suggests that you endorse the idea of carrying knives while "amongst the youth"



I did no such thing, I merely pointed out where the the problem of a knife carrying culture exists here

suggests that you endorse the idea of carrying knives while "amongst the youth"


In fairness to Rich, he didn't actually say he endorsed/condoned it, just that this was where the problem was.

I wonder what happened in the Koreans life before tha age of 5 to make him get a gun in the US and blow peoples heads off in the US.(where he was a permanent resident) - or is this just a xenophobic racists attitude to blame the foreigness of the individual?

Looks like some consider a cause that he was picked on later than age 5 in the US for not being american enough for you -

Others saw a potential cause for Cho's disturbed mind in Westfield High School. ``He might have got picked on,'' said Kevin Altomare, a second-year student who identified ``really snobby'' pupils as a source of isolation for some. Drew Helton, a first-year student at the school, said he had heard racist talk. ``There's a bad word that people call Asians — `chink'. You hear that one a lot.''

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,2060762,00.html

Korean or Chink its all the same to the yanks right?;)

Looks like the opinion here that he was an alien, or a Korean and not American had troubled him before in his life!

and he's still a Korean...

You know, Paul, I was also, ostricized, picked on, abused while in school...I sucked it up, concentrated on what matters in life, and grew up to be a relatively well adjusted human being (depending upon who you ask:D ) that never wen't on a rampage, never whined to a therapist, never asked for pity, and, incidentally, has a better quality of life than the inconsequential little twerps responsible for the abuse:D . The kid was a weak person and quite frankly, just a f*****g nut.


And he's still Korean.;)

You know, Paul, I was also, ostricized, picked on, abused while in school...I sucked it up, concentrated on what matters in life, and grew up to be a relatively well adjusted human being (depending upon who you ask ) that never wen't on a rampage, never whined to a therapist, never asked for pity, and, incidentally, has a better quality of life than the inconsequential little twerps responsible for the abuse . The kid was a weak person and quite frankly, just a f*****g nut.


And he's still Korean.

Was is you that was quoting psychoanalyst monthly before - "just a fuckin nut" and a Korean one at that - must subscribe!

According to the Psychoanalytic Quarterly, the formative years are birth to age five...:cool:

And he's still Korean.;)

Who just happened to be living in a country where the gun culture prevails above all else :rolleyes:

I was also, ostricized, picked on, abused while in school...I sucked it up
never whined to a therapist, never asked for pity
The kid was a weak person and quite frankly, just a f*****g nut.


Are you a professional school counsellor, or is it more of a hobby? :D

"just a fuckin nut" That's a technical term, you know.:eek:

and at least I censored myself...

Are you a professional school counsellor, or is it more of a hobby? :D...sport, really:D

I did no such thing, I merely pointed out where the the problem of a knife carrying culture exists here

So Colin is a "youth?" Hmm...

In fairness to Rich, he didn't actually say he endorsed/condoned it, just that this was where the problem was.

Also in fairness to Rich, it was ColinEssex whose quote was advocating the carrying of illegal weapons for self defense. I figured as a recognized moral authority on this forum, his views were endorsed by his fellow countryman Rich. For the unpardonable gaffe of assuming that every single person from the same country shares the same views and fits the same demonstrated stereotype, I humbly apologize.

For the unpardonable gaffe of assuming that every single person from the same country shares the same views and fits the same demonstrated stereotype, I humbly apologize.

Now whom have I seen doing that before :rolleyes:

Brian

PS not the apologising bit.

For the unpardonable gaffe of assuming that every single person from the same country shares the same views and fits the same demonstrated stereotype, I humbly apologize.

Quite right, too.
Bloody yanks - you're all the same :D

I wonder what happened in the Koreans life before tha age of 5 to make him get a gun in the US and blow peoples heads off in the US.(where he was a permanent resident) - or is this just a xenophobic racists attitude to blame the foreigness of the individual?

Looks like some consider a cause that he was picked on later than age 5 in the US for not being american enough for you -



http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,2060762,00.html

Korean or Chink its all the same to the yanks right?;)

Looks like the opinion here that he was an alien, or a Korean and not American had troubled him before in his life!

You're hinging your whole argument on the principle that adult behavioral problems cannot be caused by a child's experiences before the age of nine. This is just nonsense.

Even thereafter he may have been bullied at an American school, which by the way, happens EVERYWHERE. Brits actually use a colloquialism derived from the racist term mentioned in your link and think nothing of it because it's so deeply embedded in your culture.

PS not the apologising bit.

If I ever saw an apology for generalizing a population from our resident, 4-letter length poster, I think I'd drop dead of shock.

Brits actually use a colloquialism derived from the racist term mentioned in your link and think nothing of it because it's so deeply embedded in your culture.

That point's not strictly true. There are plenty of people who don't think anything of it, but, browing up, I was always taught it was virtually on par with using 'the N word'. Certainly my Chinese friends found it quite offensive.

That point's not strictly true. There are plenty of people who don't think anything of it, but, browing up, I was always taught it was virtually on par with using 'the N word'. Certainly my Chinese friends found it quite offensive.

Whoops sorry, I meant some Brits, my bad. :o

Whoops sorry, I meant some Brits, my bad. :o

I refer you to point #1763.

which by the way, happens EVERYWHERE.

Yes that may be so Daniella, but only in America does one seek revenge using a gun with the full backing of a centuries out of date scrap of paper

Whoops sorry, I meant some Brits, my bad. :o

No you see you're doing the American usual thing, totally twisting the facts and reality to fit a narrow American viewpoint whilst clutching at straws. The term Chinky as used in the UK refers to a meal or establishment, it's not used by the vast majority here to refer to a race. I'm sure we've explained all this to you before, I know you're American but please try and pay attention:p

If I ever saw an apology for generalizing a population from our resident, 4-letter length poster, I think I'd drop dead of shock.

Surely it's America that should apologise for the 4-letter word Bush:confused:

You're hinging your whole argument on the principle that adult behavioral problems cannot be caused by a child's experiences before the age of nine. This is just nonsense.

Even thereafter he may have been bullied at an American school, which by the way, happens EVERYWHERE. Brits actually use a colloquialism derived from the racist term mentioned in your link and think nothing of it because it's so deeply embedded in your culture.

I fully understand the problems could have been caused before the age of 9 or that they could have occured after the age of 9. I took exception to the fact that it seems the blame has been shifted to a Korean with Korean upbringing.

As for the second part, again I think your trying to shift the attention somewhere else. Sure there is problems everywhere but its off the topic of what caused the Korean fella to do what he did.

If the US is going to continue with allowing guns it may be useful to have some insight into why certain individuals use them so tragically.

Its easier to think of him as a f88vking Korean nut I guess.

I fully understand the problems could have been caused before the age of 9 or that they could have occured after the age of 9. I took exception to the fact that it seems the blame has been shifted to a Korean with Korean upbringing. I believe it was the British contingent that began pointing fingers at nationality, there, Paul. Besides the background information of "resident alien" that happened to originate in Korea, I haven't heard anything accusatory with regard to race or nationality here. I have, however, responded to the tired old "American, blah, American, blah, blah" simply to prove a point, but I don't know that anyone really cares where he came from.Sure there is problems everywhere but its off the topic of what caused the Korean fella to do what he did.I don't think there is any question that the guy was mentally disturbed. What causes some people to break under certain circumstances and others to exit seemingly unfazed? In my completly unprofessional (and not so humble :D )opinion, he simply was not of strong enough character to cope with his environment. I don't understand why you continue to try and turn a personal shortcoming into a nation-bashing session. There are 301,814,381 people here, as of this morning...we're bound to have some nuts in the woodpile from time to time. Gimme a break already.If the US is going to continue with allowing guns it may be useful to have some insight into why certain individuals use them so tragically..He couldn't find a toothbrushIts easier to think of him as a f88vking Korean nut I guess.Excellent clinical diagnosis, Dr. Paul... works for me:D

I believe it was the British contingent that began pointing fingers at nationality, there, Paul.QUOTE]

The first post I responded to was from Canada and it referred to the Korean. So I don't know where you get the above from.


[QUOTE]Besides the background information of "resident alien" that happened to originate in Korea, I haven't heard anything accusatory with regard to race or nationality here. I have, however, responded to the tired old "American, blah, American, blah, blah" simply to prove a point, but I don't know that anyone really cares where he came from.

It was you that posted that he certainly was not american, and insinuated the cause of his problems happened before the age of 8 - and therefore the problems are Korean, isn't that what the quarterly journal was supposed to tell me?

I don't understand why you continue to try and turn a personal shortcoming into a nation-bashing session. There are 301,814,381 people here, as of this morning...we're bound to have some nuts in the woodpile from time to time. Gimme a break already.

There really is no nation bashing here - that I may be critical of gun laws, or can see maybe something in the US or Korea caused the fellas troubles doesn't equal nation bashing.

Try reading up in the journal for paranoia! ;)

[QUOTE]I

There really is no nation bashing here -

That charge is normally reserved for Colin and me, you should be more thankful that you've joined an exclusive club:rolleyes: ;)

Try reading up in the journal for paranoia! ;)nah...more cantankerous, really:D

.He couldn't find a toothbrush

Yes, we've always said that Americans don't need much of a reason to go in all guns blazing

um...that would be, to protect Americans from South Koreans, pay attention:rolleyes:

This should add some fuel to the illegal/legal immigrant fire. Can't wait for that to start. :eek:

Post 1372 was the first time his nationality was mentioned.

Brian

Post 1372 was the first time his nationality was mentioned.which was in direct response to Rich's post, #1371 referring to protecting "Americans from Americans".

which was in direct response to Rich's post, #1371 referring to protecting "Americans from Americans".

Which again begs the question, just what does it take to be deemed American?:confused:

I suppose that would depend entirely upon exactly who is doing the deeming

It does seem that americans cannot accept any criticism whatsoever without feeling its anti american. and without coming back with commenst like its the same in the UK (true on many points ) - which brings the nationalistic arguments into play when the critisism was of minutia rather than the US as a whole.

I feel the need to explore the americans sense of nationality a bit more and how they see themselves as part of the US, and why any critic of anything gets branded anti american.

Do american schools start the day with the SSB and a raising of the flag - or is that a hollywood myth?

And do americans hold dear the idea of as little central government interference as possible?

And if either is true - how do the two reconcile with each other?

Actually, I think you'll find the majority of the problem (at least in my case) is blanket generalizations. I get uptight when stereotypes are used that don't apply or don't make sense. The term "Americans" includes me, even if I'm only one in 301,814,381.

We didn't raise the flag, but we always had morning announcements over the PA system followed by the National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance, and a moment of silence... every morning.

I think you'll find that the concept of limiting interference from "Big Brother" while maintaining national pride works because we are proud of the system (as stretched and thin as it may be) which allows us the freedoms we enjoy.

We didn't raise the flag, but we always had morning announcements over the PA system followed by the National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance, and a moment of silence... every morning.

I think you'll find that the concept of limiting interference from "Big Brother" while maintaining national pride works because we are proud of the system (as stretched and thin as it may be) which allows us the freedoms we enjoy.

How can you pledge allegiance and limit interference at the same time?

Actually, I think you'll find the majority of the problem (at least in my case) is blanket generalizations. I get uptight when stereotypes are used that don't apply or don't make sense. The term "Americans" includes me, even if I'm only one in 301,814,381.

I see your point - but maybe its you generalising americans to include you - when other posters are talking of specific americans and not generalising at all.

It does seem that americans cannot accept any criticism whatsoever without feeling its anti american.



Paul I think that the problem is that there are some posters who insist on turning every thread into criticism of America/Americans, eg your favourite car thread. I guess that under such an incessant and mindless barrage even the most tolerent get fed up, many no longer visit.

Brian

I see your point - but maybe its you generalising americans to include you - when other posters are talking of specific americans and not generalising at all.

No Paul, those posters do generalise all Americans despite trying to use semantics to say not.

Brian

How can you pledge allegiance and limit interference at the same time?One nation...under god...indivisible...with liberty and justice for all.

Cheers Brian - I don't think I'm particularly guilty though?

I think its the very generalisation thats perceived by the US posters, that is then used in reverse to include me as being anti american Brit.

Cheers Brian - I don't think I'm particularly guilty though?

I think its the very generalisation thats perceived by the US posters, that is then used in reverse to include me as being anti american Brit.

That's part of the problem that the original guys have caused.

Brian

One nation...under god...indivisible...with liberty and justice for all.

Eh? Can you translate that into something other than goobledegook?

I'm wondering if Brown decided to introduce a pledge of allegiance whether we would go for it or not. The only way I can see that being popular - is in the cricket tebbit test kind of way.

As a US friendly gesture - heres what I meant by cricket test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_test

(not a five day match versus the aussies - sorry that would be a 2 day match and a win to them!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauldohert
Cheers Brian - I don't think I'm particularly guilty though?

I think its the very generalisation thats perceived by the US posters, that is then used in reverse to include me as being anti american Brit.

That's part of the problem that the original guys have caused.

Brian

Rise above if necessary?

Eh? Can you translate that into something other than goobledegook?my apologies. That would be the end of the Pledge of Allegiance. It reminds us (or is supposed to) that we're one big happy, dysfunctional, neurotic, homocidal, xenophobic family :eek:

The important part being the references to One Nation and indivisible. I, and most other people, have recited the words 180 days/year for 12 years.

That's part of the problem that the original guys have caused.

Brian

Yes and I've told them about it often enough, free speech is now banned thanks to a few Americans and pro-Americans:rolleyes:

Cheers Brian - I don't think I'm particularly guilty though?

I think its the very generalisation thats perceived by the US posters, that is then used in reverse to include me as being anti american Brit.

They don't need much of an excuse to hurl foul language insult etc. at members on a personal level, still there are those who can't see the wood for the trees and think the Yanks a really nice people:eek:

The pledge of allegiance is about the same as certain religious mouthings that people force their kids to say in hopes that repetition makes something true. Take, for example, the Nicene Creed or the (commonly called) "Hail Mary" as two examples. Say it enough, you might eventually believe it.

(Whoops - am I being cynical again? Or is it just that I must not have said it enough? We'll never know.)

The pledge of allegiance was someone's misguided attempt to create some official saying that they hoped would inspire people to be loyal to their country. The last time it was modified was during the McCarthy era in the USA, when Sen. Joe McCarthy was on a communist "witch hunt" and during which time paranoia was high due to the nuclear arms race. Everyone was twitchy anyway. So they thought it would be a good idea to brainwash the kids by rote & repetition.

The "with liberty and justice for all" part is based on the (more or less) honest belief that this country has the fairest form of government for the greatest number of its citizens. With GWB in the White House and the Patriot Act still on the books, there are a few of us who might hesitate in fully agreeing. Yet as the pendulum swings, we might see a return to other viewpoints of a less reactionary and sabre-rattling stance. I am hopeful.

The Virginia Tech shooting merely points out that our system sometimes goes too far along the path of assuring the maximum of personal freedoms. Our shooter was actually ordered by courts to undergo MANDATORY psychiatric counseling, but the guys who want to take liberty to the extreme have gutted the laws that would have allowed the Virginia Commonwealth to force the guy into a closed facility to get his head shrunk. He spurned the court order and went off the deep end a couple of years later.

This is where I believe we go too far. An order of the court was basically ignored and yet the cops didn't go out and arrest the guy. They didn't take him into a prision where he COULDN'T escape without some treatment. The bleeding-heart types forced us to let go of the nutcases years ago. They became many of the homeless street people in the big cities. (Why the big cities? Better odds of getting a handout or finding food tossed out behind a restaurant, I guess.)

I blame the ACLU for taking matters a bit too far. Personally, I think there is a place somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum where you can maximize the total liberty of the people in your country without leaving the door wide open for this kind of tragedy. Then again, there is no single answer that works for everyone.

I'll say this. If at least a couple of students had been carrying their own form of equalizer, the death toll would have been lower. But the anti-gun nuts go berserk whenever they hear that. Well, tough. It is true. No one was there to stop him because the colleges are trying to liberalize (lobotomize) the kids these days, forgetting that the USA was FOUNDED by people who were deeply self-motivated, self-actualized, self-sufficient most of the time. They were rugged individualists. The colleges and some demoncrats (is that a Freudian slip?) would just LOVE it if they could get rid of guns entirely. Until someone slipped a few through a border and started using guns on the unarmed populace.

But this could turn into a rant all by itself. I'll let it go for now.

The pledge of allegiance is about the same as certain religious mouthings that people force their kids to say in hopes that repetition makes something true. Take, for example, the Nicene Creed or the (commonly called) "Hail Mary" as two examples. Say it enough, you might eventually believe it.

I know exactly what you mean, here. Growing up, I had to recite the Lord's Prayer at the end of every assembly in school. Did I believe it? No. Did I even take much notice of what I was saying? No. It may as well have been in a foreign language.


I'll say this. If at least a couple of students had been carrying their own form of equalizer, the death toll would have been lower. But the anti-gun nuts go berserk whenever they hear that. Well, tough. It is true.

You said this earlier in an earlier post. Saying it again doesn't make it any more truthful. Armed students may have saved lives. They may have made no difference. They may have made things worse. We'll never know.

You said this earlier in an earlier post. Saying it again doesn't make it any more truthful. Armed students may have saved lives. They may have made no difference. They may have made things worse. We'll never know.

I think the laws of probability would favor a more positive outcome had there been a sane armed person there as well though. Not every civilian goes to water when the shooting starts, and certainly in this tragedy there was ample evidence that some of the victims fought back. Had even just one been armed the rampage would have been a lot shorter.

I think the laws of probability would favor a more positive outcome had there been a sane armed person there as well though. Not every civilian goes to water when the shooting starts, and certainly in this tragedy there was ample evidence that some of the victims fought back. Had even just one been armed the rampage would have been a lot shorter.

And if you didn't have a gun ho culture the problem wouldn't have occured in the first place. Oops forgive me father for I have sinned, I pointed out the obvious and will now be branded anti-American:rolleyes:

the kids these days, forgetting that the USA was FOUNDED by people who were deeply self-motivated, self-actualized, self-sufficient most of the time.

Are they the same ones who were motivated to all but wipe out the natives with guns

I think the laws of probability would favor a more positive outcome had there been a sane armed person there as well though. Not every civilian goes to water when the shooting starts, and certainly in this tragedy there was ample evidence that some of the victims fought back. Had even just one been armed the rampage would have been a lot shorter.

Once again, we have the 'would have been'. Is it just me or does no-one else see how foolish it is to confidently state what would have taken place if...?

You have just said "Not every civilian ", meaning that some do. How the hell do you know for a fact that none of those who would have gone to water (as you put it) would have made the situation worse?

I'm not saying that they couldn't have helped, just trying to get the gun crowd to admit that they might not have.

By the same argument, if I'd been there I would have stopped it, since I'd have know to be standing behind the gunman and would have had the foresight to bring a baseball bat. Some may argue that this wouldn't have happened, but I can just as confidently state it to be 'true'.

...will now be branded anti-American:rolleyes:

Er, that wouldn't require branding, it's kinda obvious. If I personally had to label you it would be as a troll, smacktard and fool, though I don't really go for labelling. :) But I digress.

Er, that wouldn't require branding, it's kinda obvious. If I personally had to label you it would be as a troll, smacktard and fool, though I don't really go for labelling. :) But I digress.

Fool usually means stupid doesn't it?:confused: :rolleyes:

Fool usually means stupid doesn't it?:confused: :rolleyes:
But then you have proven, time and again, to be "a supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, variously portrayed as a friendly or mischievous dwarf or as a giant, that lives in caves, in the hills, or under bridges". So at least he got that bit right. :confused:

But then you have proven, time and again, to be "a supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, variously portrayed as a friendly or mischievous dwarf or as a giant, that lives in caves, in the hills, or under bridges". So at least he got that bit right. :confused:

Does that make me stupid though?:confused:

Once again, we have the 'would have been'. Is it just me or does no-one else see how foolish it is to confidently state what would have taken place if...?

You have just said "Not every civilian ", meaning that some do. How the hell do you know for a fact that none of those who would have gone to water (as you put it) would have made the situation worse?

I'm not saying that they couldn't have helped, just trying to get the gun crowd to admit that they might not have.

By the same argument, if I'd been there I would have stopped it, since I'd have know to be standing behind the gunman and would have had the foresight to bring a baseball bat. Some may argue that this wouldn't have happened, but I can just as confidently state it to be 'true'.

I can't claim to speak for the "gun crowd." I entered this thread as someone who's licenced to carry and has also been present at a shooting while myself unarmed due to respect for my employer's policies. I also voted for Gore and for Kerry in the last 2 presidential elections, not that that's really relevant. I'd made the not going to water comment from my own personal experience, and as for the possibility that another armed person in that situation might have made it worse, of course I can't prove it, I guess it boils down to my personal belief when I say that. I don't see how the situation could possibly have been any worse than it really was had there been an armed person to oppose the killer. If you can't respect that then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Does that make me stupid though?:confused:

I can honestly say I've never met a mythical Scandinavian creature who was anything but very astute.

With that, I bid you a good weekend and it's knocking-off time for me. :D

as for the possibility that another armed person in that situation might have made it worse, of course I can't prove it, I guess it boils down to my personal belief when I say that....... If you can't repsect that then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You'll get no disagreement from me - that was exactly the point I was making.
Have a good one.

Until someone slipped a few through a border and started using guns on the unarmed populace.

.

Bloody Canadians, why don't you build a fence?

You'll get no disagreement from me - that was exactly the point I was making.
Have a good one.

Thank you for respecting me as an individual, and I'm sorry if I've mis-represented my personal opinions as universal truths.

I agree, we don't know what would have happened.

As long as there is a movement to turn kids into sheep, we'll continue to watch them get sheared. Eventually some of them will realize that maybe it is better to at least sometimes be a wolf than to always go under the clippers until it is time for roast rack of lamb.

America being "gun ho" (not my choice of words) is irrelevant to the REAL situation. A guy went nuts, ignoring court orders, because bleeding heart liberal types just can't stand to see poor sick people incarcerated. Hey, I'm the first one to say that a lot of those people are down on their luck and don't need to be treated unfairly. But the VT shooter was a certified, court-recognized nut case. When we gut our own laws so that the police cannot detain a tried-and-true whacko, we've gone too far.

With our without a gun, there would have been hell to pay. I've seen footage of guys who got hold of machetes, samurai swords, European bastard swords, and Scottish long swords. Not all USA, either. Some were from South America. A whack job will use anything at hand to get the job done.

You want to do some serious good in the world? Start confiscating guns from Iraq & Iran. (By the way - don't ask me to accompany you while you try this...) Whacko is whacko regardless of nationality, creed, color, or religion.

I agree, we don't know what would have happened.

As long as there is a movement to turn kids into sheep, we'll continue to watch them get sheared.
.

So those who advocate gun control are sheep?:confused:

Start confiscating guns from Iraq & Iran.

What problem does Iran have with guns?:confused:

So those who advocate gun control are sheep

Naw! More likely, wolves getting ready to apply for the job of shepherd. Drooling and licking their chops all the way.

What problem does Iran have with guns

Where do you think the Iraqi insurgents are getting their guns? The news I saw from the multinational forces say they have captured Iranian gun smugglers in the act and have traced back other captured weapons to Iran.

Where do you think the Iraqi insurgents are getting their guns?

US army surplus stores, US gun fairs

US army surplus stores, US gun fairs
Isn't Mexico usually blamed?

Isn't Mexico usually blamed?

That's for everything else;)

US army surplus stores, US gun fairs


Nope, no US army surplus stores in Iraq. Got to visit Tel Aviv for the nearest one.

No gun fairs, either. The guys who go to gun fairs tend to want to shoot first and ask questions later. Oh, wait... maybe THAT'S where GWB goes for relaxation?

Rich, while I about halfway mean what I say about being against extreme gun control, I'm not totally nuts. Though like many Access programmers, I talk to the computer when it irks me, in the typical programmer's delusion that I can verbally communicate with an inanimate object.

...The guys who go to gun fairs tend to want to shoot first and ask questions later. Oh, wait... maybe THAT'S where GWB goes for relaxation?Don't you mean Cheney?:eek:

In the words of your distinguished collegue:

Since everything Col speaks is truth and he is never wrong, the gunman was undeniably a Korean.:cool:

Nice of you to say so - If the chap was born in Korea, he's Korean. It's simple really. Bob Hope is English, as is Chaplin whats the problem?

Also, to clarify, a flick knife is a knife where the blade springs out from the side, like a powered pen-knife. I believe a switchblade is where the blade is concealed in the handle and shoots out the end of the knife when a button is pressed.

It was popular in the USA in the 50's - (I believe) - like in West Side Story or some Brando films at that time. It meant you could conceal the knife in your hand then push the end against someone and press the button and the blade shoots out and stabs them.

Both are illegal in the UK, as it is to carry any sort of knife or weapon.

Col

Nice of you to say so - If the chap was born in Korea, he's Korean. It's simple really. Bob Hope is English, as is Chaplin whats the problem?You're quite welcome

Here we go again - yet more crazy shootings in the USA - not in a school for a change:rolleyes:

Three killed in Idaho shootings

Three people have been killed and two wounded in a sniper attack in the town of Moscow, Idaho.
The sniper sprayed a county courthouse with bullets, killing a police officer and wounding two people.

The gunman then hid in a church for several hours before police stormed the building and found his body and that of another man.

Police do not know the shooter's motive and do not believe he had a specific target in mind.

ref BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6674983.stm)

Col

Some poor kid got on the wrong end of a gun at school in Toronto Ontario Canada yesterday...

You people amaze me.
Everyday more people are killed by people driving automobiles in this country(USA) than are shot by people with guns.


Find something else to [b/]itch about.

When people are killed in automobile accidents isn't it .. well an accident , whereas when they are shot isn't that kinda deliberate?

Brian

When people are killed in automobile accidents isn't it .. well an accident , whereas when they are shot isn't that kinda deliberate?

Brian

Not to be frivolous, but if you had to die, would you rather be killed on purpose or by accident? I know I'd be p****d if my cause of death was listed as "oops." I'm certainly not trying to trivialize the fact that a lot of people in the US own guns who shouldn't, I mean, you're approximately 5x more likely to commit suicide with a firearm here http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/gun_deaths_in_usa.htm than you are to kill yourself with a motorcycle...http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/810620.pdf...though I doubt the bikers are doing it on purpose...

You people amaze me.
Everyday more people are killed by people driving automobiles in this country(USA) than are shot by people with guns.


Find something else to [b/]itch about.

Well that's odd, when both myself and a learned colleague made much the same comment here the post was deleted :confused:

Not to be frivolous, but if you had to die, would you rather be killed on purpose or by accident? I know I'd be p****d if my cause of death was listed as "oops." I'm certainly not trying to trivialize the fact that a lot of people in the US own guns who shouldn't, I mean, you're approximately 5x more likely to commit suicide with a firearm here http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/gun_deaths_in_usa.htm than you are to kill yourself with a motorcycle...http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/810620.pdf...though I doubt the bikers are doing it on purpose...

A gun is designed to kill, an automobile is not:rolleyes:

A gun is designed to kill, an automobile is not:rolleyes:

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
A gun is designed to kill, an automobile is not

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Your sarcasm is all very well but the difference in the two is at the centre of the argument.

Stop the populace owning guns and the effect is?....

Ban all automobiles and ..

or are Americans too damn stupid to see the difference?

Brian

Ban guns and you get less kills.
Ban automobiles and people get crazy and start shooting at everyone.

Ban guns and you get less kills.
Ban automobiles and people get crazy and start shooting at everyone.

:D :D :D

Guess we had better ban things in the right order.

Brian

Ban guns and you get less kills.
Ban automobiles and people get crazy and start shooting at everyone.

Any figures on how many deaths were caused by riders on horseback?:confused: ;)

...the difference in the two is at the centre of the argument.

That was my point. There are far more people killed by accident on the roads than by intent with a firearm.


Stop the populace owning guns and the effect is?....


More people killed with sharpened toothbrushes?

Seriously, how would you propose to do this (stopping the populace from owning guns)? It's all fine to wish for a world without guns but I don't see anyone offering a plan that would actually accomplish that.

Any figures on how many deaths were caused by riders on horseback?:confused: ;)


Here's the one who started it all.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3f/Dickturpin.JPG/270px-Dickturpin.JPG

British troublemaker as usual :rolleyes:

Here's the one who started it all.


British troublemaker as usual :rolleyes:

Funny that, we didn't follow his example:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

That was my point. There are far more people killed by accident on the roads than by intent with a firearm.


That word intent is so important

More people killed with sharpened toothbrushes?
:D

Seriously, how would you propose to do this (stopping the populace from owning guns)? It's all fine to wish for a world without guns but I don't see anyone offering a plan that would actually accomplish that

Well now this is a point I have made in previous discussions on this subject, its well nigh impossible, but that does not justify people arguing that owning guns is a good thing, or the post of voidcranium, does that mean "empty headed"?

Brian

My issue isn't that guns are good or bad. It is their owners who do what they do with them that make the headlines.

I think we need to invent a time machine and go back in time to find the first guy to ever carry a weapon. I think it was Urgh the caveman, carrying a heavy stick. We should go back and confiscate that stick. That'll teach his sorry butt to carry a weapon. We'll nip THAT trend in the bud.

More directly, if we took guns away from people, they'd find ways to get other weapons, or make them, or steal guns from places that still had them. Guns aren't the point. It is the violence within people. Screw the guns, knives, and blunt-force-trauma weapons. Our problem is people.

We and the Russkis were getting ready to do away with people (through a nuclear winter) and youse guys around the world objected. So we stood down from the cold war and the threats. So now you don't have USA and USSR nuclear proliferation to point to, and you apparently don't want to condemn N. Korea or Iran or the other new members of the "We've Got The Bomb" society. So you start picking on the USA for its guns. Sheesh. If THAT doesn't expose the bias, nothing will.

Seriously, how would you propose to do this (stopping the populace from owning guns)?

We've posted many constructive methods here in the past and the response is the usual "piss off you don't know what you're talking about". Why should we bother to give you the benefit of our wisdom now?:mad:

Here's the one who started it all.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3f/Dickturpin.JPG/270px-Dickturpin.JPG

British troublemaker as usual :rolleyes:

Not exactly likely to cause a massacre with that weapon. :D

Did America have to follow our bad habits? They may as well have stayed with us.;)

Brian

We and the Russkis were getting ready to do away with people (through a nuclear winter) and youse guys around the world objected. So we stood down from the cold war and the threats. So now you don't have USA and USSR nuclear proliferation to point to, and you apparently don't want to condemn N. Korea or Iran or the other new members of the "We've Got The Bomb" society. So you start picking on the USA for its guns. Sheesh. If THAT doesn't expose the bias, nothing will.

Why are you worried about NKorea and Iran, after all it's people that kill, not weapons

Not exactly likely to cause a massacre with that weapon. :D

I don't care how murderous you are, if you can reload that sucker on horseback then good luck to ya! :D


Did America have to follow our bad habits? They may as well have stayed with us.;)

Brian

We would have loved to have stayed but the tax rates were a little high ;)

We've posted many constructive methods here in the past...

...and obviously they aren't working in the UK either (do I really need to post the link to the UK 15 year old who was killed with a MAC-10 again?) Unfortunately, your 'wisdom' seems to be of similiar quality to "guns are designed to kill people, automobiles are not..."

...and obviously they aren't working in the UK either (do I really need to post the link to the UK 15 year old who was killed with a MAC-10 again?) Unfortunately, your 'wisdom' seems to be of similiar quality to "guns are designed to kill people, automobiles are not..."

Don't compare us to you, gun deaths here are rare :rolleyes:

When people are killed in automobile accidents isn't it .. well an accident , whereas when they are shot isn't that kinda deliberate?

Brian

I'd like to take this point up if I may :p

When looking at the net result (death tolls), is intent really that important? I know when I pull out of Gatwick, London I'd feel safer on a nascar circuit. What is the difference if an automobile is not designed to kill, if it kills anyway, to a much greater extent than guns, because of its wreckless use?

Are guns safer in this respect because their lethal qualities are far more obvious to the general public than an automobile? Please discuss.

I know when I pull out of Gatwick, London I'd feel safer on a nascar circuit.

That's only because you drive on the wrong side back home:p

That's only because you drive on the wrong side back home:p

I can never understand why you Brits are in such a hurry on the roads. It's not as if you've got very far to go :confused:

Cockneys like speed :D

When looking at the net result (death tolls), is intent really that important? I know when I pull out of Gatwick, London I'd feel safer on a nascar circuit.
If you think the M23 is like a NASCAR circuit then all I can say is your NASCAR is very feeble, try the M25 on a friday rush hour if you want some fun

Mind you, NASCAR is feeble because your drivers only drive flat out and never have to turn right and left - just left turns only, even then they still can't manage it and hit the wall.:rolleyes:

Col

NASCAR supporters are Bush supporters, aren't they?:confused: :rolleyes:

You people amaze me.
Everyday more people are killed by people driving automobiles in this country(USA) than are shot by people with guns.


We are aware of the stats - but it still remains that an average of 82 people in the USA die every day by being shot.

Thats a jumbo jet full dead every 4 days

Col

NASCAR supporters are Bush supporters, aren't they?:confused: :rolleyes:

Yes, the southern rednecks in Georgia etc. support Bush passionately and religion and NASCAR. Shows how out of touch the southerners are:rolleyes:

Col

I'd like to take this point up if I may :p

When looking at the net result (death tolls), is intent really that important? I know when I pull out of Gatwick, London I'd feel safer on a nascar circuit. What is the difference if an automobile is not designed to kill, if it kills anyway, to a much greater extent than guns, because of its wreckless use?

Are guns safer in this respect because their lethal qualities are far more obvious to the general public than an automobile? Please discuss.

I’m having difficulty understanding how people cannot see the difference in somebody being deliberately shot and being killed in a motor accident, even if by a reckless driver, the next step is being shot is no different than dying of a heart attack.

I agree that we need to tackle the carnage on the roads, but each time car makers make the cars safer the drivers use that safety to drive more recklessly, so remove the airbag from in front of the driver and replace it with a battering ram that shots out if he/she hits anything front end on at over say 20mph, or in the case of anything bigger than a family saloon, make it a spike. OK there will be some losers but that’s life.

As for the guns its not owning them that’s the problem and we know from experience here that banning the populace from owning them does not remove them from the streets, in the US case you have no chance, but that does not excuse the easy going attitude of so many posters. You need stricter laws about carrying them outside the home, maybe better and more readily enforced stop and search laws, as do we, with severe penalties for carrying.

Ok there are a couple of suggestions.

Brian

You people amaze me.
Everyday more people are killed by people driving automobiles in this country(USA) than are shot by people with guns.

Find something else to [b/]itch about.

More people die of lung cancer than breast cancer - on this logic breast cancer isn't something to bitch about!

Bri - you're on a loser here mate.:rolleyes:

The US posters can't see the difference between deaths by guns and cars. Both are glorified in the USA so it's only natural.

To us it's horrific that 82 people are killed in the US each day by being shot. But to them it's just a risk they've grown used to and complaicent to. Even the more christian US posters have said they will happily gun down a burglar.

Col

Even the more christian US posters have said they will happily gun down a burglar.


So would I.

I still think gun ownership is stupid though - cos if the burglar thought it likely I was armed - I am sure he would be too - and I'm sure h'ed think less of shooting me than I would in shooting him.

Whilst leaning towards agreeing with you Paul stats don't support us.

By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)

Brian

I’m having difficulty understanding how people cannot see the difference in somebody being deliberately shot and being killed in a motor accident, even if by a reckless driver, the next step is being shot is no different than dying of a heart attack.

Well Bri, I actually have to agree with you. The argument that gun crime is somehow less of a problem because there is a bigger problem, isn't very convincing.



As for the guns its not owning them that’s the problem and we know from experience here that banning the populace from owning them does not remove them from the streets, in the US case you have no chance, but that does not excuse the easy going attitude of so many posters.

But removing flippancy is nigh on impossible without personal experience. Most of the people on the M23 and M25 (yes I've been on that one too) wouldn't be driving like that if they had been involved in a fatal wreck. Gas prices are exorbitant too but no-ones reducing their revs as far as I can tell.

What does it take to get the everyday individual to be less 'easy going' with safety?


You need stricter laws about carrying them outside the home, maybe better and more readily enforced stop and search laws, as do we, with severe penalties for carrying.

Cops get very tough if you're found carrying, but this approach is lampooned by many on these forums.

The guns (in the US) are out there , how would you remove them, almost impossible the horse has bolted on this one, even if you were to get 1 state to try and be gun free , given the land mass of the states it would be impossible to implement (poss typo).
should the US get sick of the needless deaths by the nut cases with guns then a long term solution would be needed, but I think I have mentioned in this post (maybe another- the pig one) its not the country folk who are the problem its the townies , with a culture of gangster rap etc...
it might be interesting to have a breakdown of these deaths as an average

what % black, what white % what age range , robberies , drugs related etc

I know when I went to Philadephia (I've bound to have spelt that one wrong) there were areas I would not of been happy to walk in, and even people I know who live on the outskirts of Philie call it killadephia.


This could be a cultural problem , and to this only the people living in these areas can resolve it . end of the day its the will of the will of the people that one hopes will shine through .

To compare deaths by motor accidents to gun killings does not stack up - one is accidential(mostly) the other pre-meditated (nearly always)
some bright spark came up with -if everyone was armed there would not be a problem ... this is incredible stupid to say the least , I could accidently stand on your toes and you are having a bad day so before you have the chance to be rational you pull your gun a bang...,
also what about the percentage of people who are slightly nuttie and start seeing green goblins everywhere ..bang.bang


then theres the drunks (we have 'em too ) shooting off just for the hell of it .
Guns and people are not generally a good mix, but the problem is acedemic (typo-again) its too late guns are out there.

they are a bad thing and anything that can be done to reduce there numbers I am in favour for..
THere are some State side who see nothing wrong with Guns and those tat live in the sticks are probably ok and right with this, however the townies have no excuse, unless its to protect themselves from other gun users - which highlights the point .. here I go again rambling on

g

Cops get very tough if you're found carrying, but this approach is lampooned by many on these forums.
How come US posters here ram it down our throats that it's in the constitution that its cool to carry a gun? Either it's ok or it isn't:confused:

Here's me thinking [almost] everyone in the USA walks round armed like a modern day Wyatt Earp.

Col

Colin,
its because you watch too much TV.
vast majority are well balanced (well for Americans -only kidding) and "normal" people who pretty much like a beer or two .. its cos the newspapers and TV don't acutal see the point in reporting on a normal person . it has to be a gangbanger (american version , not the UK/Euorpe version)

the news would be pretty poor if it came out that Auntie Betty cat had kittens - just does cut the mustard as Auntie Betty shoot 2 thungs for being stupid.

so our view of the states is disjointed , the news is generally bad (same here)
g

Colin,
its because you watch too much TV.
vast majority are well balanced (well for Americans -only kidding) and "normal" people who pretty much like a beer or two .. its cos the newspapers and TV don't acutal see the point in reporting on a normal person . it has to be a gangbanger (american version , not the UK/Euorpe version)

the news would be pretty poor if it came out that Auntie Betty cat had kittens - just does cut the mustard as Auntie Betty shoot 2 thungs for being stupid.

so our view of the states is disjointed , the news is generally bad (same here)
g


Yes yes, I'm aware of that Gary - I put my second comment in just to get a reaction:rolleyes: [nice that you reacted;) :rolleyes: ]

I'm more interested in Daniella's comment where the "cops get tough" - how can they if it's ok by law to carry a gun:confused:

Col

You knew I would "Bite" :p

Yes yes, I'm aware of that Gary - I put my second comment in just to get a reaction:rolleyes: [nice that you reacted;) :rolleyes: ]

I'm more interested in Daniella's comment where the "cops get tough" - how can they if it's ok by law to carry a gun:confused:

Col

The gun cannot be loaded, the gun cannot be concealed. Hand guns require registration and a permit. If you get pulled over and you don't tell them what you're carrying straight away, then they will get tough. Your TV shows probably film an individual breaking one or more of these rules.

The gun cannot be loaded, the gun cannot be concealed.
So it's ok to walk down the street wielding a Magnum as long as it's empty?

Hand guns require registration and a permit.
So rifles don't? Can you walk down the street wielding a loaded rifle?

Col

You knew I would "Bite" :p

You've been to the USA - it's obvious;) :p

Col

The gun cannot be loaded, the gun cannot be concealed. Hand guns require registration and a permit. If you get pulled over and you don't tell them what you're carrying straight away, then they will get tough. Your TV shows probably film an individual breaking one or more of these rules.

Well that's odd, we've had Americans on here justifying the need to carry a concealed weapon and don't certain states actually promote it?:confused: :confused:

yeah.. nice place (except for the Yanks...only kidding)
been there and so far only met 2 complete arses- the rest were really very nice - diffent but nice - just as messed up as us Brits but on different things

Good example would be cornflakes
a lot of choice 20 brands - but all were crap - and its like that for a lot of things, cheese was a good one - American cheese is a bit boring- dull.. its mass produced and there no love in it, you can buy foreign cheese there like cheddar, (english,)and other cheeses french, dutch but the american cheese tasted processed a bit soapy.

Not that everything is 'orrible, Cinnie buns are really nice (I have bound to have spelt this one wrong) they are 1000 calories just to look at them - a bit like a chelsea bun - but better

THey have fast food down to a Tee, but quality meals ermmm.. not really- or it coud be just my taste buds didn't like it -

I did see that if you wanted quality food , there were a few good suppliers of meat (beef, hams etc) but these were mail order and they looked top notch ..
never have bacon in the States - that is a joke - and the tea is not much better, the coffee on the other is ok

take aways are weird
Indians (curries) are almost non-existiant , they seem to think that they are smelly and you eat the food you end up being smelly - I think that this is going to take time to get accross to them that curries are magic - not the blow your head of types .

Still like the people, I must admit there is a line to be drawn on the americans - into a couple of groups - those that travel and those that don't the ones who travel are far more approachable and open to new ideas those who don't are closed minds , you might as well talk to a wall

and i am afraid to say there is a black line as well
those who are educated are really nice,easy to talk to and a pleasure to be with (99.9%)_ and those who aren't educated are pretty arrogant , the world owes them a income, you must meet them at their level , talk in there langauge - and thats a shame, I would like to feel that i can walk in any part of the UK , irrespective of my colour and be accepted as I would accept anyone .. but thats not the case in parts of the cities in the US

Well that's odd, we've had Americans on here justifying the need to carry a concealed weapon and don't certain states actually promote it?:confused: :confused:

I remember one poster saying that he was licensed to carry a concealed weapon, don't remember any more.

Brian

Agree with much of what you say Gary except that in all races I think that the line, if one has to be drawn , is to do with education rather than travel.( I take it by travel you mean outside of the USA).

I also think the coffee is a bit thin , no wonder they keep refilling for free.

Never had a carry out but have eaten in some good restaurants, but don't ask me to name them as I haven't a clue, and I don't do curries these days.

Brian

Gary I forgot this

I would like to feel that i can walk in any part of the UK , irrespective of my colour and be accepted as I would accept anyone .. but thats not the case in parts of the cities in the US

I doubt if this applies in the UK either.

Brian

Whilst leaning towards agreeing with you Paul stats don't support us.


Quote:
By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)

Brian


In what way do those stats not support our leaning?

Are the stats trying to show - that becasue of guns - hot burlaries are less likely?

I bet if you look a little further - though your chances of being in are lower - your chances of being killed by the burlglar are higher, also the chances of you killing the burglar are higher.

In this country - those with guns are far more likely to be shot dead. Guns just escalate a situation to a fatal conclusion.

Gary I forgot this



I doubt if this applies in the UK either.

Brian

I can walk around London no problems - not too sure about up North - went round B'ham without any bother, I don't think its a colour problem in the UK (or I hope its not) might be me being niave (?), went and saw a cricket match west Indies verus the rest of the world where I was outnumbered 20-30 to 1 by Indians/Pakistanines (I hope I've spelt that one right?) - and walked back to the tube station about 3 miles - not a problem and I did not feel threatend or uncomfortable -

would I do this in Dudley/Bradford - I think so , I might be the only whitey there, but so what .

As to "Black" people (If I have upset someone by this word apoligses in advance ) . I have not come across one who is touchie or arse-y about their orgins - most have been proud to be British and proud of their black history

I have not heard of one who has raised the black card -
I am black and my ansetors were slaves you own me something
or your are racists and keeping the black man down
That does not mean there is no racisim -wether it is deliberate or accidential

I work in an office where one of my fellow workers - cannot see that a black women could be attractive to a non black person - (It was some actress forget her name - but she was drop dead gourgous (?))-- and he could not see it and gave me a funny look when I said she was stunning, now I know this person very well, and he is not racist, - well not in his action but in his inaction possibly .


I would like to think that this sort of thinking is disappearing, but maybe I am being a bit of a dreamer - accepting people for who they are rather than the colour of there skin - I meet someone and if they are an arse then I'll treat em as such , if there ok nice , etc then thats how I treat them

ever dealt with South Africanians , they are rude but you can be rude back to them (I am talking about white South Africanians) and they cannot see that being an arse will mean you get treat as one

here I go again rambling on .....

I’m having difficulty understanding how people cannot see the difference in somebody being deliberately shot and being killed in a motor accident, even if by a reckless driver, the next step is being shot is no different than dying of a heart attack.

We can see the difference, I just brought up the traffic stats to point out that there are statistically a lot more accidental deaths than intended ones, and realistically, the accidental ones are something we can effectively do something about.

As for the guns its not owning them that’s the problem and we know from experience here that banning the populace from owning them does not remove them from the streets, in the US case you have no chance, but that does not excuse the easy going attitude of so many posters. You need stricter laws about carrying them outside the home, maybe better and more readily enforced stop and search laws, as do we, with severe penalties for carrying.

Ok there are a couple of suggestions.


At least somone's trying to take a realistic proactive approach. I'd add that a more thorough background check, competency testing and basic firearms safety/proficiency ought to be part of the deal before being allowed to carry.

I remember one poster saying that he was licensed to carry a concealed weapon, don't remember any more.

Brian

I'm licenced to carry. Background check=no felony convictions. I have been stopped by the police while carrying (I looked like "someone they were looking for"), the cops did not draw weapons on me. The first thing you do in that situation is tell them you're licenced, show ID and whatnot. Do I really have to add that to be not committing a crime at the time is a given? Never had any trouble with the police on that issue.

With regards to Stats especially these stats
you can mix and match to get the result you want .. but in the end 86 deaths per day against how many in a year in the UK - does not matter how you cut it. also what about muggins
guns lead to death that is there sole purpose .. i have a gun there for I am prepared to shoot you - otherwise why get one - to defend myself - which means that you are prepared to use it otherwise get a toy gun .

no I am afraid that this arguement does not carry much weight in the UK/Europe

where the lack of guns can be seen reflexed in the lower gun death rate per million... terefore if you want lower death rates remove the gun- (too late state side where probably for every legal gun there is 10 illegal ones )

this argument seems to be going round in circles - and the gun lobby supporters will not move and those anti gun lobbiers(?) are up against it
the consititution is written in a way that can be read with 2 meaning (like most rules/laws) open to interpretation - can you imagine the work that would have to be done to remove guns form households

population of the US est 300million + (just a guess) average 1 home each
a good 4 -5 hours search each house by two or more people , and even this would not stop it , as people would bury them in the garden or something .

no they are there , there is nothing that us Europeans can do about this other than have a really good moan, let the americans kill each other , if they cannot see that it is the guns that are the problem - ( agian - I'd like to point out its the townies that end up shooting people the country folk seem to be more balanced when it comes to guns/firearms- must be the inbreeding- only kidding)

however the americans who premote guns and there right to bear arms - I am afraid will get a rough ride from Europeans(main the Brits) on this point

Those who know me, know that I am not anti-american , so this is not a poke at the Yanks - just an obervation - slight basis in its opion granted but i'd like to think a balanced view

Even the more christian US posters have said they will happily gun down a burglar.

Col

What would you do if you woke up and a burglar was stealing from you?
Give him a cup of tea?

I think that the lines are where you put them yourself. If you are scared of or condescendent with a group, might it be blacks, not educated or even French speakers :p, you are going to give the feeling that you don't want to know about them. In return, they will scared you even more or they will act like you don't belong. We got to be open minded.

Just in this forum, I've been told that French speakers are snob. I've heard that Americans are violent. I've heard that amateurs are not receptive. All this is only partially true, but we just want to see what comes to eye and don't want to see what's behind.

You may feel that I am snob. Because in my culture, we have learned to do our best to give a good first impression. In yours, you have learned to act more natural and relax and that makes you look neglect to our eyes. But, if you come to talk to me even though I seem snob, the first impression done, we get more relax and get closer to you, and you seem less neglect since you don't give the impression that you don't care.

Traveling may help understand the others, but that is only partially true. If you go to New-York with a condescendent attitude, you will feel like the Americans are weird towards you and they will feel like you are weird toward them. But, if you go there with an open mind and really want to learn why they act as they do (or seems to do), you would understand why and get the feeling that they are not as you taught they were.

But none has to travel to experiment this. How do you act when you come accross elder or youngster, rich or begger, a man in suit and tie or a punk with pierced tongue in the street of your home town? I dare every one to go ask "What time is it?" to a gang of punks. You'd find out that they would tell you the time and, if you say "Thank you!", they will even say "You're welcome!" (or at least a nice "Uh huh") ;) But, NOooo, we are to much affraid that they could spit in our face. Well believe it or not, they will spit in your face only if you walk by them to ask someone else a little further while you could have ask them.

I was very poor when I was young. Now, I am more than confortable and hang out with some rich folks. I speak French, but I hang out here in this British forum and lived in English speaking places for months. I was young, and now... Well I am still pretty young in comparison with some of you. :)
Two words... Open mind!!!

What would you do if you woke up and a burglar was stealing from you?
Give him a cup of tea?

Yes, piping hot and in the face......:rolleyes:

Newman -

much of what you say is valid and I agree with the gist of it, i would be happy to ask a punk - pink hair pins through his/lips tatto-ed to the hilt - gay black/white whatever for the time of day or directions .. although appearances do give an impression - its acutal talking to someone that's important - I have to do a bit of sales, and you have to get to know people- make that impression - now i cannot do that in writing (you've all seen my spelling - lol) but get me on a phone or faced to face . i make that impression - whether to be tongue in cheek, or a bit snoby (?) - i have people phone me up after 6-7 months after i have met them - I have suppliers thank me, even though i don't use them - its how you(not you specifially-as you come across as a nice guy (for a Candian -lol) present yourselves ..

as to being a bit of a snob , this may be a Brit hangover - i know that when people first met each other they are more likely to be formal until they know where they stand ...

State side is probably the same but politeness there is more relaxed/different/comes across falsely -- not a poke at the yanks - just the way it comes across .

the phrase "Have a nice day" - really grates on my nerves (probably just me) - its flat souless a corporate thing a nothing through in at the end ..

i like a bit more interaction - a laugh a giggle - some humor the person serving me is human - i want human responses-

a joke while food shopping - seems like nothing - but passes the day

i give you a good example
last weekend , in the queue was a lady buying her food for the week, and she had bough 2 melons., well i chipped in and said to her and the till assistant - love bunch of Melons- which can be constructed to mean she had a nice chest - but done tongue in cheek- had 3 of laughing - and brought few more smiles to the people who had overheard this .

i have had some till operators also do some one lines to me ..and it was great , whether we talk about the footie or the weather - its more personal

went to madam toussard (bound to have got that one wrong) and i had the inlaws with me (from US) and they could not belive the interaction going not only with the assistant - qwho looked after my daughter for a couple of mins, but also the banter (talk) between guys in the queue.

i have tried this state side interacting with shop assistants - and i got some very funny looks - they just wern't used to it -
did it in Norway - and got some laughs - even in Germany (trust me thats hard work Germans are not know for there humor).

even waiter and waitress interact with them - they are people - they need respect, recoginition(?) it can be a smile or a nod - or a few words-

here i go again rambling on .....

I'm going to digress from the bashing for a bit and comment on some remarks in the recent part of this thread.

If you don't like USA coffee, you didn't have it in N'Awlins.

If you think the food is tasteless, you didn't eat at a Cajun restaurant in N'Awlins.

Standing offer: If any of you are coming to N'Awlins, send me e-mail in advance to The_Doc_Man@yahoo.com so we can privately arrange how to meet. Don't expect an immediate answer because I don't use that account very often. But it is still valid as of this weekend.

If we can "hook up" as we say in the states, I'll take you to a place where the food has flavor. (Not my treat for the food, but maybe my treat for the ride.) My wife LOVES to meet people from other countries. If you aren't coming in on a weekend, logistics might be a stretch, but it won't stop me from trying. Just promise to not talk shop too much. My dear wife will want a more culture-comparison oriented conversation.

By the way, I have eaten at Indian restaurants that served fairly decent sweet and hot curries. After Katrina, we don't have as many of those as we used to, mostly by accident of flood elevation wiping out areas seemingly capriciously. But we have some decent Italian, a little bit of Greek, and lots of Chinese, Vietnamese, Mexican, and a few other ethnic eateries. For some reason, after the close of the Vietnam War, we had a LOT of immigrants from the parts of Vietnam being overrun at the time. Some of my co-workers are naturalized USA citizens originally from S. Vietnam. (Guess they feel at home in our hot, steamy swamps.) We get some great shrimp and chicken recipes from those folks.

Now, if you are thinking beef, we actually aren't known for Creole Beef recipes. There aren't that many because cattle and N'Awlins didn't always go together. Prior to, oh, 1890, we weren't very big on cattle in South Louisiana. Too heavy for the swamp land in the area. As shipping via trucks from central and northern Louisiana become feasible, we developed a better beef market. But the old, traditional recipies were based in pork, chicken, duck, fish, crabs, shrimp (prawns to some people), and crayfish (crawfish, crawdads, ecrevisse). Things that were available at close range here in Sout' Lousy-anner. Oh, add to that - oysters and alligators. Alligator Sauce Piquant is not to be missed if you have fresh 'gator and fresh cayenne. But then, Redfish Courtboullion is no laughing matter, either.

Doc my comment on the coffee was a generalisation, and probably aimed at breakfast coffee, don't specifically remember New Orleans for its coffee :D , but liked its food , jazz, archiecture. Back there next spring but its a coach tour and not sure of the time table yet, but you never know you might have the misfortune to get an Email. :)

brian

Standing offer: If any of you are coming to N'Awlins,...If we can "hook up" ...I'll take you to a place where the food has flavor. (Not my treat for the food, but maybe my treat for the ride.) My wife LOVES to meet people from other countries. ...My dear wife will want a more culture-comparison oriented conversation.

Nice offer there, Doc, does PA count? ;) My wife's never seen N'Awlins :D

Here we go again. . . . . . .

Shooting in Delaware school (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7007491.stm)

and

A teacher going to sue in order to carry a handgun to work - right or wrong?

ref (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7003028.stm)


Col

Here we go again. . . . . . .

Shooting in Delaware school (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7007491.stm)

and

A teacher going to sue in order to carry a handgun to work - right or wrong?

ref (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7003028.stm)


Col

Your empathy for shooting victims is already well documented.

Look, the kid got shot and died. Get over it. It happens.
Why the fuss over one kid?
Col

Get over it, you sanctimonious prick.

Get over it, you sanctimonious prick.

There's no need to use such language to another on these forums.

Sadly though, it does show your usual national level of tolerance - it goes along with the "nuke the bastards" attitude of the USA towards foreigners.

Trying to match my comments about shooting in US schools and a teacher carrying a gun to a shooting in the UK shows you have little or no knowlege of the facts.

Col

Get over it, you sanctimonious prick.

I wonder why this isn't seen by the mod as a personal insult worthy of an infraction?:rolleyes:

I wonder why this isn't seen by the mod as a personal insult worthy of an infraction?:rolleyes:

I think the post should be reported - it's unacceptable to call other members abusive names. I did debate whether to report it, but decided not to stir things.

The mod is American though so it's unlikely anything would be said.It's one rule for one and not others.

Perhaps Gaylo will edit the post

Col

There's no need to use such language to another on these forums.
Col

It never seemed to stop you:

a twat is a slang term for a female vulva (part of the vagina)

Col

Don't have time to post the link to Rich's use of the "F" word, I'll get it later if necessary. I notice you didn't argue about the sanctimonius part. :D Sad to see that you have nothing better to do in your retirement than use the tragedy of more senseless deaths to promote your own agenda.

Oh. I called you a bad name, and now you want to go crying to the mods? Boo hoo. I'd like to see how far you get for reporting abusive language, you hypocrite. Get over it. At least the name I've called you is valid.

Just to be sure, if anyone does visit N'Awlins and would like to meet me, send the e-mail to my The_Doc_Man@yahoo.com account, but include something in the title like "Hello from the Access Forum" or something like that. I get spammed pretty much like everyone else and sometimes I delete mail because I don't recognize the name. So give me a hint in the subject.

It never seemed to stop you:

Look Gaylo - I have never used an abusive term to another member directly. Please find it if you think I have, or retract that statement.

Oh. I called you a bad name, and now you want to go crying to the mods? Boo hoo.
I said I thought about reporting it but never did it, there's no point - these forums are US run now so you'd never get a ticking off.

I'd like to see how far you get for reporting abusive language, you hypocrite. Get over it. At least the name I've called you is valid.

Yes, a valid rude name, definately not a made up one.

And what I do in my 'retirement' is entirely up to me and nowt to do with a Yankee.

Also, asking whether US teachers should carry guns is a new angle - ask a simple question and get called an abusive name - typical American response to a sensitive subject no doubt.

Col

Just to be sure, if anyone does visit N'Awlins

But it isn't rebuilt yet :confused: thats the problem, what is there to do?

Col

But it isn't rebuilt yet :confused: thats the problem, what is there to do?

Col

Go on a bus tour :D

Don't have time to post the link to Rich's use of the "F" word, I'll get it later if necessary.

There's a world of difference between using an expletive in a sentence and aiming one at a member on this forum. If your teacher had spent more time on explaining what words mean and where they should and shouldn't be used instead of worrying about spelling them then you might be considered well mannered and not just another foul mouthed YANK:rolleyes:

There's a world of difference between using an expletive in a sentence and aiming one at a member on this forum. If your teacher had spent more time on explaining what words mean and where they should and shouldn't be used instead of worrying about spelling them then you might be considered well mannered and not just another foul mouthed YANK:rolleyes:

It's normal American procedure I'm afraid Rich.

Col

Here we go again. . . . . . .

Shooting in Delaware school (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7007491.stm)

and

A teacher going to sue in order to carry a handgun to work - right or wrong?

ref (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7003028.stm)


Col
Get the distinct feeling we're going to round in the same circles here.

On one hand, if you are part of the group who think that the less guns there are, the less people there are who will get shot, you will be told you don't understand the situation.

On the other hand, if you feel that everyone should be issued a gun as long as they're well-trained and only use them responsibly, since it will make everyone safer, you're going to be classed as dangerous.

Nobody's stance on this is going to changed by any comments made in this forum. People who dislike the idea of anyone getting shot are still going be against guns. People who feel that disarming everyone is less safe than ensuring yet more people are armed are still going to be pro guns. That part of the 'debate' isn't going to progress.

The bit I did find interesting in that story about the teacher was the way she outlines wanting to carry one as defence against her ex, then - almost as an aiside - throws in a comment about how having more armed adults in schools would have (in her opinion) prevented or at least alleviated the past shootings. I got the distinct impression that she thought she'd get more sympathy if she tried to tie her own problems into the tragic shootings elsewhere. To my mind, taking a gun to school is asking for trouble, trained person or not. Kids can - and do - get away with taking teachers' wallets, car keys, etc. how tempting would it be to have a gun within reach? I couldn't tell if she was proposing being allowed to carry it everywhere? In which case, where is the guarantee that someone passing her in the hall couldn't take it off her?

There's a world of difference between using an expletive in a sentence and aiming one at a member on this forum.

This wasn't aimed directly at another forum member?
Fuck off !

Follow the link if you need to have your memory refreshed. You can drop the holier than thou attitude. Not like you being a hypocritical twit is Earth shattering news.

Foul mouthed Brit. :rolleyes:

This wasn't aimed directly at another forum member?


Follow the link if you need to have your memory refreshed. You can drop the holier than thou attitude. Not like you being a hypocritical twit is Earth shattering news.

Foul mouthed Brit. :rolleyes:

Put it in context and see if even though you're American you can work out how it differs :eek::rolleyes:

Nobody's stance on this is going to changed by any comments made in this forum.
Thats true enough.

The Yanks like carrying guns and shooting things - the Brits can't understand the attraction.

This arguement will crop up about every 6 months when there's a shooting in US schools, or some freak religious sect like the Amish.

Then the Yanks will get all upset and call the Brits names and storm off in a huff only to creep back weeks later after the storm has died down a little.

Col

Then the Yanks will get all upset and call the Brits names...

Col

Look Gaylo - I have never used an abusive term to another member directly. Please find it if you think I have, or retract that statement.

Col

Oh boo hoo. You seem to forget your quaint little habit of feminizing male posters' names when you're feeling snippy. (Daniella, Kevina ring any bells?) How juvenile. Still haven't manage to master the spelling of my username I see, and of course that's not an intended insult. :rolleyes:

Oh boo hoo. You seem to forget your quaint little habit of feminizing male posters' names when you're feeling snippy. (Daniella, Kevina ring any bells?) How juvenile. Still haven't manage to master the spelling of my username I see, and of course that's not an intended insult. :rolleyes:
Dan could be short for Daniella and I have no recollection of Kevina:confused:

Who is she?

Col

Daniella

Actually the aforementioned member prefers to be known as Miss Daniella, do try an get it right:rolleyes:

Do you realize that there are currently 127 pages of posts on this topic and a total of about five have anything to do with the actual shootings?

The remainder are Brits harping about Yanks, Yanks harping about Brits and everyone else harping at all of the above.

We're never going to agree about much, but lets at least be civil with one another.

We're never going to agree about much, but lets at least be civil with one another.
Rich and I are always civil, but obviously we respond to provocation from the Yanks who think they own the place and come on with their typical hypocritical holier-than-thou attitudes.

The sooner they realise they are not the most loved country / people in the world the better.

Rich and I are all for a peaceful life.

Col

Do you realize that there are currently 127 pages of posts on this topic and a total of about five have anything to do with the actual shootings?

The remainder are Brits harping about Yanks, Yanks harping about Brits and everyone else harping at all of the above.


That's because the Yanks are just argumentative and pugnacious, we do our best to keep them in order, but it's a thankless task and one that demands constant vigilance:cool:

...who think they own the place and come on with their typical hypocritical holier-than-thou attitudes.

Col

That's because the Yanks are just argumentative and pugnacious, we do our best to keep them in order, but it's a thankless task and one that demands constant vigilance:cool:

*cough*

If that's not a prime example of a typical, hypocritical and holier than thou attitude...

Given that these two will answer any post with another rant composed of their opinions on Americans I agree that it seems unlikely that any genuine discussion will take place. I note my observations on stricter regulations and harsher punishments for crimes committed with guns fell on deaf ears as far as these two are concerned. Yet there are obviously other posters who feel the discussion has merit and are willing to engage in a civilized dialogue. I'm still game.

I note my observations on stricter regulations and harsher punishments for crimes committed with guns fell on deaf ears as far as these two are concerned. Yet there are obviously other posters who feel the discussion has merit and are willing to engage in a civilized dialogue. I'm still game.
I've never seen any statistics, but does anyone know what proportion of gun-related crime is premeditated and what proportion is spur-of-the-moment? I only ask since the threat of punishment is often not much use when preventing a hot-blooded crime.

Also, in those cases where a nutjob walks into a school/office/mall/wherever and opens fire because the world hates him, etc, etc. are there any figures for how many of these people
(a) were physically capable of killing people en masse (thereby making the gun itself irrelevant and supporting people who use the 'guns don't kill, people do' argument as a way to defend the fact that they like having a gun)
(b) had proven access to criminal sources (thereby providing evidence to support the idea that those who want to commit crimes will always be able to get hold of a gun illegally)
(c) went with the gun option precisely because one was easy to get hold of, easy to use, requires little preparation, and is lethal even without training of any kind.

I've never seen any statistics, but does anyone know what proportion of gun-related crime is premeditated and what proportion is spur-of-the-moment? I only ask since the threat of punishment is often not much use when preventing a hot-blooded crime.

I'm not suggesting life in prison/the death penalty would always prevent first time murderers via deterrance. It would eliminate the repeaters.

Also, in those cases where a nutjob...



Stronger standards and testing before you give someone a permit to carry.

walks into a school/office/mall/wherever and opens fire because the world hates him, etc, etc. are there any figures for how many of these people
(a) were physically capable of killing people en masse (thereby making the gun itself irrelevant and supporting people who use the 'guns don't kill, people do' argument as a way to defend the fact that they like having a gun)
(b) had proven access to criminal sources (thereby providing evidence to support the idea that those who want to commit crimes will always be able to get hold of a gun illegally)
(c) went with the gun option precisely because one was easy to get hold of, easy to use, requires little preparation, and is lethal even without training of any kind.

(a) Sharpened toothbrush comments aside, I'd not argue this one. But again, there are a lot of people who own guns I feel should not be allowed to. There is a difference between carrying a gun because you might need it and carrying one because you want to.

(b) You don't really need access to criminal sources to get a firearm. Sure a pistol is easy to hide, but so is a sawed off shotgun, which is also, according to the experts (M. Ayoob) a deadlier close quarter weapon and requires no permits to buy. A shotgun and a hacksaw would be a lot cheaper too.

(c) Again, no argument, though I'd offer an observation. I'd require training before licensing myself. The defendant at the trial I served on had no firearms training. The guy he shot 3 times lived, and it was his testimony that led to the evidence that convicted the shooter.

Rich and I are always civil, but obviously we respond to provocation from the Yanks who think they own the place and come on with their typical hypocritical holier-than-thou attitudes.

I about choked on my drink with that one. :rolleyes::p Nice one, trying to blame us even though you yourself admit you like to provoke people to see if you can get a rise out of them. And you call US hypocritical and holier-than-thou? Whew. Funny. :cool:

Stronger standards and testing before you give someone a permit to carry.

Yep, what about a written AND a practical test. Perhaps everyone should be retested every so many years, just to ensure that they still know their stuff? It works so well with cars! I mean you could spend all day looking at the roads in any country without finding anyone who possesses a full, clean driving license and still drives in a way that's dangerous, to put it mildly. ;)

(a) Sharpened toothbrush comments aside, I'd not argue this one. But again, there are a lot of people who own guns I feel should not be allowed to. There is a difference between carrying a gun because you might need it and carrying one because you want to.

Definitely, but one person's 'need' is another's 'want'. Who gets to decide?

(b) You don't really need access to criminal sources to get a firearm.

My point exactly. If the only way to get a gun were through criminal contacts, how many shootings could have been avoided?

(c) Again, no argument, though I'd offer an observation. I'd require training before licensing myself.

And we're back to the first point. The fact that someone's trained and even licensed to use something doesn't mean he/she is going to be safe with it.

Yep, what about a written AND a practical test. Perhaps everyone should be retested every so many years, just to ensure that they still know their stuff? It works so well with cars! I mean you could spend all day looking at the roads in any country without finding anyone who possesses a full, clean driving license and still drives in a way that's dangerous, to put it mildly. ;)


I'd add psychological evalution as a prerequisite as well, also with retests. Anger management definitely required.


Definitely, but one person's 'need' is another's 'want'. Who gets to decide?


That would be the crux of the issue I believe, who gets to decide? Is a history of being the victim of violent crime a justification for needing a gun, or is that still a "want?"

My point exactly. If the only way to get a gun were through criminal contacts, how many shootings could have been avoided?



Vast numbers, I'm sure, but even a total ban on privately owned firearms wouldn't be an effective solution. There's that 15 year old who was killed with a MAC-10 in the UK, those are illegal for private citizens here too. The guns are already here, wishing them away isn't going to do it. How to deal with the situation that exists is the problem. A total ban on privately owned firarms would probably be quite effective in reducing gun violence but I don't think it's a realistic expectation. I'm not touting "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns" as a justification for legal ownership, I'm saying legal or not, they'd still be here.

And we're back to the first point. The fact that someone's trained and even licensed to use something doesn't mean he/she is going to be safe with it.


True, look at all the traffic fatalities. Again, why I'd insist on psychological screening as a prerequisite for ownership, to weed out those who'd settle their issues with a gun or couldn't deal with being depressed. Training in safety and use would be to cut down on the people shooting themselves in the foot or allowing a gun to fall in the wrong hands.

I about choked on my drink with that one. :rolleyes::p Nice one, trying to blame us even though you yourself admit you like to provoke people to see if you can get a rise out of them. And you call US hypocritical and holier-than-thou? Whew. Funny. :cool:

See, argumentative :eek::p

That's because the Yanks are just argumentative and pugnacious, we do our best to keep them in order, but it's a thankless task and one that demands constant vigilance:cool:

Reminds me of banging your head against a wall. It feels so good when you stop.

At the risk of seeming to defend Americans and be negative about the British...

There are millions of Americans who don't own a gun and have no wish to own on.

There are millions of Brits who own guns despite the difficulty in obtaining one. They get just a big a kick out of killing living things as their American counterparts.

At least on this continent, we don't have people on horseback watch a pack of hounds tear apart a fox or whatever other helpless creature happens to be nearby.

Rich and I are always civil, but obviously we respond to provocation from the Yanks who think they own the place and come on with their typical hypocritical holier-than-thou attitudes.

The sooner they realise they are not the most loved country / people in the world the better.

Rich and I are all for a peaceful life.

Col

Col!!!!

You are constantly condemning America!
And I, as an American, have NEVER come to you as a holier-than-thou person.
I KNOW we are NOT the most loved country. Know that for certain and for sure as I've been a member here for the past six years.

It seems to me that YOU are coming from a holier-than-thou attitude for a couple of years now and it's REALLY grating on my nerves. However... although I'm frustrated with this fact, I understand your frustrations with America. Can you please give the people on this forum who happen to be Americans a freaking break with your condescending attitude towards us????????????

If you have problems with American government, or American policy... say it. But don't lump Americans all together as some stereotypical hogwash. It's offensive! It's racist! It's belligerant! And it's ignorant. I have never, ever, ever, in my six years of being on this forum, uttered a single word of attack against any country, race, or religion. I keep an open mind and no one on this forum can EVER call me a bigot or racist. However, it strikes fear in my heart to know that so many anti-American themes are racing toward you. I fear that it MUST be anti-American propaganda to make so so incredibly comfortable at stereotyping an entire country.

I'm SICK to DEATH of it. Truly I am!
I'm NOT asking you to change your viewpoint of what is right and wrong or what course of action is appropriate in any given situation. I am simply asking you NOT to stereotype American people as evil and haughty. It sickens me.

There. That's as plain as I can be.

But... whatever... you still won't understand.

Tess - I said we (Rich and I) respond to provocation from the Yanks who think they own the place etc. I did