some weeks ago to openely support and favour the idea of introducing Koranic law in Great Britain. The quote is even higher with the young ones. also, ovber one third thought that violance (in the undersatanding of terroristic violance) is acceptable if it helps to impose Islam on the west/Great Britain.

Roughly one year ago, or a little bit longer, in Berlin Turkish and Albanian school boys and girls up to age 18 were asked for a TV docu about traditonal education, honour murder, and Islamic law. More than the half of the boys found killing family members is okay, offended the Germans in general, while the majority of girls at least did not express opposition, some even agreed to honour murder if the family's "honour" was "hurt" by a female member.

In Germany, a famous and courageous Turkish woman, a lawyer, just has given up after many years of fighting for Muslim women's rights in Germany, saying that she has no more power left, has acchieved almost nothing, is massively threatened by murder (already attempts have taken place), and that she does not receive noticable support from the muslim communities in Germany. It is assumed that the organization helping Muslim women being chased by their families, and that raised in the wake of her engagement, will go down, to. It is routine in German courts that Muslim witnesses of crimes against females reject cooperation, even more so, when the case is a case of internal family violance.

The Netherlands currently see more native European Dutch citizens leaving the country and turning their backs on it, than Muhammedan colonists are moving in. The speed of it's Muslimisation is increasing that way: Euzropean Dutch evade, Muslims move in.

German integration ministre on visit in Turkey currently just has been lectured by Erdogan (yesterday or the day before) that we do make too little progress towards allowing education in Turkish language in public schools in general. While demanding that, at the same time we get lectured by Erdogan that we also do make too little progressn with our efforts to integrate the foreigners. Obviously his view on integration, and the German's understanding of integration (and my defintion of integration anyway) are lightyears apart. Erdogan'S understanding of integration of Turks in Germany is that Germans take over Turkish living habits, including Islamic rules. He undersatands it to be the Turkish state'S responsebility to prevent Turkish "immigrants" to melt into German society, he also sees the Turkish state responsible for preventing that Turkish immigrants eventually leave Islam. But both problems already were existant before Erdogan came to power.

Erdogan also has repeatedly demanded in the past that critical tones towards Turkey shall be shut down in German medias, demonstrations, comments, political statements, and so on. Islam meets Turkish nationalism. who needs free speech and free expression in medias?

Back to Canada.

[Immacolata]

Crikey (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/games/Goodbye+Steve/). Can't we even have an old fashioned, senseless school shooting without it turning into a islam-vs-the world discussion anymore? It is very simple. Make a man feel like a loser, give him a gun and raise him to believe that it is all their fault, then you get this.

Religion is hardwired into the human mind, you just can't help it. The labels differ, but there is no inherent evil in any religion I know of. It is all carried out by evil individuals. If they didn't use jihad as an excuse, they used socialism like the german and italian terrorists of the 70s did.

[Perilscope]

Okay, a little update on yesterdays shooting.

"A young woman was killed as a result of the shooting"
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/09/13/shots-dawson.html

By the way, kudos to Montreal Police for taking care of this the way it should have been.
In 1989 when something like this happened, the police stayed outside and the shooter rampaged inside the school for over half an hour. This time, they went inside right away, and faced the gunman and neutralized it within minutes. It's good to see that we have learned our lesson.

Montreal Police and Special Unit Squad.:up: :up: :up:

[The Avon Lady]

Religion is hardwired into the human mind, you just can't help it. The labels differ, but there is no inherent evil in any religion I know of.
Please do your loved ones and yourself a favor. Go out and buy a Quran or at least read it online (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/). Get to truly know Islam.

FYI, Jihad is a Quranic command, every sylabble of it viewed by Islam as G-d's authentic word. It is not some appendage added at a later date by mere earthlings, with no divinely authoritative foundation.

[The Avon Lady]

In 1989 when something like this happened, the police stayed outside and the shooter rampaged inside the school for over half an hour. This time, they went inside right away, and faced the gunman and neutralized it within minutes. It's good to see that we have learned our lesson.
I read somewhere that the shooter had 20-30 minutes of time until he was taken out. Is that incorrect?

[Immacolata]

Religion is hardwired into the human mind, you just can't help it. The labels differ, but there is no inherent evil in any religion I know of.
Please do your loved ones and yourself a favor. Go out and buy a Quran or at least read it online (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/). Get to truly know Islam.

FYI, Jihad is a Quranic command, every sylabble of it viewed by Islam as G-d's authentic word. It is not some appendage added at a later date by mere earthlings, with no divinely authoritative foundation.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this done by the people that reads the book? The quran is a political tool used by radicals. Just as the bible was a pretext to invade Palestine by the crusaders near millenias ago. A tool. However that does not make islam an evil religion. Nor does it make Christianity an evil religion. Or judaism for that matter. I do believe there is some notion of Israel being promised to Abraham by God himself, inspite of the countrly already being populated by the canaans. or something. I am not strong in Bible, but there IS a flimsy argument to claim right to a land if I saw any.

Funny thing is, that is how most civilizations of the world justifies their claims of land and right to existence. In Denmark, we believe that our nation was justified by god when our national flag fell from the sky during a holy crusade in Lativa or some such rubbish. Before that, our land was created by the norse gods, who also created us and put is in the outer world. Is that evil? In my opinion, no. All people need a place to live and sustenance. When religion leads to war I believe purely in the von Clausewitz definition. A means to gain material benefits.

In any case, to get to truly know Islam, or any religion, wouldn't you have to live by its tenets? Would I truly know and judaism by merely reading the Bible? If that isn't enough, then the additional laws that exist on judaism, then? Would that be enough?

[goldorak]

I wonder why this kind of violence is so specific to the north american continent (usa + canada) ? :hmm:
What are you implying? Do you live in a land where murder does not exist?
Do you have a theory you'd like to share with us?
No, I'm talking specifically about students shooting down friends,professors, bystanders etc.. in schools and colleges.
That kind of violence is specific to North America.
In Europe we don't have it.
I'm just stating facts, and so I wonder what is so specific about america and canada that those shootings exist.
Do you get my point ? :roll:

[SubSerpent]

This shooting had nothing to do with Islam or terrorism. It was committed by some white momma's boy who wasn't breastfed enough appartently, and decided to come up with an unoriginal shooting spree that's been done before several times.

[Immacolata]

No, I'm talking specifically about students shooting down friends,professors, bystanders etc.. in schools and colleges.
That kind of violence is specific to North America.
In Europe we don't have it.
I'm just stating facts, and so I wonder what is so specific about america and canada that those shootings exist.
Do you get my point ? :roll:

Um yes we do have it in Europe. With less guns around generally, it is probably not so wide spread. School shootings are probably very complex to figure out why happens. But the ease of getting a gun and some ammo is probably very much a part of it. Aside that, people behaving badly towards each other probably causes this too.

It has one thing in common with terrorism, however. Spectacle. Look at me world, how I burn out in a short flicker of rage that brightens everything, at least just for a short while before I am forgotten permanently.

[The Avon Lady]

I wonder why this kind of violence is so specific to the north american continent (usa + canada) ? :hmm:
What are you implying? Do you live in a land where murder does not exist?
Do you have a theory you'd like to share with us?
No, I'm talking specifically about students shooting down friends,professors, bystanders etc.. in schools and colleges.
That kind of violence is specific to North America.
In Europe we don't have it.
I'm just stating facts, and so I wonder what is so specific about america and canada that those shootings exist.
Do you get my point ? :roll:
What's with the Germans? :shifty:

Germany, November 1999: A 15-year-old student in Meissen, eastern Germany, stabbed his teacher to death after taking bets from classmates he would dare commit the crime.

He was later jailed for seven years.

Germany, March 2000: A 16-year-old pupil at a private boarding school in the Bavarian town of Branneburg, shot a 57-year-old teacher, who later died from injuries.

The teenager - who also shot himself - was facing expulsion from school after failing a cannabis test.

Germany, February 2002: A former pupil killed his headmaster and set off pipe bombs in the technical school he had recently been expelled from in Freising near Munich.

The man also shot dead his boss and a foreman at the company he worked for before turning the gun on himself. Another teacher was shot in the face, but survived.

Germany, April 2002: Seventeen people killed after a gunman - a former pupil - opens fire in a school in Erfurt, eastern Germany. He then turned the gun on himself.

[Immacolata]

Do you get my point ? :roll:
What's with the Germans? :shifty:

[QUOTE]

Happened in Denmark too, a guy took a gun into the cafeteria of the University of Aarhus and shot people, killed one or two, before killing himself. Also an introvert.

[waste gate]

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/cp/national/20060914/n091407a.jpg?size=l

The alleged gunman. Looks familiar.

[The Avon Lady]

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/cp/national/20060914/n091407a.jpg?size=l

The alleged gunman. Looks familiar.
Even his head is bullet-shaped! :o

[The Avon Lady]

Religion is hardwired into the human mind, you just can't help it. The labels differ, but there is no inherent evil in any religion I know of.
Please do your loved ones and yourself a favor. Go out and buy a Quran or at least read it online (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/). Get to truly know Islam.

FYI, Jihad is a Quranic command, every sylabble of it viewed by Islam as G-d's authentic word. It is not some appendage added at a later date by mere earthlings, with no divinely authoritative foundation.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this done by the people that reads the book? The quran is a political tool used by radicals.
Here you are wrong. The Quran is a political tool used by Muslims. Try to digest the difference.
Just as the bible was a pretext to invade Palestine by the crusaders near millenias ago.
What caused the Crusades? Hint: it wasn't bible reading.
However that does not make islam an evil religion. Nor does it make Christianity an evil religion. Or judaism for that matter.
What doesn't make Islam evil? The goal of world domination, the subjugation of all non-Polytheist infidels and the death of all polytheists? Or are you denying that this is a basic commandment of Islam?
I do believe there is some notion of Israel being promised to Abraham by God himself, inspite of the countrly already being populated by the canaans. or something. I am not strong in Bible, but there IS a flimsy argument to claim right to a land if I saw any.
You can argue with G-d, if you so please.

In any case, I can at least tell you that the Torah commandments to conquer the land of Israel have not applied since after the destruction of the 1st Temple in Jerusalem. That would be about 2500 years ago.
Funny thing is, that is how most civilizations of the world justifies their claims of land and right to existence. In Denmark, we believe that our nation was justified by god when our national flag fell from the sky during a holy crusade in Lativa or some such rubbish. Before that, our land was created by the norse gods, who also created us and put is in the outer world. Is that evil?
It doesn't bother me. Now what if it was Judaism's goal to convert everyone in the world by conviction or by coercion and to force anyone who refuses conversion to pay a heavy tax or suffer death? Now suppose that such divine laws were to be enforced till the end of time. Would you sit back and let us Jews into your country? Hell, I wouldn't! But there is no such thing in Judaism. Wrong target.
All people need a place to live and sustenance. When religion leads to war I believe purely in the von Clausewitz definition. A means to gain material benefits.
That is definitely a resulting material benefit of Jihad but Jihad is to be performed even if it means the Muslim Jihadist is to die for it. Again, read the Quran (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Quran.htm).
In any case, to get to truly know Islam, or any religion, wouldn't you have to live by its tenets?
Why?
Would I truly know and judaism by merely reading the Bible?
By the Bible alone? No? But through learning alone? Pretty much so and Judaism is extremly complex.
If that isn't enough, then the additional laws that exist on judaism, then? Would that be enough?
As I said, to learn is to know. That holds true for Judaism and so, too, for Islam. Now go and learn.

[Immacolata]

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/cp/national/20060914/n091407a.jpg?size=l

The alleged gunman. Looks familiar.
Even his head is bullet-shaped! :o

OMG its Bullet Bill! http://www.usresistance.us/media/nsmb_05.jpg

[joea]

This is just awful, really awful. *Determined not to bring up Islam*

In answer to Goldorak, it is simple, not as many guns that is all. In Canada we have stricter laws than the US but still have more hunters etc. than in Europe. There was a shooting in Switzerland at the cantonal parliament of Zug in 2001:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566321.stm

Here military service is mandatory and all able bodied males are required to keep assault rifles and ammo, under strict conditions for example each round must be kept sealed, at home. Still nothing physically to prevent a nut from using it as in the case above, or in the not infrequent domestic disputes. So the Swiss have more guns than say Italians. Still a lot lower than US gun crimes however.

[Yahoshua]

Firearms don't grow legs and arms and walk around shooting people. Firearms are no more alive than a hammer or a steak knife is. It was a madman who did this.

It is not the availability of an inanimate object that is the problem, if that were true then Washington D.C. wouldn't have ranked as the murder capitol of the United States for several years in a row.

A couple of books I suggest are : "More Guns: Less Crime" and "The Bias Against Guns," both are written by John R. Lott.

[The Avon Lady]

Updated details (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_re_ca/canada_college_shooting).

You know who was really nuts? The kid who tried to take a photo of the shooter with his phone. :nope:

[Immacolata]

Well on that notion you can claim that there is no reason to ban drugs. No need to prevent people from bringing sharp items with them when boarding planes. No reason for making it a criminal offense to posess counterfeit money. Or selling tobacco to minors. After all, they are just inanimate objects, incapable of harming anything or anyone. It is the sick people who use them that should be done something about. Like the loser who take drugs, the fanatic who uses a pen knife to hijack a plane, the counterfeiter to cheat people with his worthless money or the kiddo for trying to smoke.

[Yahoshua]

Let me show you something about "Gun Control."

http://www.jpfo.org/deathchartlg.gif

http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2005/04/more-victims-of-gun-control-safety.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,7217,00.html

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_racist.jpg

Original German
http://www.jpfo.org/NaziLawEnglish.htm

English translation
http://www.jpfo.org/NaziLawGerman.htm

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_order.jpg


http://www.canadianembassy.org/government/guncontrol-en.asp

An excerpt from the above link:

A national survey commissioned by the Canadian Firearms Centre in 2000 found an estimated 2.3 million firearm owners.

More than 1,000 Canadians die every year from gunshot wounds, most of them by their own hand. In 1996 the total firearm deaths amounted to 1,131, of which 815 were suicides, 45 were accidents and 156 were homicides.
The violent crime rate has been steadily declining in Canada over the last two decades, and progressively fewer crimes are being committed with firearms........


"Guns cannot be divided neatly into two categories — those that are dangerous and those that are not dangerous," the Court wrote. "All guns are capable of being used in crime. All guns are capable of killing and maiming. It follows that all guns pose a threat to public safety. As such, their control falls within the criminal law power."

— The Supreme Court of Canada
June 15, 2000

That was in June of 2000.

This is 2003

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

Again in 2005

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200508190817.asp


I have good reason for holding my position.

Not you, not the police, not the politicians, not the laws, not the courts, or anyone else will ever convince me otherwise.

I will die, before I ever allow myself to be forcibly disarmed.

And I mean exactly that.

[Immacolata]

I am so glad that I am oceans and continents away. There are idiots all over the world. Can't be helped. One born every minute. So I prefer my idiots unable to arm themselves with pistols, guns, heck even assault rifles. At least I have a chance to run.

[Yahoshua]

Well then I guess you wouldn't want intelligent people, like yourself, to be armed agianst said idiots. :roll:

This only demonstrates the sheer ignorance you've just displayed for all to see.

I'm perfectly fine with you being continents and oceans away from me, as long as your nation doesn't push its' "Gun Control" nonsense on us we'll be perfectly happy to watch you run around wondering why crime has skyrocketed and your only solution is to pass more meaningless laws. Enjoy what freedoms you have before your courts take them from you.

(eats popcorn)

[Fish]

Skybird,

I have Been Playing So Called "Shooters" very long now, and still i'm not ( At Least not Totally) Crazy.

You have a stable mind I guess.

[Gizzmoe]

we'll be perfectly happy to watch you run around wondering why crime has skyrocketed

We have extremely strict gun laws in Germany and the crime rate hasn´t skyrocketed. It´s steady for more than 10 years, with capital crimes on the decline.

[kiwi_2005]

I bet that shooter played to much Pac Man when he was a kid.

[The Avon Lady]

More interesting details (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/196688.php) about the murderer.

[Immacolata]

Well then I guess you wouldn't want intelligent people, like yourself, to be armed agianst said idiots. :roll:

This only demonstrates the sheer ignorance you've just displayed for all to see.

I'm perfectly fine with you being continents and oceans away from me, as long as your nation doesn't push its' "Gun Control" nonsense on us we'll be perfectly happy to watch you run around wondering why crime has skyrocketed and your only solution is to pass more meaningless laws. Enjoy what freedoms you have before your courts take them from you.

(eats popcorn)

What skyrocketing crime? Crime rates in Denmark are not going anywhere. How many people were killed by guns in USA last year? I think it was 10 in Denmark. Total confirmed murders around 53 for 2005. That number hasn't changed much for a decade. How many americans was imprisoned during 2005? Let me hear your numbers. Show me how much good your guns are doing you other than giving a false sense of security. You still think them thar red coats are gonna come and conscript your sons and burn your farm?

No, it will be us be eating popcorn, watching the USA slowly dissolve as a nation into anarchy and paranoia turns into real fear of your life as the deathtoll rises and impassable social stratification takes place.

The blog thingy linked to by Avon Lady shows me why giving guns to nut jobs is a Capital Bad Idea. You can own guns here, but its under a lot of regulation. If you are a hunter, you need a certificate first, formal training in using a gun. Then you need a permit from the police to own one. The gun you own must locked away and the ammunition locked away in a SEPERATE locker. This prevents such oopsies as when your little boy wants to show off his fathers guns to a friend and before you know it, one is dead. Not entirely, because there are still idiots with guns who keep them loaded and not locked away. Fortunately, not very often.

[scandium]

Well then I guess you wouldn't want intelligent people, like yourself, to be armed agianst said idiots. :roll:

This only demonstrates the sheer ignorance you've just displayed for all to see.

I'm perfectly fine with you being continents and oceans away from me, as long as your nation doesn't push its' "Gun Control" nonsense on us we'll be perfectly happy to watch you run around wondering why crime has skyrocketed and your only solution is to pass more meaningless laws. Enjoy what freedoms you have before your courts take them from you.

(eats popcorn)
What skyrocketing crime? Crime rates in Denmark are not going anywhere. How many people were killed by guns in USA last year? I think it was 10 in Denmark. Total confirmed murders around 53 for 2005. That number hasn't changed much for a decade. How many americans was imprisoned during 2005? Let me hear your numbers. Show me how much good your guns are doing you other than giving a false sense of security. You still think them thar red coats are gonna come and conscript your sons and burn your farm?

No, it will be us be eating popcorn, watching the USA slowly dissolve as a nation into anarchy and paranoia turns into real fear of your life as the deathtoll rises and impassable social stratification takes place.

The blog thingy linked to by Avon Lady shows me why giving guns to nut jobs is a Capital Bad Idea. You can own guns here, but its under a lot of regulation. If you are a hunter, you need a certificate first, formal training in using a gun. Then you need a permit from the police to own one. The gun you own must locked away and the ammunition locked away in a SEPERATE locker. This prevents such oopsies as when your little boy wants to show off his fathers guns to a friend and before you know it, one is dead. Not entirely, because there are still idiots with guns who keep them loaded and not locked away. Fortunately, not very often.
It is similar here in Canada so I don't know why he even brought it up. Sure there might be about a million "guns", but very few of them are handguns and there are almost no automatic weapons outside of those belonging to the police and military. To be able to buy/possess/own any kind of rifle or shotgun (and there are limits as to type, magazine size, etc) you need to first qualify for a basic firearms certificate (or FAC), meaning no criminal record, and pass an exam to get it (meaning most people who have it do a cheap course in basic firearms safety first that is often the same price as the FCA and includes the cost of the exam). To own a handgun you need a restricted firearms license, for which you must already possess an FCA and then do an additional firearms course/exam as well.

In either case there is a mandantory waiting period aside from the fees and exams, and once you have either then there are very strict gun control laws you must abide by, such as on how the weapon and ammunition must be stored and transported, or you lose your certification and face criminal prosecution as well. So people don't bother unless they're an enthusiast who enjoys shooting at the target range or who hunts.

Personally I grew up in a family where many of my uncles hunted regularly and was therefore taught how to shoot while still pretty young; but they also instilled respect for the weapons and they were off limits to me except when we were way out in the woods and many miles from civilization. As an adult I don't hunt or target shoot, amd therefore I don't feel the need to own a gun and view it more as a liability than anything else.

Guns are definitely not a part of our culture in Canada as they are in the US. Here owning a firearm is a priveledge that must be earned and paid for, same as a drivers license or any other kind of license, and which can be taken away just as easily if abused; they are not a right here as they are in the U.S. and you will not find racks of guns at Walmart here (or any other department store), nor can you just walk into the sporting goods store off the street here with a few hundred bucks in your pocket and walk out with a 9 mm.

Also not only has our society not plunged into anarchy because of our tight gun control laws, but our per capita violent crime rate (especially those crimes involving guns) is also far lower than that of the US.

[Immacolata]

Sounds like Canada is a nicer place to live in than USA. At least the odds of you ending up in a puddle of blood caused by a gunshot is somewhat lower. Atomic bombs do not cause problems, so why are people so anxious that Iran will get them? :doh:

[Yahoshua]

What skyrocketing crime?


Why dont you try reading this article, and the subsequent links contained.

http://torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2006/09/14/pf-1842693.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200508190817.asp

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/perspective/features/tm_objectid=17189805%26method=full%26siteid=50002-name_page.html

And I already know about the requirements in getting a firearm.

Should a person with criminal history have one, or someone with extreme mental disabilities (ie. being involuntarily committed)? No. There's already laws on the books about that. Should someone who's being threatened by someone she has a restraining order on get a firearm? Yes.

And we've done quite well in the U.S. regarding violent crime and the like with declines in states where concealed carry and castle laws have been passed. But crime has risen in states that do not have such laws.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperimentRev.pdf

You still think them thar red coats are gonna come and conscript your sons and burn your farm?

Nope, but the corrupt mayor with the power of eminent domain might try it.

http://www.progress.org/forf11.htm

http://www.hk94.com/hk/60-years-ago-Vets-took-up-arms-in-Tenn-t20212.html

If you are a hunter, you need a certificate first, formal training in using a gun. Then you need a permit from the police to own one.

We have "Certificates" here in the states, it's called a Hunters' Education License. And here in the states, we don't need to ask Uncle Sam if we can have a firearm, the constitution gives us this right.

The gun you own must locked away and the ammunition locked away in a SEPERATE locker. This prevents such oopsies as when your little boy wants to show off his fathers guns to a friend and before you know it, one is dead.

So locking the ammo and the rifle would entail two safes, this would rack you at least $2,000 U.S. How many ppl do you know have that kind of money to burn? You only need one safe (preferably one that is HEAVY and is bolted to the floor and to the wall). You can take out the bolt or trigger assembly (dependent on type) and you've disabled the firearm. Just hide the bolt or trigger assembly and you're set. No need to do this silly thing of seperating ammunition, it's pointless since a crook or blood-thirsty killer will run to the neares store and try to rob it of ammunition (more than likely they'll be shot trying to rob a sporting good store.......unless it's at Wallyworld).

And an excellent way to prevent your kid from ever going near a firearm without supervision is A. Education and training (kida are attracted to things they CAN'T have) and B. this:
https://www.lifeatcollege.com/Cart/images/500_O.jpg

Not entirely, because there are still idiots with guns who keep them loaded and not locked away. Fortunately, not very often.

First off, ALL firearms are loaded. This is a golden rule, regardless of who you know, or whether or not the action is closed, or if there is actually a cartridge in the chamber.

An unloaded or locked firearm is USELESS if you need to use it to defend yourself. Some training with a firearm is a good idea, but is not required by law. Most gunshops I know already do this on their own, you don't leave the shop if it's your first firearm until you've bceome familiar with handling it safely.

A firearm, like a motor vehicle, is dangerous only in the hands of those who are unfamiliar with the tool or just plain stupid.

I don't know why he even brought it up


I made a quick mention because what I was hearing was "guy brought GUN into cafeteria and SHOT ppl", so I perceived it as people blaming an inanimate object for commiting the crime and not the person. Which was why I brought up those two books written by John R. Lott. Then immacolate made an un-intelligent retort and so I responded ith FACT. So here we are.

At least the odds of you ending up in a puddle of blood caused by a gunshot is somewhat lower.

My it sounds so familiar, something like this: "STREETS WILL RUN WITH BLOOD IF THE Assault Weapons Ban SUNSETS!!", "MILITARY FIREARM WILL FLOOD THE STREETS OF OUR CITIES AND THOUSANDS OF KIDS ARE GONNA DIE!!!!"

Wow, I never knew how right they were, I almost couldn't get to my car since I had to wade through all the Ak-47s', Uzis, and Full-Auto M-16s'. (eats popcorn)

http://www.awbansunset.com/

http://www.gunlaws.com/NewYorkTimesAndGuns.htm

Please spare me the rhetoric, it's boring.

OTOH, if you think you're really onto something, go here and see if you can convince anybody.

http://www.hk94.com/hk/forums.html

[mog]

My it sounds so familiar, something like this: "STREETS WILL RUN WITH BLOOD IF THE Assault Weapons Ban SUNSETS!!", "MILITARY FIREARM WILL FLOOD THE STREETS OF OUR CITIES AND THOUSANDS OF KIDS ARE GONNA DIE!!!!"
Similarly, the pro-gun activists in Australia said that criminals would rule the streets and the country would descend into anarchy after the government brought in severe gun-control legislation in 1997. They were wrong. Violent crime has continued decreasing steadily - although it is impossible to say whether the new gun laws had anything to do with this. One thing is for sure, and that is the fact that in the last decade we haven't had any massacres, which is what prompted tougher laws in the first place.

Even in the US the latest studies show that violent crime increases with gun ownership, not the other way around.

[Yahoshua]

Show me the studies that say gun-control reduces crime, and I'll show you how the numbers are being played.

And I agree that there hasn't been a whole lot of massacres, but robberies committed by indivuals spiked directly after the laws were passed and then began to decline as strict Law-enforcement began to keep the criminals incarcerated for the length of their sentence.

(one of the links above contains the studies about Australian crime and such).

[scandium]

An interesting statistical comparison of homicide and firearms crimes between the U.S. and Canada (the data isn't current but I doubt the numbers have changed much):

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/other_docs/factsheets/canus/default_e.asp

1. Rates for all homicides are 3.8 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average homicide rate was 8.8 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 2.3 per 100,000 in Canada.

2. A much greater proportion of homicides in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada. Handgun homicide data are available for 1989-95. During those years, 52% of homicides in the U.S. involved handguns, compared to 14% in Canada.

3. Firearm homicide rates in the United States are 8.1 times higher than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 in Canada.

4. Handgun homicide rates in the United States are 15.3 times higher than in Canada. Based on available data for 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 in Canada.
5. Between 1987 and 1996, firearm homicide rates increased slightly (+2%) in the United States but decreased (-7%) in Canada. On the other hand, both countries reported a decrease in the overall homicide rate (-11% in the U.S. and -13% in Canada).
Based on the data I'm amazed that the gun advocates can continue to push a policy so obviously wrong-headed and so fatal based upon the outdated 18th century 2nd ammendment. It probably made sense back then when the US was a fledlging country and the arms it referred to consisted of single shot manually loaded and packed muskets; now adays with a 15+ round fully automatic sub machine gun that can be concealed in your waistband, its kind of safe to say that the founding fathers might not have envisioned this state of affairs, or the size of the U.S military and its hardware which makes a joke out of any notion of armed dissent - tanks, APCs, and Apache helicopters hadn't been envisioned or existed back then either.

As to the arguement that cars also kill people, the difference is that cars are not designed to kill people, but in fact the exact opposite with modern cars having everything from crumple zones, to seat belts to airbags, all designed to save lives in the event of an accident. And even then you have to be of a minimum age, pass a written and practical exam, register the vehicle with the state, and carry upto date insurance before you can buy or drive any kind of car. Yet to own the object that is designed solely to kill as efficiently and easily as possible (point and pull the trigger), in the US you need only to meet a minimum age requirement.

But to go back to the second ammendment and its intent to prevent tyrannical government, one need only to look at Saddam Hussein's Iraq that allowed an AK-47 in every household to see the absurdity its become. I mean, either the 2nd ammendment has become a joke or the "liberation" of Iraq from its tyrannical dictator who governed a country per capita more heavily armed than the US is a joke.... which is it?

[Yahoshua]

Got a question: What do they define as being "Homicide?"

Do they include suicides as homicides?

(I'll be posting some statistics on the issue later)

outdated 18th century 2nd ammendment.

There is no expiration date for the Bill of Rights.

To borrow the words of an associate and brother in arms:

The framers of our Bill of Rights thought that the right to self-defense through arms was so important that they made it the 2nd Amendment not the 10th.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the other rights we collectively have.

Here is an example of "Wise" governments that protected their people by disarming them. Sorry but I don't want to go down that road.

• In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

• In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

• Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

• China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

• Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

• Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300.000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

• Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated."

• DEFENSELESS PEOPLE ROUNDED UP AND EXTERMINATED IN THE 20TH CENTURY BECAUSE OF GUN CONTROL : 56 MILLION.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?" With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects...

Yet to own the object that is designed solely to kill as efficiently and easily as possible (point and pull the trigger), in the US you need only to meet a minimum age requirement.

Please show me where the intent of all firearms manufactured today is solely that of killing another human being.

But to go back to the second ammendment and its intent to prevent tyrannical government......

That IS the original intent of the 2nd amendment. And twisting it to fit the ME is NOT the place to do it. It is the breeding ground of Islam, not a native democracy.

To put the question to terms: If Bush seized power and became dictator, wouldn't you need guns to overthrow him? Continuing on that line, wouldn't you WANT to have those guns in order to overthrow him?

And the military will not massacre their own civilians. They have families and loyalty too. They are sworn to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, including dictators.

Neither the 2nd amendment is a joke, nor is the liberation of Iraq from under the iron grip of an evil and murderous dictator.

[mog]

Show me the studies that say gun-control reduces crime, and I'll show you how the numbers are being played.

I'd like to see that. The one that comes to mind is by Mark Duggan from the University of Chicago.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE/journal/issues/v109n5/019506/019506.web.pdf#search=%22%E2%80%9CMore%20Guns%2C%2 0More%20Crime.%E2%80%9D%20Mark%20Duggan%22

Here's some analysis of his study from The Economist in 2001:

From a hypothetical perspective, gun ownership could promote crime by facilitating violence; or it could deter it, by implicitly threatening retribution. Empirically, the question has been hard to resolve. Economists seeking to map the relationship between American gun ownership and crime face a formidable obstacle: data on gun ownership exists only at the national level.

It is not for economists, however, to be put off by a paucity of data. Some academics have spent years squirrelling around for proxies for gun ownership in given geographical areas. Until recently, the most notorious of their studies used the passage of legislation that allowed private citizens to carry concealed firearms as a proxy indicator of gun ownership. The findings* of John Lott of Yale University and David Mustard of the University of Georgia (both at the time at the University of Chicago) suggested that such laws, and the increases in gun ownership that presumably accompanied them, diminished violent crime.

While the National Rifle Association feasted upon these results, other academics voiced scepticism about their statistical rigour. Just a year later, a paper† using the same data and more advanced econometric methods showed that concealed-weapon legislation had made only a small contribution to falling murder rates, and may even have boosted robberies. This second paper was feasted upon less than the first.

The search for a more reliable proxy continued, and has now led to a forthcoming paper** by Mark Duggan of the University of Chicago. Mr Duggan obtained state- and county-level sales data from one of America’s largest gun magazines, betting that sales would be strongly correlated with gun ownership. This particular magazine concentrates on handguns, the type most commonly used in crime. Although Mr Duggan does not assume that subscribers are likely to be criminals, he does point out that the majority of guns used in crimes are obtained through burglaries or second-hand sales. Still, even before considering the link to crime, how do you prove that a correlation exists with magazine sales, when gun ownership is itself such an unknown quantity?

Mr Duggan attacked this problem from several directions. First, he showed that the counties with high gun-magazine sales had similar demographics to those associated with the profile of typical gun-owners in national-level surveys. Next, he found a strong relationship between the level of magazine sales and the number of gun shows in states. To assume that gun shows and gun ownership are highly correlated is no great leap of logic. But then again, the logical link between gun ownership and the sales of gun magazines can hardly be called tenuous. Mr Duggan also used government health statistics to demonstrate that states with higher magazine sales suffered higher rates of gun-related death.

Armed with a high-powered proxy, Mr Duggan set his sights on crime. With data stretching from 1980 to 1998, he calculated that a 10% increase in an average state’s rate of gun ownership, proxied by magazine sales, was associated with a 2% rise in its homicide rate. However, these concurrent changes could support either of two hypotheses: that crime rises when individuals own more guns, or that individuals purchase more guns to defend themselves against rising crime. To sort out this confusion, Mr Duggan checked the direction of the relationship over time; increases in gun ownership led to increases in crime in the following year, but the reverse did not hold. The same pattern was found at the county level.

As a further check, Mr Duggan divided his pool into homicides that involved guns and those that did not. Changes in magazine sales were not associated with changes in non-gun homicides—a reassuring point in favour of the proxy. Mr Duggan also examined other forms of crime. Perhaps most striking for those who believe in the deterrent effect of gun-ownership, burglary (theft with forcible entry) and larceny (theft without forcible entry or threat of harm) rose significantly following growth in gun ownership, by roughly half as much as homicides. On the other hand, rates of robbery (theft with threat of harm), assault, rape and car theft remained largely unchanged, a finding which, at least for violent crimes, contradicts Messrs Lott’s and Mustard’s paper.

The author also took on the Lott-Mustard results explicitly. Mr Duggan reasoned that for guns to deter crime, the passage of concealed-weapons laws must either lead to more gun ownership or to more frequent carrying of previously owned weapons. But the passage of such legislation did not lead to significant changes in gun ownership. And those counties where gun ownership was highest (where an increase in gun carrying could occur) did not see any significant changes in crime when their states passed concealed-weapons laws.


Perhaps those in favour of concealed-weapons laws will argue that it is merely the increased fear that your victim might be armed that would be enough to deter criminals; and that concealed-weapons laws might create such fears regardless of whether actual gun ownership, or gun carrying, increased. Still, the central tenet of Mr Duggan’s findings stands: on balance, the evidence suggests that guns foster crime, not the other way around.

[Yahoshua]

For the United States:

Homicides involving firearms from apx. 1980 to 2004:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

Little more detail on the homicide point:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/circumst.htm#circumgun

Non-fatal involving firearms 1993-2005:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.htm

A small excerpt from the summary of statistics:

Offenders

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%


During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm. Please note that in the year of 1993 there was a change made in the way these incidents were recorded, which may explain the extreme drop and sudden rise of crime rates.

And I must point out that there are at least 2 ways of counting homicides: Death ceritificates, or Police reports. The numbers are virtually the same so long as you don't mix 'em up.

I wasn't able to find much on Canadian reports, but if you'd like to do some of the homework you can go and get John R. Lotts book from the library: "More Guns: Less Crime," and "The Bias Against Guns."

I'm not even going to begin trying to explain what's going on here since there's really no point in me doing all the work when someone else has already done it for me.

It's 0400 hrs here so I'm gonna go get some sleep (damn insomnia keeps me awake).

[The Avon Lady]

I'd just like to contribute my 2 cents, based on years of generally hearing both sides of the argument.

I've seen statistics galore proving each side right. I've seen logical arguments that make both sides seem sensible.

I remain with no conclusive opinion. :up: :down:

[Yahoshua]

Ok Mog, which percent of increase is higher:

A statistical 1% increase nationwide over the span of 5 years, or a 20% increase in a state over 1 year?

And could you provide the link to Mark Duggans' paper?

[The Noob]

And an excellent way to prevent your kid from ever going near a firearm without supervision is A. Education and training (kida are attracted to things they CAN'T have) and B. this:
https://www.lifeatcollege.com/Cart/images/500_O.jpg


If my parents would have tried that on me, someone would be dead by now. And it would not be me. Such things make People "go Postal", and this is begin validated by the news.

But no wonder, you said your 80. Accient Views. Accient.

[Yahoshua]

Spare the rod, spoil the child, but do so only when necessary (like when a verbal lashing and consequent punishment isn't severe enough).

Besides, I'd rather have a child that's alive and obeys than a dead one who disobeyed. (No I'm not insinuating I'd kill my kids but that they would hurt themselves because they didn't listen. Kinda like how a baby has to learn that fire is HOT by touching it after you told them no.)

Which is worse?

And could you bring up any facts that support your accusation? Or does the Nanny-state think they can raise children better than I can?

Kids without parents in their lives have problems, not so much for the ones that do have parents.

[mog]

Ok Mog, which percent of increase is higher:

A statistical 1% increase nationwide over the span of 5 years, or a 20% increase in a state over 1 year?
The 20% figure is more significant - however neither increase means anything unless its cause is established.

And could you provide the link to Mark Duggans' paper?

The link in my previous post worked yesterday, although it's asking me to login today. I can't seem to find another link that doesn't require a subscription. The name of the paper is "More Guns, More Crime" in case you happen to have access to academic journals. If not, then we're stuck. :down:

[Yahoshua]

I don't....:nope: But I'll look around to see if I can find it, lemme know if you find it somewhere else.

Dont ya just hate it when they ask you for a "free signup" that only costs $25 a yr?

And, sry, but the 1% and 20% was a trick question (pulled a fast one on ya).

If you consider the variables and demographics of each state, a 20% increase over 1 year is insignificant to a 1% increase over 5 years.

The exact numbers escape me, but I'll try to get this from memory.

A 20% increase equaling x amount of homicides over 1 year for a state (say 15 million) isn't even going to compare with a 1 % increase of homicides nationwide (say 300 million) over 5 years.

Numbers are deceiving on a large vs. small scale so in order to hash out the numbers correctly you would have to do it state by state and not by national demographics.

As an example, it'd be unfair to say that Kansas has an equal amount of crime as California when averaging out the homicide rates for the nation. More so when California has a far larger population than Kansas and accounts for the larger percentage of crime.

Mr. Lott goes over this issue in his book as well. reas it and see what you think of it (in the meantime I'll see if I can find Duggans' paper somewhere).

[Yahoshua]

Looks like I found it:

http://www.econ.umd.edu/~duggan/gunshows3.pdf

And while looking for Lotts' papers online I found this in Wikipedia (read the part in concealed carry etc.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Concealed_weapons_and_the_crime_rate

I found Lotts' research that was posted online down at the bottom of the page.

Enjoy!!

Hey Avon, do you like math? (I don't).

I'm not sure I'm really capable of debating this witha ll the statistics though. Never was very good at math.

[The Noob]

Spare the rod, spoil the child, but do so only when necessary (like when a verbal lashing and consequent punishment isn't severe enough).

Besides, I'd rather have a child that's alive and obeys than a dead one who disobeyed. (No I'm not insinuating I'd kill my kids but that they would hurt themselves because they didn't listen. Kinda like how a baby has to learn that fire is HOT by touching it after you told them no.)

I was never Punished for anything or pysically attacked and i am still alive. So, were lies the Problem i ask? There is a third way.

[SkvyWvr]

This shooting had nothing to do with Islam or terrorism. It was committed by some white momma's boy who wasn't breastfed enough appartently, and decided to come up with an unoriginal shooting spree that's been done before several times.

I couldn't agree with you more. This guy was a wacko, plain and simple.:yep:

[SkvyWvr]

Updated details (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_re_ca/canada_college_shooting).

You know who was really nuts? The kid who tried to take a photo of the shooter with his phone. :nope:

Stupid, not nuts.

[Onkel Neal]

If my parents would have tried that on me, someone would be dead by now. And it would not be me. Such things make People "go Postal", and this is begin validated by the news.

But no wonder, you said your 80. Accient Views. Accient.

That is the strangest comment I've read in the GT forum in a long time :o

[Perilscope]

...Meanwhile flowers gathers up.
I took some pictures of the improvised memorial, I thought it would be good to share some.http://www.nettouring.com/mm/images/public/Dawson_memorial_01.jpg
http://www.nettouring.com/mm/images/public/Dawson_memorial_02.jpg
http://www.nettouring.com/mm/images/public/Dawson_memorial_03.jpg
http://www.nettouring.com/mm/images/public/Dawson_memorial_04.jpg

[SkvyWvr]

Spare the rod, spoil the child, but do so only when necessary (like when a verbal lashing and consequent punishment isn't severe enough).

Besides, I'd rather have a child that's alive and obeys than a dead one who disobeyed. (No I'm not insinuating I'd kill my kids but that they would hurt themselves because they didn't listen. Kinda like how a baby has to learn that fire is HOT by touching it after you told them no.)

I was never Punished for anything or pysically attacked and i am still alive. So, were lies the Problem i ask? There is a third way.

My folks used to "Whoop my butt". I haven't gone postal.

[Perilscope]

A 15 year old teen was arrested Monday morning for online threats against is school, he used the same website as Kimveer Gill did.
It seems like our provincial police (SQ) aren't taking any chances after the Dawson shooting, Good.:up:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/09/18/qc-hudsonthreats.html

[RKBA]

If my parents would have tried that on me, someone would be dead by now. And it would not be me. Such things make People "go Postal", and this is begin validated by the news.

But no wonder, you said your 80. Accient Views. Accient.

you are the epitome of what is wrong with society today. wait scratch that, your parents are for their lack of backbone when raising a child. the mere fact that you even THOUGHT of death because of punishment is a proof that you did not turn out 'ok'.


now then, back on subject. those that believe guns are the root of all evil are just misguided, heavily but albeit misguided. we can scream numbers day in and day out, but the mere fact that so many firearms are owned in the US and the fact that everyone ISN'T dead is proof enough. humans have been killing eachother since the beginning of time, what weapon they use has little bearing. if they are intent on killing they will kill. a baseball bat is just as deadly as a handgun in the hands of a criminal intent on death. in fact one doesn't need to reload a baseball bat, doesn't need a concealed weapon to hide/carry it nor do they need a criminal record background check to buy one. the comparison can be made to almost ANY inanimate object. hell even a toilet seat could be used to kill!

death rates... so denmark doesn't have as many people killed per year. how many people live in denmark? sure as **** it's less then the US. how about we compare apples to apples please. :damn:

death rates... washington DC, new york city. both major cities with the strictest gun control. yet they still have the highest homicide rates. hrmmm.

yes guns are used in crimes, yes they are used to kill. but they are also used to prevent crimes and prevent death. 13 million women in 2004 used a firearm to stop a would be rapist/mugger.

some argue that guns in homes kill families. more media rhetoric and pointless liberal drivel. the truth of the matter when they state X amount of kids died last year from accidental shootings? their definition of kids is from the age of 1-18. some studies lump it from 1-21. hardly kids in my book. did you know that in the past 5 years more kids (ages 1-13) died from drowning in 5 gallon paint buckets then from firearms?