5 Dead in College Shooting...

[Electrophile]

I can't remember what comedian said it, but he said that Question Time in the Parliament looks like it should have a 2-drink minimum. Sometimes they show bits and pieces of it on C-SPAN and I've caught it a couple times. I actually wouldn't mind seeing Dubya have to take questions from the opposition party about the stuff he's managed to screw up. If anything, it'll be downright hilarious. Put that shit on HBO or something.

[ledded1]

I can't remember what comedian said it, but he said that Question Time in the Parliament looks like it should have a 2-drink minimum. Sometimes they show bits and pieces of it on C-SPAN and I've caught it a couple times. I actually wouldn't mind seeing Dubya have to take questions from the opposition party about the stuff he's managed to screw up. If anything, it'll be downright hilarious. Put that shit on HBO or something.

QT is a bit of a farce really at times just the political parties posturing and trying to score points off each other. Nothing dramatic ever happens and you have to remember that the Prime Minister knows the questions in advance so has the responses prepared and rehearsed so not really an open debate.

[Del Zeppnile]

And to think that nearly 300 years ago all that led to another 5 kids being killed in the name of the constitution.

So you are saying that the five people killed were because of our constitution?

Can you prove that it would not have happened if there was no 2nd Amendment rights? Of course you can't. So why even say that is the reason?

Aren't shotguns still legal in the UK? I recall a spree killing a few years ago where a deranged man killed four people in your country with a shotgun. Not an assault rifle, not and automatic pistol, not even a bolt action hunting rifle... A SHOTGUN. Something that still is legal (as long as it is licensed and the fees are paid up). What makes you think that situation can't happen again? You are being painfully naive to think that changing gun laws will prevent every nut from doing something bad. And even with the UK's very restrictive gun laws, what types of guns are used the most in crimes in your country? Well, I can assure you that it is not shotguns and hunting rifles. Most gun crimes in the UK are committed with automatic pistols and automatic rifles, which have ALWAYS BEEN ILLEAGAL in the UK. These are guns which are mostly smuggled into the UK from abroad by criminals.

Your record is well and truly stuck Del cos this is the same argument you have had with others.

Tell it to the parents of the dead kids I am sure they will be consoled by it all.

Face it, your gun laws only end up restricting the law abiding citizens. Crazy people and criminals still have everything they need, when they need it. If that makes you feel better then good for you.

[Gainsbarre]

I live in America, and I understand the role of the role of our Head of State. I understand that George Bush technically represents our country. Or does that not count because he's not a King?

Why should they be separate? The Iranians have this system you speak of, and look how thats working for them. They have Ahmed as the President, but he's the puppet of the Supreme Ruler of Iran. The Head of State (Ahmed) is not involved (not really anyways, he does what he's told) in politics, while the Head of Government (the Supreme Ruler of Iran) is the policy-maker of the country. Apparently your system is broken

Why not? Why should the person who represents an entire country not have any say in how the government runs itself or how the country itself operates? That makes no sense. So the HOS could technically represent a country who's views are obscured from his-herself? That would stupid. A liberal Monarch shouldn't have to be the representative of a Conservative country.

Refer back to my original post if you STILL cannot understand why I said the head of Government must be a different person to the Head of State, there's something crucial in there that you missed, about criticising the goverment without being labelled unpatriotic.

And I'm glad you brought up Iran, Iran is a perfect situation whereby you have a head of Goverment and a Head of State who both have political power, look what happens in that country. You see, i told you the Head of State has to have no political imput.

The King or Queen does not imput into political dialogue, and the Goverment may well hold political views at odds with the Goverment. But under a constitutional monarchy, the King or Queen respects and supports the will of the people, as the Goverment elected represents the political majority of the country.

THE KING OR QUEEN MUST BE A FIGURE-HEAD FOR ALL COUNTRYMEN AND BE A REPRESENTATION FOR ALL OF HIS OR HER SUBJECTS. THEY DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS AS THEY MUST REPRESENT ALL, NOT JUST PEOPLE WITH SIMILAR POLITICAL VIEWS

That's why in America you've had such strong political divisions during the term of George W Bush, because as President and Head of State, he's only implemented policy and only represents the people who are on the same idiological and political side as him.

Yes, and I've watched this Question TIme myself. It gets out of hand quickly doesn't it? It's highly uncivilized.

Anywho, the President has to give a State of the Union address. No, it's not dont nearly as much as Question Time, but it gives the people an idea of whats going on in D.C. and what the President is doing (or not doing) to address a specific issue.

Are you seious? No it's not. It's not even used in most parliamentary monarchies. England is the sole country that does it. People can read the newspaper if they want to know what's going on in the government if they are that concerened. Besides, if people don't know what their party-in-power's plans are, then they shouldn't have voted them into office in the first place. That's what campaigning is for.

So the President gets whisked to Capitol Hill in his limo to give a state of the union address once a year, then as soon as he's finished reading it, he pisses off back to the comfort and sanctuary of The White House

Yeah you can rolls your eyes at Question Time, but i roll my eyes at the way your Goverment has done everything to cocoon your President from any sort of interrogation.

It was all the spokesmen coming out and answering questions on Bush's behalf. Bush was hiding it out in the White House, only talking to Bush-friendly reporters that Karl Rove had dug up.

And you want to roll your eyes at a system where the head of government has to stand there and answer questions about their policy and actions from anybody in Parliament? Yeah because that's such a bad idea..... So it might get rowdy sometimes and is uncivilized for you, so lets can it and make sure the head of goverment can cocoon himself and not have to answer any questions if he doesn't want to, yeah that's soooo much a better idea well done mate, you're smart!

Oh and by the way, you're wrong (again). England is not the sole country who has question time, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, India and New Zealand have it.

And the Goverment are not aware of every question that will be put to them...That's why some members begin their questions with "Mr Speaker, my question without notice..."

[Electrophile]

Okay, we get it. You think we suck.

[Hermit]

Okay, we get it. You think we suck.

Why are you taking it so personally, Liz?

Gainebarre didn't say he thinks we Americans (as individuals or collectively) suck,.. he's merely indicated that he thinks the gun culture gun in America is the reason America has a lot of gun-related crimes (a reasonable assertion), and that he thinks the British and Australian parliamentary systems are better forms of government than the democratic system in America (an assertion that is certainly worthy of intelligent debate).

Lighten up, Sunshine,.. its not a personal criticism of you.

Kudos to wannabe for actually engaging in thoughtful debate with Gainesbarre.

[Electrophile]

Yeah sure okay.

[Del Zeppnile]

Kudos to wannabe for actually engaging in thoughtful debate with Gainesbarre.

What am I chopped liver?

[Hermit]

What am I chopped liver?

No,.. youre not chopped liver, Del.

chopped liver is gourmet compared to you.

Imho.. wannabe is engaged in debate..

..whereas you're engaged in.. diatribe.

[and fyi.. no,.. "diatribe" is not a reference to

Native Americans, you cowboy-wannabe dolt. ]

[Del Zeppnile]

No,.. youre not chopped liver, Del.

chopped liver is gourmet compared to you.

Imho.. wannabe is engaged in debate..

..whereas you're engaged in.. diatribe.

[and fyi.. no,.. "diatribe" is not a reference to

Native Americans, you cowboy-wannabe dolt. ]

Was it the "fucktard assclown troll" comment? Or was it the "simpleton loyalist stooge" thing? Because other than that I thought most of my comment was both informative and entertaining.

and btw, I never said Oswald was my hero because he shot a President...even if it was friggin election stealing mob connected let Castro take Cuba Kennedy womanizing empty suit.

...But you at least gotta give Oswald credit for being one hell of a crack shot

[Hermit]

Was it the "fucktard assclown troll" comment? Or was it the "simpleton loyalist stooge" thing? Because other than that I thought most of my comment was both informative and entertaining.

oh, hey,.. dont get me wrong, 'berto,..

your posts have been entertaining.

well, you know,.. as far as diatribe goes.

and my omission of any validation regarding your

posts being "informative".. was no mistake, btw.

[Del Zeppnile]

oh, hey,.. dont get me wrong, 'berto,..

your posts have been entertaining.

well, you know,.. as far as diatribe goes.

and my omission of any validation regarding your

posts being "informative".. was no mistake, btw.

Actually I appreciate the sentiments Hermit... even if you are bit of a revolutionary for the left.... or should I say left behind.

Or should I say left out in the cold.

Say hello to Andrew for me in whatever dark and lonely place that you find yourself bud. And give a shout out to Bill bro too.

[Gainsbarre]

Okay, we get it. You think we suck.

No I don't think Americans suck, maybe it's just you

Why are you taking it so personally, Liz?

Kudos to wannabe for actually engaging in thoughtful debate with Gainesbarre.

I get the feeling Liz is one of those people who likes to find personal offense anywhere she can.

But yes, I agree, thoughtful discussion from Wannabe, let's join the local debating club together!!

[wanna be drummer]

I'm in class right now, so I don't have time to type any form of a response to anything but I'm starting to wonder...how in the hell did this discussion become what it is in a thread about college shootings?

Oh well, thats how I roll

[Gainsbarre]

I'm in class right now, so I don't have time to type any form of a response to anything but I'm starting to wonder...how in the hell did this discussion become what it is in a thread about college shootings?

Oh well, thats how I roll

Don't spoil the beauty of it, just go where it takes you

[ledded1]

So you are saying that the five people killed were because of our constitution?

Can you prove that it would not have happened if there was no 2nd Amendment rights? Of course you can't. So why even say that is the reason?

Aren't shotguns still legal in the UK? I recall a spree killing a few years ago where a deranged man killed four people in your country with a shotgun. Not an assault rifle, not and automatic pistol, not even a bolt action hunting rifle... A SHOTGUN. Something that still is legal (as long as it is licensed and the fees are paid up). What makes you think that situation can't happen again? You are being painfully naive to think that changing gun laws will prevent every nut from doing something bad. And even with the UK's very restrictive gun laws, what types of guns are used the most in crimes in your country? Well, I can assure you that it is not shotguns and hunting rifles. Most gun crimes in the UK are committed with automatic pistols and automatic rifles, which have ALWAYS BEEN ILLEAGAL in the UK. These are guns which are mostly smuggled into the UK from abroad by criminals.

Face it, your gun laws only end up restricting the law abiding citizens. Crazy people and criminals still have everything they need, when they need it. If that makes you feel better then good for you.

your gun toting head is still stuck up your arse del, pull the trigger and put an end to your rants

[Del Zeppnile]

your gun toting head is still stuck up your arse del, pull the trigger and put an end to your rants

Sounds like you don't have an intelligent response to the points I made. Sounds like a hammer dropping on an empty chamber.

[ledded1]

Sounds like you don't have an intelligent response to the points I made. Sounds like a hammer dropping on an empty chamber.

I know when to ignore deluded fools

[Del Zeppnile]

I know when to ignore deluded fools

No you just don't have any logical responses the questions I made... because from your stand there are only emotional responses.

1) If shotguns are still legal and able to be licensed in the UK, how are you so certain that they can't be used to kill people like the crazy man did a few year ago with a shotgun?

2) But even with the tighter restrictions on shotguns and hunting rifles, why is not reported that they are not the types of guns often being used in crimes?

3) Semi-Automatic rifles and hanguns are in fact the guns most used in crimes in the UK.... AND THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ILLEAGAL. So how are your gun laws helping you?

All the gun laws in the UK do are prevent law abiding people the right or easy access to guns... even guns that are proven not to be used much in crime.

YOUR LAWS ONLY MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD. THEY DO NOTHING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF CRIMINALS AND CRAZY PEOPLE.

[ledded1]

No you just don't have any logical responses the questions I made... because from your stand there are only emotional responses.

1) If shotguns are still legal and able to be licensed in the UK, how are you so certain that they can't be used to kill people like the crazy man did a few year ago with a shotgun?

2) But even with the tighter restrictions on shotguns and hunting rifles, why is not reported that they are not the types of guns often being used in crimes?

3) Semi-Automatic rifles and hanguns are in fact the guns most used in crimes in the UK.... AND THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ILLEAGAL. So how are your gun laws helping you?

All the gun laws in the UK do are prevent law abiding people the right or easy access to guns... even guns that are proven not to be used much in crime.

YOUR LAWS ONLY MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD. THEY DO NOTHING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF CRIMINALS AND CRAZY PEOPLE.

You know about as much about my emotional responses as you do about the British way of life in realtion to guns del.

Well we do tend to have qite a few less group murders than in the states. Yes guns are illegal and people will get hold of them through arseholes who sell them illegally whatever they make ot type of gun. Any fucking idiot knows that.

You have to realise del that the British generally do no subscribe to the right ot bear arms and neither will we. And interesting that you have to look back for years for the likes of Dunblane rather thanevery few months as in th US.

No matter how much you pontificate about your gun laws you have a shit record in your country for deaths by firearms.

Ours is crap but pales into comparison I am pleased to say. sadly its young black teneagers bearing the brunt of gun crimes in some cities and are the killers mainy gang related.. They like to think they are in the US I guess

We dont need fucking idiots having guns thanks. You keep them. Like I said go tell the parents of all those killed each year in your colleges that your gun laws protect them. Like it did their kids.

You keep your rights del, we don't want or need them.

Shoot me if I am proved wrong. I bet you would like to shoot at a limey cos we annoy the fuck out of you with our ways.

[Del Zeppnile]

You know about as much about my emotional responses as you do about the British way of life in realtion to guns del.

Well we do tend to have qite a few less group murders than in the states. Yes guns are illegal and people will get hold of them through arseholes who sell them illegally whatever they make ot type of gun. Any fucking idiot knows that.

You have to realise del that the British generally do no subscribe to the right ot bear arms and neither will we. And interesting that you have to look back for years for the likes of Dunblane rather thanevery few months as in th US.

No matter how much you pontificate about your gun laws you have a shit record in your country for deaths by firearms.

Ours is crap but pales into comparison I am pleased to say. sadly its young black teneagers bearing the brunt of gun crimes in some cities and are the killers mainy gang related.. They like to think they are in the US I guess

So do you think it's safe to say then the the problem is mostly because of a culture of criminals in these areas more than a so called "gun culture" among hunters and marksmen?

That's called CRIME. And it is CRIMINALS who are committing these CRIMES, not decent law abiding gun owners.

We dont need fucking idiots having guns thanks. You keep them. Like I said go tell the parents of all those killed each year in your colleges that your gun laws protect them. Like it did their kids.

So which is it, idiots or criminals who are the problem? Because I don't think the numbers of gun deaths are much affected by 'idiots'... although, I'm sure a handfull of 'idiots' probably blow their own toe off every now and then. But if criminals are the problem, then why not focus the problem on them?

You keep your rights del, we don't want or need them.

Yeah, we heard. But we knew that over 200 years ago too.

Shoot me if I am proved wrong. I bet you would like to shoot at a limey cos we annoy the fuck out of you with our ways.

No, I would never shoot one of you. Because that wouldn't be what we here in the States call a fair fight.

Probably just pistol whip you around the head and neck and then kick your butt down the street.

[yahyoubetcha]

I'm in class right now, so I don't have time to type any form of a response to anything but I'm starting to wonder...how in the hell did this discussion become what it is in a thread about college shootings?

Oh well, thats how I roll

"But it's also a thing about America, you need to get rid of your guns or something, because in Australia we have never had a school massacre as far as I'm aware in our history, but there seems to be one in America every couple of years.

There always seems to be a siege mentally in America or a state of war, I mean after WW2 you went into The Korean War, then straight after that you guys went nuts over the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis, then when that died down, it was all guns blazing into Vietnam, then during the Carter Administration things quietened down a little bit but then it was suddenly Iran, then Reagan gets in and starts whipping up the Cold War again talking about "the evil empire" then we all thought we were going to die in a nuclear war again, then Lebanon and terrorism happened, then the cold war collapsed, but then we went straight into The Gulf War and Somalia, then it was back to Terrorism now Iraq and probably soon to be Iran again.

So throughout American history since at least the 1940's, America has always been engaged in some sort of high profile war, and a bit like in the Middle East, that constant state of being in war is drilled into the public consciousness so when there's peace time, fears have to be whipped up to keep the panic going."

Gainsbarre's original post. This is why the thread went awry. Went from posts of sympathy to finger pointing and blaming Americans for the tradgedy while stating that this could not happen in Australia due to it's superior form of government. At least, that's what I see.

[Del Zeppnile]

Gainsbarre's original post. This is why the thread went awry. Went from posts of sympathy to finger pointing and blaming Americans for the tradgedy while stating that this could not happen in Australia due to it's superior form of government. At least, that's what I see.

You are correct my friend.

I don't know of many people who appreciate being lectured to, especially in the hours after such an unfortuante event has occurred.

Gainsbarre made it more than clear to me at least, that his intention was not to engage in thoughful debate, but rather to use this incident as a vehicle to flame America in general for his own pleasure.

It was not well received I can assure you.

Great Post!

[Mangani]

So how are your gun laws helping you?

There are on average only between 50 and 100 gun related homicides per year in England with a mean closer to 50. Not much is it?

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm

I believe the average gun related homicides per year in the U.S.A is somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000.

You do the maths. America doesn't have 200 times the population of England. More like 5 or 6. To keep pace with the U.S.A, England would have to have around 2,000 gun related homicides each year.

Now you can say what you want about the U.S.A because it's your country and I wouldn't ever dream of preaching that you have it wrong or that guns shouldn't be allowed there but don't try and argue that England's stricter gun laws do not help us in any way. They obviously do. England has FAR FAR FEWER gun related crime, deaths, accidents and suicide per ratio of population than the U.S.A does.

In England, stricter gun laws, the lack of ready available guns plus far fewer guns per population ratio = fewer gun related problems here. I dread to think what problems would occur if we adopted the same gun laws as you have.

Our laws are good for our civilians, they probably aren't good for your civilians. If I lived in America, I'd want a gun. Living here, I don't feel I need one nor do I want one.

Face it, your gun laws only end up restricting the law abiding citizens.

I don't, and nobody else I personally know, feels 'restricted' with our gun laws. We just do not care about guns in the same way that you do, and that is something you will never understand. Guns aren't a big deal and aren't part of our psyche. We aren't bothered about them. I have a nice piece of 2 by 4 and a huge 14 inch alligator skinner knife that I keep under the bed just in case a burglar came in. He's not likely to be carrying a gun so that will do the job. I don't need a semi automatic in my wardrobe.

We would feel restricted if we had the same anti alcohol laws that you have though. Well I would at any rate.

So you can keep your guns while I enjoy my non restrictive right to enjoy an ice cold bottle of beer while walking down the street on a hot summer's day.

[Mangani]

My point was that despite your limited exposure to hunters, farmers and ex-military; the UK has a "gun culture."

Well if we play that game then the U.S.A has a soccer culture and a tea and scones culture....because quite a few Americans enjoy both.

It's just that the British experience is much different than that of the United States. While the Americans were fighting to form a nation on the vast expanse of our own continent. The British were forming an empire on the vast expanses of the globe. Obviously guns were part of that experience...

A loooooooooong time ago. That's a different time to today. We had the slave trade as well but slavery isn't part of our culture today. Britain moves on and doesn't cling to the past or 200 year old amendments and rights.

and in fact the British have always been made some of the finest quality guns ever. Just talk to any retired British soldier and they will tell you all about those guns. And what about the long history of big game hunting with the British in Africa and Asia? I honestly don't buy that just because YOU are not exposed to those people, that they don't exist.

Ah but I didn't say they don't exist.....simply that they are such a minority here compared to the U.S.A.

I believe the same perspective might apply to some Americans who have lived their entire lives in the big cities... not having been exposed to hunting and the outdoor lifestlye.

Likely true, but I'd suggest that per 1,000 people of various walks of life in both countries a far far higher proportion of those in America will either own a gun, have experience of using a gun or will know somebody who has a gun etc etc than those in Britain.

We 'throw' our footballs around here in America. But that being said, I also believe that the more exposure a young person has to guns, the less likely that they are going to be an object for abuse or misuse.

The other side to that coin is that people who will never come across a gun in their life won't even get the opportunity to misuse or abuse it.

Don't expect to impress an American with the history of Britain's dominance over her empire. We personaly found it to be intolerable and offensive to our very nature.

Hmmmm but you obviously didn't find it 'intolerable and offensive' a mere dozen years earlier when the British were helping protect you from the French during the French and Indian War??

How long were you under British rule?? Over 150 years and yet even after 135 years you still obviously weren't finding it 'intolerable and offensive' because you were willingly fighting side by side with it to protect the status quo you were hitherto enjoying and did not want to it to change via the French coming in to take over.

In addition I would surmise that after the British were kicked out that the Native Americans and black slaves who went on to suffer oppression for the next 100 years found you new Americans 'intolerable and offensive', wouldn't you say?

Which is probably why we view Canadians and Austrailians as being 'weak sisters' to some extent.

How about content sisters? If it ain't broke, no need to fix it.

If Canadians and Aussies are okay with bowing down to Britian that is there problem.

I don't think they thought it was a 'problem'. They were, and are, perfectly happy and stable countries with a high standard of living blah blah blah. You could do far worse than go and live in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Some of the finest countries on the planet.

In your country how would you protect your individual rights against a goverment who might choose to over step it's mandate?

Vote them out. It's called democracy.

Without the right to your own arms you will always be at the whims of your government.

Huh? I don't understand your reasoning. This is no longer the 18th century. The government will not come and force us to fight them on the streets.

You are talking about extreme highly unlikely and completely nonsensical what ifs. Don't tell me you are one of those New World Order paranoids and you live in the wilds of Idaho with a cabin full of firearms just in case the government is gonna come get ya.

I've seen those people on telly and they are seriously whacked. I'd hate to be as deluded and paranoid as those looney tunes. I'd rather be happy and get on with my life.