Shootings in US schools

[Rich]

Well they are dumb enough to have a gun and accept bribes by credit card - so you may be right!

Now, by "they" do you mean "all Americans", you'll have to be specific otherwise you'll be branded as "anti-American"

 

[ColinEssex]

Now, by "they" do you mean "all Americans", you'll have to be specific otherwise you'll be branded as "anti-American"

Anyone who dares question anything about the USA is anti-American.

Did you see on telly, that young US girl soldier who they rescued from Iraq hospital. She's said that the "fighting to the last bullet" story, put out by the US military is complete hogwash and was done to keep moral up at home. She was cowering in the back of the personnel carrier with her gun jammed

Then the USA posters here say their media is not manipulated?

Col

 

[Pauldohert]

Now, by "they" do you mean "all Americans", you'll have to be specific otherwise you'll be branded as "anti-American"

I'm referring to the they as in the them that Bodi used. Who they are and what irks them I don't know!

 

[Alc]

When I first came to Canada, we flew in via New Jersey Airport and, due to missing a connection, spent a lot of time in front of TV screens showing the US news on CNN.

At that time (July 2003) there was a lot about Iraq on and in the footage I saw - roughly four hours' worth, in all - the only images I saw of the war were tall, handsome, uninjured US soldiers getting off planes and being reunited with their Miss America wives and cute babies. Not one image of body bags, the injured, or anything remotely suggesting that things weren't going swimmingly was shown. They didn't even allow anyone unattractive to get within the camera's line of vision.

I can honestly say that if those had been the images we'd seen back in the UK I would have thought the fight was as good as over at that point.

 

[ColinEssex]

When I first came to Canada, we flew in via New Jersey Airport and, due to missing a connection, spent a lot of time in front of TV screens showing the US news on CNN.

At that time (July 2003) there was a lot about Iraq on and in the footage I saw - roughly four hours' worth, in all - the only images I saw of the war were tall, handsome, uninjured US soldiers getting off planes and being reunited with their Miss America wives and cute babies. Not one image of body bags, the injured, or anything remotely suggesting that things weren't going swimmingly was shown. They didn't even allow anyone unattractive to get within the camera's line of vision.

I can honestly say that if those had been the images we'd seen back in the UK I would have thought the fight was as good as over at that point.

A friend of mine is working for OXFAM. He's a high up in their organisation and has been based in New York for the last year.
Naturally, he watches the US news on telly - he says that there is very little "overseas" news, and the little their is, is because an American or America is involved.
There is nothing about current affairs of any country (apart from the US), he is so used to the BBC and ITV unbiased coverage that he says that is the reason the Americans are so ignorant of world affairs.

It was on the BBC news a while back that no news agency will show dead soldiers coffins draped in the flag, coming home.
Odd really, because there's been 3,000 of them.

Col

 

[Bodisathva]

I'm referring to the they as in the them that Bodi used. Who they are and what irks them I don't know!

...lippy Brits...

 

[KalelGmoon]

I am sad to see that the US is not the only country with gun related violence

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=676202007

 

[Rich]

I am sad to see that the US is not the only country with gun related violence

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=676202007

But it's still a rare event here and not an everyday occurance like the US

 

[The_Doc_Man]

This argument can go on forever, but it is going to boil down to one's view of right and wrong.

This leads to the question, what is right (or wrong)? To which again we have a hard answer that reveals itself to be relative in many cases. For instance, killing is wrong. But killing in a holy war isn't? Mutilating someone is wrong. But in Islamic countries, mutilating a thief by removal of his hand is OK? I am not arguing that Islam is right or wrong. I am arguing that people who think themselves to be moral, upstanding people can have radically different views on right or wrong.

So that gets us to the question of whether the Virginia Tech gunman could have been stopped by someone who was armed. To wich the correct answer is "YES." But then we get to right and wrong again.

If someone saw a gunman performing a mass execution and that someone was carrying a concealed weapon... would that someone be right to kill the perpetrator before another victim dies? After all, the perp is being denied the chance for a fair trial? But on the other hand, stopping that person might be next to impossible without use of deadly force. If someone has a martyr complex, it is pretty much game over. Kill or be killed.

I seem to recall a phrase from a movie or TV show... All that is required for evil to win is for good people to do nothing. The tragedy in Virginia occurred because everyone who interacted with the gunman assumed someone else would do something. But nobody assumed it was their responsibility o fix the problem. Everybody said, Let someone else do it. And good people did nothing, ...

 

[Rich]

Yes but in the civillised world children get to play with toy guns, in America they get to play with real guns. Is there a link here?

 

[qailoh]

Always amazing that whenever someone offers an insightful and well thought out perspective on a complicated issue some posters would rather spew out some more knee jerk anti-Americanisms than take time to actually think about what the previous poster has said and comment on that...

 

[Rich]

Always amazing that whenever someone offers an insightful and well thought out perspective on a complicated issue some posters would rather spew out some more knee jerk anti-Americanisms than take time to actually think about what the previous poster has said and comment on that...

Whats even more amazing is that Americans deny the facts, blame everyone else and resort to the usual anti-American garbage.

 

[qailoh]

sigh, more of the same...

"To generalize is to dehumanize."

 

[Rich]

sigh, more avoiding the issue, to deny and ignore the facts is an American trait

 

[qailoh]

denying and avoiding?

What am I denying/avoiding? The fact that you are unwilling to put any thought or effort into considering The Doc Man's perspective? I thought I confronted that one head on...but hey, if it makes you sleep better at night to bury your own head in the sand, just go on thinking that everyone in the US is exactly alike. I wouldn't want to burden you with the task of actually having to think.

 

[Rich]

I've answered the suggestion that an armed vigillante with a concealed weapon should have acted as an immediate, judge, jury and executioner here before. Do I need to point out the obvious again?

 

[Bodisathva]

...Americans deny the facts, blame everyone else and resort to the usual anti-American garbage.

sigh...to deny and ignore the facts is an American trait

...Do I need to point out the obvious again?

C'mon, Rich, this sh*t is getting old...

 

[Rich]

C'mon, Rich, this sh*t is getting old...

As is the "it's someone elses" fault diatribe, now if you were to elect someone with the guts to start putting an end to the problem...........'course that is after having accepted that there is a problem

 

[Alc]

So that gets us to the question of whether the Virginia Tech gunman could have been stopped by someone who was armed. To wich the correct answer is "YES." But then we get to right and wrong again.

To which the correct answer may be "YES".
Since no-one apart from the killer had a gun, it is only an 'educated' guess to say that having more guns on the scene would have improved things. Yes, the person with the gun may have been well-trained, disciplined, and calm enough under pressure to take out just the gunman, without hitting any bystanders, but he/she might just as easily have been someone who thinks they are an expert, having fired at targets on many occasions, but who went to pieces when faced with a loon who could fire back.

If someone saw a gunman performing a mass execution and that someone was carrying a concealed weapon... would that someone be right to kill the perpetrator before another victim dies? After all, the perp is being denied the chance for a fair trial?

With you here. Completely comes down to how you feel about summary vs legal justice.

I seem to recall a phrase from a movie or TV show... All that is required for evil to win is for good people to do nothing.

I believe it was Edmund Burke who said it?

 

[Rich]

but he/she might just as easily have been someone who thinks they are an expert, having fired at targets on many occasions,

But that's normal for all these America gun experts, isn't it?