Lack of gun control baffles me but what baffles me more is why people like Truant are so concerned about America’s social ills? I cannot think of any of our internal issues which would affect someone that is not American and can think of the vast majority of the world’s countries which are far worse off. I can even see making a few comments here and there but to carry-on with paragraphs of diatribe of how fucked up the U.S. is perplexing.
But hangon.
It’s a common theory that the best way to make a hangover go away is to keep drinking.
Makes perfect sense. I am just glad that I won’t be spending any significant amount of time there in the future.
[quote=“Wisdom Seeker”]I see I like this if he was stupid enough to try to rob the place. Then he desirves to get shot. How is someone to know what kind of mind set the guy was in when he rob the place. Armed robbery is a serious crime. Who knows how many people lose there lifes during armed robberies. Heres link about that shooting.
ksnt.com/news/local/5300366.html[/quote]
Deserves to be shot? So by rights, the clerk who works in a job where armed robbery is far more common than other jobs also deserved to get robbed because he chose that job. Hell, let’s go one step further. If the kid was armed, then the clerk deserved to get shot. I mean, after all, he was stupid enough to take a job like that. Anyone who carries a concealed weapon also deserves to be shot since they have the means to have prevented it, dui bu dui?
[color=green]MODERATOR NOTE
Please keep to the substance here, people.
This goes for ralphy, the bear, and everyone else.
I know this is an issue people have strong opinions on, but insults (whether directed at an individual poster, or at citizens of a certain country) are not helpful, and will not be part of this thread.
Cheers,
Hobbes
Open Mod[/color]
Odds of the perpetrator getting caught = pretty low.
Odds of the perpetrator getting caught and the gas station owner actually recovering the money = slim to none.
The way I see it, responding to the immediate credible threat of deadly force with deadly force is acceptable, especially for people like gas station owners who’s jobs inherentely have a higher risk. To paraphrase Wisdom seeker, when you pull a gun on someone you assume the risk that they will pull one on you.
Well but come on, if the perpetrator is armed with a knife, the risk for the clerks in the gas station is a bit lower, I mean the robber is limited to how long his arms can swing.
Well, the hypo given earlier had him having a gun.
Anyway, knife/gun/whatever just goes towards how immediate and credible the actual threat is. That’s something that a jury would determine in actual cases. Suffice it to say though that any successful robbery hinges on the perpetrator convincing the guy behind the counter that he will use the weapon if he isn’t paid, so at that point you kind of have to assume he intends to, otherwise there wouldn’t be a robbery in the first place.
The problem that I see is that. They should they should work harder to keep mentally ill people. From being able to buy guns. As well as the size of the clips a person should be able to buy for a hand gun. Its always easy to look back and see what went wrong. Like I said before if someone really wants to get a gun to commit a crime. They will get one. I have seen it time and time again. I personally believe that if someone chooses to threaten your life. You have a right to protect it by any means necessary.
With the example posted earlier about the teenage robber who was shot what’s going to happen in 10 years after he’s served a prison sentence. He gets out, is still young, and there’s a good chance he’ll end up returning to crime.
So lets assume he does. 30 years old, having already served 10 years and been shot during his previous attempt at a robbery. He gets a gun. Goes into the gas station. Sees the clerk and one customer. Do you think he’s going to turn around and go home? Do you think he’s going to ignore the customer, even though he remembers getting shot by a customer ten years earlier? Or might he just shoot the customer first on the off chance that the customer is carrying a concealed weapon?
If law-abiding citizens start shooting robbers, the robbers aren’t going to give up. They’re just going to pop the customers first.
[quote=“cfimages”]With the example posted earlier about the teenage robber who was shot what’s going to happen in 10 years after he’s served a prison sentence. He gets out, is still young, and there’s a good chance he’ll end up returning to crime.
So lets assume he does. 30 years old, having already served 10 years and been shot during his previous attempt at a robbery. He gets a gun. Goes into the gas station. Sees the clerk and one customer. Do you think he’s going to turn around and go home? Do you think he’s going to ignore the customer, even though he remembers getting shot by a customer ten years earlier? Or might he just shoot the customer first on the off chance that the customer is carrying a concealed weapon?
If law-abiding citizens start shooting robbers, the robbers aren’t going to give up. They’re just going to pop the customers first.[/quote]
Moreover, Ok, maybe this particular robber wasn’t killed, but he could have been. As far as I know, even in the US no state allows the death penalty for simply stealing a little cash from a convenience store. Nor should they.
And, even if he wasn’t killed, the bullet could have permanently paralyzed him from the neck down, or something comparable. Nor does any state prescribe that kind of punishment in return for even armed robbery.
And, in the US criminal defendants are presumed innocent, which means they have a right to hire an attorney, present their case to the court and let a judge decide whether they’re guilty and what punishment should be meted out. It’s unlawful to bypass that system and revert to vigilante justice. Citizens – who may have bad judgment, bad eyesight, bad gun skills, bad intentions, bad knowledge of the laws, etc. – don’t have a legal right to act as judge, jury and executioner for crimes against the public and most of us are thankful for that.
And, it’s possible the gung-ho, gunslinger defender of 7-11 could have inadvertently shot a customer. “Oops” probably wouldn’t be good enough for that victim and his family.
And, in the event of such an accident, the police department has millions of dollars of insurance to pay the unfortunate victim, whereas most private citizens don’t.
For the most part, law enforcement should be left to the professionals, especially when you’re talking about split-second decisions to shoot guns at strangers in public (or private) places.
[quote=“Hobbes”]
[color=green]MODERATOR NOTE
Please keep to the substance here, people.
This goes for ralphy, the bear, and everyone else.
I know this is an issue people have strong opinions on, but insults (whether directed at an individual poster, or at citizens of a certain country) are not helpful, and will not be part of this thread.
Cheers,
Hobbes
Open Mod[/color]
[/quote]
not guilty…i didnt make any insult at all…in fact i deliberately made my post non-offensive by asking what was wrong with a book token for xmas! 
And yet another wacko on a shooting rampage in the US.
[quote]Three people were shot dead including the assailant and at least two were wounded on Sunday in a shooting spree at a Kansas City shopping mall, police said.
Police were investigating whether an earlier homicide at a house six miles (10 km) away involved the shopping mall gunman, who was killed by an officer.
Kansas City police said a man, whom they did not immediately identify, pulled into a parking lot outside the mall that was filled with “hundreds and hundreds” of shoppers and immediately fatally shot two people who were parked on each side of him.
The gunman went into the mall and wounded at least two other people, according to Sgt. Tony Sanders.[/quote]
africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnN29367860.html
I’ve heard that when a prominent suicide makes the news it leads to an increase in suicides generally, maybe not necessarily “copy-cat” suicides but maybe it subconsciously leads others in that direction. I wonder if the same is true with these wacko random shooting rampages – is there a definite increase after a prominent case?
I also wonder if this is something unique to the US. I confess, I’ve seen a chart – which I can’t presently dig up – showing countries with leading gun deaths and the leader by far is not the US, it’s South Africa. So I wonder what’s the difference between the two and the types of gun deaths in the two countries. Apparently one difference is that the US is one of the world’s wealthiest nations and SA isn’t, at least according to the below chart. Among the wealthiest nations, the US leads the world in gunshot deaths.
lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/COW/archi … 502gun.htm
Does that mean there are more gun deaths in robbery attempts in SA, but more suicides, accidents, and wacko rampages in the US? I don’t know.
Here’s another interesting chart, that appears to show a direct correlation – not surprisingly – between the % of households possessing guns and the number of gunshot deaths.
A step in the wrong direction:
NRA opposes bill to stop gun sales to terror suspects
The “best” argument:
So anyone suspected to go on a shooting rampage should not be denied access to guns because he is just a suspect. Instead let him kill a few people first, then we can deny him the right to own a gun. What a bunch of idiots. 
Gives new meaning to “the land of the free”.
Free to live a life without fear of getting shot? No. Free to go out and buy guns and shoot people.
The American Dream is becoming “I dream that I get thru my normal life without getting shot by some idiot who is free to go out and buy an assault rifle”
Such as this guy. Wackos with guns seem to be a regular part of life in the US.
[quote]Idaho (AP) – A sniper sprayed dozens of bullets on a courthouse, killing a police officer and wounding a sheriff’s deputy and a civilian, then apparently killed a caretaker and himself Sunday in a nearby church, police said.
Investigators believe the shooter deliberately fired into an emergency dispatch center inside the Latah County Courthouse late Saturday to lure people into the line of fire. The officer was killed as he rushed to the courthouse, and the deputy helped pull the officer out of the way before being shot, said David Duke, Moscow’s assistant police chief.
Shortly after 6 a.m., three SWAT teams entered the First Presbyterian Church and found the bodies of the shooter and another man, Duke said. An assault rifle, ammunition and spent shells were found next to the gunman’s corpse, he said.
The shooter died of what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. . .[/quote]
nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-I … ref=slogin
Part of the problem seems to be the easy availability of guns, and part seems to be that depressed wackos have been led to believe that going out in a blaze of glory, even if it means wasting a bunch of total innocents, is a powerful, manly thing to do, at least more manly than sitting around moping over their miserable, pathetic, ordinary, impotent lives.
But don’t you ever feel like just taking an Uzi and blowing away all the people that pissed you off in your life? I mean, of course we would never do it, but the fantasy, you know? Like when you get a parking ticket. Don’t you just feel like blowing away the entire parking enforcement? Amazing that this guy actually went out and did it though. He should have just kept it as a fantasy.
[quote]
Part of the problem seems to be the easy availability of guns, and part seems to be that depressed wackos have been led to believe that going out in a blaze of glory, even if it means wasting a bunch of total innocents, is a powerful, manly thing to do, at least more manly than sitting around moping over their miserable, pathetic, ordinary, impotent lives.[/quote]
OK, I know this is going to make me unpopular, but here goes:
There were 33 victims at VT, not 32
without in any way condoning what he did, or placing his death on a par with those he killed, it is important to acknowledge that Cho was a victim too. His life is over at the age of 23; his family have lost a loved one.
Apologies if someone else has made this observation before; flicking through the huge threads on this subject I haven’t seen such, but I have seen lots of references along the lines of the above to “depressed wackos” and much worse, despite Forumosa’s rules against rudeness and bigotry. It seems that attacking someone for the colour of his or her skin, religion or sexual orientation is unacceptable, but that taking cheap shots at people with mental illnesses is still ok.
Not just with my hindsight, but clearly with the VT institutions’ foresight, Cho had mental health issues and needed help. For whatever reasons he slipped through the net. One possible cause for that is the stigma and taboo attached to mental illness.
Mental illnesses affect large numbers of people’s lives, and end many of them prematurely. Most “depressed wackos” who take their own lives do so in “miserable, pathetic, ordinary” circumstances, not in a “manly … blaze of glory”. That probably has much more to do with gun culture, violent cartoons or whatever, but this is not the issue here.
I’m losing my focus here (it is a topic I care about too much to express myself clearly), but I guess I got the gist of my ideas across: Name calling does not help in a discussion of an issue as complex as this, and dismissing people with mental illness as “nutcases” is not respectful.
Guns are normal gifts in the US. I know a few people who own AK-47s and they are completely normal.
[quote=“caltonhill”]
OK, I know this is going to make me unpopular, but here goes:
There were 33 victims at VT, not 32
without in any way condoning what he did, or placing his death on a par with those he killed, it is important to acknowledge that Cho was a victim too. His life is over at the age of 23; his family have lost a loved one.[/quote]
I’m having difficulty mustering sympathy for the murderer. I’ve met people who had to go through counseling, and I know one lady who has been institutionalized twice. Mental illness does not justify murder. Even with the insanity plea a person usually has to prove he or she was incapable of discerning right and wrong at the time of the murder. But Cho was simply filled with rage and hatred…I doubt he would fit the legal definition of insane. Cho was not a victim…he was a perpetrator.