| Welcome to Philosophyabsurdity. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're probably looking for old friends, or old enemies. Don't panic! They still exist. Sure, they've forgotten about you. It's just the internet. But with passion, intellect and an enormous penis you can force your way back into their affections or the sex offenders register. So type a message. Expect a witty response. It's all for you... you just might have to wait 2 or 3 years. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Virginia Tech and Gun Laws; Someone had to do it | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 18 2007, 03:35 PM (3,153 Views) | |
| Pestiferous | Apr 20 2007, 09:18 PM Post #81 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
Why is it wrong? Because it's the right of the individual to drive around drunk until caught "fairly"? No. You're really wrong on this Plague. It's up to the government to provide streets to their tax paying citizens that are safe to drive on. Remember, people pay their government for protection - drunk check stops are included in this. Using your argument, criminal investigations are needlessly intrusive, in that if the police weren't on the scene to see the homicide committed, they have no right to investigate the suspect. As he did not obviously commit the crime, any investigation on him is intrusive. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 20 2007, 09:28 PM Post #82 |
|
Unregistered
|
Except police in the instance of murder, or most any crime, have to have probable cause. They can't, and presumably don't, randomly grab people to question. That's needlessly intrusive, and a waste of everybody's time. Apparently, you think that even though there's no evidence of a crime, it's ok to randomly stop people and check them for drinking. I suppose by that logic, random drug tests are ok too. And a pat down for weapons. Maybe even a quick check of financial transactions to see if you're up to no good. |
|
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 20 2007, 09:37 PM Post #83 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
How do you think police come up with a suspect? By grabbing random people and questionning them. A drunk driving check stop provides safety to OTHER drivers - why? Because they pay for those roads, too. They aren't just your roads, they are everyone, and people pay for those roads to be safe in terms of: Painted boundaries Functioning Street Lights Licensed, Sober Drivers Kept Maintained to Reduce Damage to Vehicle And other things that people pay taxes for. Police are paid to PREVENT crime as well as catch it. Finding a drunk driver at a check stop prevents that small child playing on a lawn from getting run over. You have a very self-serving mentality, Plague. It's frightening, and desparaging. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 20 2007, 09:45 PM Post #84 |
|
Unregistered
|
Police don't grab random people off the street and question them. They question the victim, maybe his/her friends and family, people who may have witnessed the crime, etc. They don't go across town and accost people in a mall. That would be ineffective, from their point of view, and completely wrong and improper from mine. Ah, the "think of the children" argument. I wondered when that would be brought into play. It's often used as a way to justify intrusive government action. Randomly bothering people to "protect" the children is just plain wrong, as well as being inconvenient and a complete waste of time. Parents need to protect their children, not rely on a nanny state to do it for them. I guess if one points to children, it "justifies" government paternalism. |
|
|
| RevWolf | Apr 20 2007, 10:00 PM Post #85 |
![]()
MacGyver of Sex
|
I agree with Jefferson's saying that the government that governed least governs best, and today we have laws on top of laws, mostly due to the publics knee jerk reactions caused the the medias habit of sensationalizing instances of individual stupidity. Politicians are quick to jump on the bandwagon of public frenzy, not because they care, but to get more votes. This sort of thing erodes the freedoms of other law abiding and responsible people who resent the government telling them they cannot be trusted with things that have a capacity to cause harm, even if they're things like drugs that only harm the user. The issue here is that every society is based on the principle that you give up part of your autonomy for protection from others wielding theirs, and how much of that autonomy is given up is a constant source of disagreement. I think people have to realise you can't always protect the weak and stupid from themselves and that there will always be the risk some deranged fool will try take his frustrations out on innocent people. |
![]() |
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 20 2007, 10:50 PM Post #86 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
Despite all the whiny "it bothers people" comments, neither of you have come up with a decent argument that would show how stricter gun laws inhibit decent, law-abiding citizens their "right" to weapons. Being part of a society has perks - unfortunately, if you want those perks you have to follow laws. And guess what, people have to make laws that are in the best interest of ALL citizens, plague - and that includes children. Children are citizens, too. Parents need to protect their children, yup. But they can only do so much - government protects children as well. Hence laws that you must educate your child, etc. Or do you find those bunk as well? What I find interesting is the fact that both of you complain only deranged, mentally ill people do these things...yet won't take responsibility for the fact that your societies created these people. Face it, kids get bullied everyday. Men stalk women everyday. People are loners everyday. Every single character flaw your media picks out about these killers to try and blame so the people of America won't sit at night wondering what exactly went wrong in their culture is a character flaw of thousands of other people. You're both spouting exactly what I've told you your media has taught you to think and say. Which, I'm sorry, is hilarious. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 20 2007, 11:43 PM Post #87 |
|
Unregistered
|
I don't know what American media you're consuming, but the little I've been exposed to on this matter has been rife with calls for gun control, or "doing something to prevent tragedies like this one occurring again". It's the same as it always is when there's a high-profile tragedy: a call for further curtailing liberty and to justify even more government intrusiveness, and to "protect the children". It's the same damn thing that happened after Combine or any other of violent event. You seem to be falling for that line rather thoroughly. And yes, to be a "member of society", there are certain laws. One of those laws is not murdering people. Trying to prevent someone intent on breaking that law by imposing restrictions on the rest of us leads to a nanny-state, where everyone is subject to government vetting and scrutiny as they just try to live their lives. It's absurd to generalize from an isolated incident, and it's absolutely idiotic to make a sweeping crackdown based on it. |
|
|
| Xx_SwordWords_xX | Apr 21 2007, 12:14 AM Post #88 |
![]()
Satan Valid
|
I have to say it again. I am appauled that NBC published the pictures the shooter sent in. And that is the lovely media. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 21 2007, 12:26 AM Post #89 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
How on EARTH is this a sweeping crackdown based on one incident? Are you insane? How many school shootings have there been since Columbine? You're completely missing the point, Plague. There are crazy people in every country in this world - there is a Cho Hui in Canada, in Australia, in every single country in the world... Your media tells you it's not your culture, yet for some reason in your culture these crazies are 4-5 times more likely (actually, it's higher than that, but I'm feeling generous) to pick up a gun and walk into a school shooting everyone they can. Do you really think crazy people only exist in America, Plague? Guns exist everywhere. Crazy people exist everywhere. America has found a way to pair them up that most other countries have strict gun laws in place to prevent. Not only that, but America has now set the bar for other crazies to compete with. Sure, I've watched the media debate gun laws in the last few days...I've also watched American media glorify the killer by playing pieces of his manifesto, just like he wanted. Photos of him with his guns, video clips - he killed 32 people so he would be heard, and now every crazy out there receives the affirmation that if they want people to change they need to shoot up a school, but remember to send a video to NBC first. Congratulations, your media now has created the perfect How to Be Finally Heard! handbook, complete with a quota of dead students to beat. Why do crazies in other countries value life more than crazies in America? |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| ErgonomicLogic | Apr 21 2007, 02:02 AM Post #90 |
|
Ninja Valid
|
Police don't need probable cause to stop anyone currently. It's called reasonable suspicion. As for the rest of this I don't give a damn. |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 21 2007, 02:54 AM Post #91 |
|
Unregistered
|
Ok, "reasonable suspicion". The principle is the same, though, they have to have a reason, not just random. |
|
|
| Cygnus-X1 | Apr 21 2007, 07:08 AM Post #92 |
|
Davros Valid
|
This is a good point, and one which occurred to me upon seeing Cho's "manifesto" presented by NBC. However, consider the following: How to Be Finally Heard vis-a-vis How Not to Be Seen |
| * This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone. | |
![]() |
|
| RevWolf | Apr 21 2007, 12:41 PM Post #93 |
![]()
MacGyver of Sex
|
Pesty Wes, what exactly do you want done about it? Your claims that people in other countries value life more than Americans do is so stupidly absurd it verges on the offensive, not that I'm against offensive, but in this case, it's plain silly. You go on about guns, children, blah, such, so forth, and furthermore, in such a idiotic manner it's becoming harder to tell post by post what you actually are arguing for. You seem to have read my post where I put it to you and others that the media get easy meat like yourself beat up over all and everything, and picked up that media ball and run it the other way. Shit, I learned long ago that groups with 'philosophy' in their names were not good places for rational discussion and dissection of events. Shame on me posting serious here. Don't get me wrong, I like you Wessy, I find your comments in chat vastly entertaining and shit, but fuck, just because I like someone don't mean I'm duty bound to agree with em all the time. Plague has stated nothing but the fact that if we allow our emotions in a present time to rule over us in times to come, we risk the very real possibility that through laws passed in passion, we will lose very real and important freedoms that may not be immediately obvious. seeing that you, like Lea, are so fucking brilliant when it comes to politics and history, I feel it's time you published your manifesto on humans and guns. |
![]() |
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 21 2007, 02:53 PM Post #94 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
Alright, thanks for that...um, meaningful post and everything. What do I want done about it? How about acknowledging, perhaps, that there's a fucking problem? Quite honestly, I'd be happy with just that. The constant blame game, as an outsider to America, has a smell to it that is enough to gag a maggot. I'm watching the media do exactly as predicted - combing through Cho's family looking for a relative to say what they want to hear, that Cho was molested, or tortured animals when he was younger... All in a desperate bid to allow Americans to not change anything. I don't understand the fear of change. I don't understand why someone would hold onto something as stupid as the right to bear arms, despite the fact that it could kill their children. I don't understand how believing obtaining a concealed weapon permit to sit in a classroom so you could defend yourself if need be is a "freedom" people strive to obtain and keep. I do not understand how, on this thread, people can maintain it was just a crazy person...when every country has crazy people and guns but the outcome is so incredibly different. I guess I'm just old-fashioned, and believe in a society taking responsibility for all of the citizens it produces...as opposed to only the good ones. As for the you-like-me-I-like-you thing..this is a board with debates, lol. Thanks for the reassurance, but I never take things on the board so far as to dislike a person solely on their outlook. This applies to you as well. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| staci | Apr 21 2007, 04:07 PM Post #95 |
![]()
|
After a great trauma, it's a natural human coping mechanism to try to place blame. It helps one to mentally integrate the horrific crimes that people are capable of committing against one another. So let's place blame: Yay! We've a good start right here on this thread. (I'm going to add a few of my own). Let's blame: * All of America for "their" ideologies and culture (tongue-in-cheek) * The campus administrators for not closing down the entire campus * The mental health professionals throughout the years who didn't "fix" the killer * A judge who accepted the opinion of a psychiatrist that the killer was "stable" * American gun laws * The other students who knew he was violent and "odd" but did nothing. * The police force who didn't respond quickly enough * Elementary school teachers/administrators/social workers who didn't recognize extreme behaviors and symptoms and address them appropriately. * American immigration laws! * The mother and father for having sex, conceiving, and giving birth to a killer I've had my own personal way of dealing with this traumatic event. And, yes, it's traumatic for most people to even hear of horror of this magnitude. It's been upsetting for me not only because of the sorrow I feel for all of those innocent families, but also because I very much love two people who either are or will be directly involved with campus life. I keep saying to myself..."OMG...what if it had been....." So I'm not going to judge anyone for using whatever coping mechanism they need to in order to get back to normal functioning. However, I think one of the survivors said it best. I'm going to paraphrase: "...there's one person to blame and that guy's dead." |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Apr 21 2007, 07:07 PM Post #96 |
|
Unregistered
|
Individuals are responsible for their actions. Not the society that "made" them. Not past tragedies that may or may not have happened to them. Those might be contributing reasons why they do what they do, but they're not valid excuses. "Society" is, after all, a convenient fiction to describe the large-scale effect of interactions between individuals. Essentially, it's a statistical construct. Trying to blame it for some nutcase picking up a gun and shooting people is absurd. Trying to "fix it" by draconian measures imposing even more burdens on its members is "social engineering" at least, quickly leading to tyranny. Why do Americans protect their rights to gun ownership so vigorously? The cold-hard truth is that seemingly more than most advanced industrialized nations, Americans know that there may come a time when their government must be forcibly resisted and even overthrown. Allowing the loss of gun rights, even in the seemingly innocuous registration requirement, would remove the final step in the progression 'soap box, ballot box, ammo box.'. If they're registered, they can be confiscated, and that removes a needed check by individuals on a rampaging government. What is "government", after all? It is comprised of individuals with access to vast resources, far beyond what they would normally have. It's a concentration of power, and one thing that has been proven beyond any doubt is that power corrupts. It's the "well meaning" individuals that are the scariest, because they believe in their hearts that what they're doing is for the greater good. If they didn't have political power, they would be called fanatics or cultists. Instead, with no hint of irony, they're called "crusaders". So sure, both sides dance around. One insists on safety trumping personal freedom, for "the good of society" or to "protect the children". The other uses hunting or other sport as a "justification". The real reason, the ultimate reason, is the desire to disempower the individual and make them even more subservient "to society". |
|
|
| staci | Apr 21 2007, 10:16 PM Post #97 |
![]()
|
Whoa, Plague. Calm down there, chief. I don't think anyone's plotting to overthrow the government just yet. |
![]() |
|
| Pestiferous | Apr 21 2007, 10:29 PM Post #98 |
|
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
|
This made me laugh. You really think citizens of the US could take on the military, Plague? Even if there came a time when citizens needed to overthrow the government, these citizens would have to band together to be of any use. Then, the military can take their fighter planes, and bomb the living shit out of them. Citizens - shotguns. Government? Bombs, trained soldiers, tear gas, bullet-proof vests, etc. You're dreaming. Soon you'll try to convince us that the holocaust could have been avoided had Jews been better armed. I've read several opinions close to yours on this topic, the people who maintain they need weapons for their futures...but realism doesn't entertain that notion whatsoever. |
| Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it? | |
![]() |
|
| Mock | Apr 21 2007, 10:42 PM Post #99 |
![]() ![]()
|
.... |
![]() |
|
| Cygnus-X1 | Apr 21 2007, 10:44 PM Post #100 |
|
Davros Valid
|
I haven't heard anyone using "society" as an "excuse" for what happened at VA Tech. But, I don't see the point in ignoring, as you said, the "contributing reasons," or, what I would call the causal factors of society. That Cho guy was a Korean immigrant - I think he emmigrated to the US in high school. So, his native land would have contributed more to his psycho-emotional make-up than the US, I reckon. But, still, there's the unanswered question of why this sort of thing happens so much more frequently in the US than in other 1st world nations? Why? I think the answer to that question just might involve "society" as well as our gun laws. There was another incident, on Friday, btw, if you haven't heard. A middle-aged guy busted into a NASA building in Houston, killed at least one person, and took at least one more hostage. As for "freedom"....Which would you rather: to live in a more peaceful society, where you wouldn't need a gun; or, to live in a more dangerous society, where everyone was armed to the teeth? Which would be more pleasant and enjoyable to you? |
| * This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone. | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General · Next Topic » |












7:14 PM Jul 11