The aftermath of erfurt

[nordin dk 0]

Most banks in scandinavia have no security guards, same goes for hospitals, public buildings etc...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 29 2002,02:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">wow, nutty people.. ahh yes.. crazy kids going on a killing spree maby somebody should address this and remove the cause insted of bitching about the effect..<span id='postcolor'>

Absolutely, I have said nothing against that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Automatic rifles are only used in about 1% of crimes where firearms are used. Handguns are the most commonly used.

I said gangs.. gangs dont usually dont go reporting attacks from other gangs to the cops.. but when the police bust them the #1 rifle found is the AK..<span id='postcolor'>

Nope, I am talking about police confiscation of rifles. The report I am refering to is a couple of years old, but I think that the situation cannot have changed that much. The report says that about 10% of the people caught have owned an assult rifle, but less then 1% used in a crime and even less were caught with assult rifles.

(Reference: The same DOJ report I have been refering to earlier)

Oh, and I should add - gangs killing off each other is hardly a problem as long as civilians don't get in the middle. But then it gets reported. So if gangs are using AKs to kill off each other, what is the problem?

[KingBeast 0]

Also here in the UK we dont have armed guards in banks and such.

The only places where i have seen people walking the streets clearly displaying a gun of some kind were in Egypt and France. Possibly some other places but these two are the only ones I remember.

And to be honest they didnt make me feel too secure, in fact quite the opposite, it was rather unsettling. Seeing some grizzly unshaven arab with an AK or a uniformed frenchy with a pistol at his side, giving everyone dirty looks isnt too much fun.

Give me a British Bobby any day

[Guest]

The ones in France are however police or military people, not private security guards, and I think that goes for all Europe.  

I saw the greatest number of armed men in a civilian environment in Wien on the airport, last summer. They were rude and unfriendly and I wanted to shove their little plastic Steyer Augs up their arse.

I really don't see the point of having armed bank guards. Ok, some criminals may think twice before trying, but more likely they will get bigger guns and try. The result of that is only that people get killed. For what? Some money that is insured anyway.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

airports need armed security

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ April 29 2002,03:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">airports need armed security<span id='postcolor'>

sure, the police usually handle that in Europe

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

It is the Old bigger great more approach typical for the US against the sometimes less is more attitude of the europeans.    

But it is true, we all learned that Atomic weapons are dangerous and that all our lives were in the hands of generals of only two countries.

OVer there in the US they learn that it was the Atomic weapons that kept the "Cold War" cold and prevented escalation.

The same is said about weapons. If there is a shooting here we say "take the guns away from those kids" you say:"now I buy myself a gun too".

And of course was this not just an ideology of the cold war, it is still in peoples minds, I mean look at bush and his orgasmic idea to develop new mini-nukes.

And now you propose to us that we should arm our schools? wrong! This would correspond to your ideology, that everyone has the right to self-defend himself. But we teach our children that weapons (agression) dont solve a conflict but lead to an escalation. With escalation I mean that everyone would say:" now I buy a gun too!", and finally like in the US everyone would have a gun. Then the other side would buy bigger and bigger guns until we have a national cold-war amongst all citizens and criminals, none trusts the other. And as with nukes, one day there is no way back! Then indeed you have to get more than your opponent to surive.

So Since school is a place to teach, weapons have no right to be there and harm the values we try to communicate to our children. I might be hard for us in Germany to accept new gun-laws, but image how difficult it would be for us to change the situation once we would have reached a criminality potential as in the US. And as we know from the cold war, once you started there is no way back.

And I agree, for the US there is no way back in the weapon issue!

I dont miss anything if I cant use a gun, but I would miss my freedom if I would have to be afraid to leave my house at night. The millions of guns have taken much more away from your "American dream of freedom" than helping you to defend it!

Amen!

Actually it is not so hard to grip! Weapons are not dangerous, it is the people that use it! But we all know that humans are not perfect (that is why communism didnt work out, right!. So every citizen buying a gun is like 'drinking alcohol when you are sad', it simply doesnt change jackshit, it helps to kill the symptoms but doesnt change anything about the cause/origin of the problem.

The problem is not the gun, it is the human, but since humans are uncontrolable (because we got emotions) you have to take away the guns. Right? Simple Cause and effect chain, you dont want an effect, kill the source!

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 29 2002,03:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is the Old bigger great more approach typical for the US against the sometimes less is more attitude of the europeans.    

But it is true, we all learned that Atomic weapons are dangerous and that all our lives were in the hands of generals of only two countries.

OVer there in the US they learn that it was the Atomic weapons that kept the "Cold War" cold and prevented escalation.

The same is said about weapons. If there is a shooting here we say "take the guns away from those kids" you say:"now I buy myself a gun too".

And of course was this not just an ideology of the cold war, it is still in peoples minds, I mean look at bush and his orgasmic idea to develop new mini-nukes.

And now you propose to us that we should arm our schools? wrong! This would correspond to your ideology, that everyone has the right to self-defend himself. But we teach our children that weapons (agression) dont solve a conflict but lead to an escalation. With escalation I mean that everyone would say:" now I buy a gun too, and finally like in the US everyone would have a gun. Then the other side would buy bigger and biggers until we have a national cold-war amongst all citizens and criminals. And as with nukes, one day there is no way back!

So Since school is a place to teach, weapons have no right to be there and harm the values we try to communicate to our children. I might be hard for us in Germany to accept new gun-laws, but image how difficult it would be for us to change the situation once we would have reached a criminality potential as in the US. And as we know from the cold war, once you started there is no way back.

And I agree, for the US there is no way back in the weapon issue!

I dont miss anything if I cant use a gun, but I would miss my freedom if I would have to be afraid to leave my house at night. The millions of guns have taken much more away from your "American dream of freedom" than helping you to defend it!

Amen!<span id='postcolor'>

u sure talk a lot

[Wobble 1]

the US has guns.. citizens, criminals.. its the way our "evolution" is.. its not a bad or good thing.. its just the way it is.. I dont look down of people who choose not to own guns.. or people who do choose to.. I only look down on people who think guns are some kind of "root of all evil" and who think the best way to solve any problem is to remove something. not fix.. not adjust.. remove remove remove

people run from the police.. but we shouldent all have our legs chopped off.. people beat their kids.. but that doesent mean all children should be removed from their parents at birth.. and people kill people with guns.. but that doesent mean people who are perfectly ok and keep them for self defence and recreation should have them taken....

bah... same ole same ole!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

grrrrr, what do mean? Do I talk too much? I will flame you, I will roast you on the olympic flame in Athens (or wherever there might be one still burning)!    

   

[red oct 2]

my high school has a armed cop. and at random have drug sniffing dogs come in and sniff the lockers for drugs.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ April 29 2002,03:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">my high school has a armed cop. and at random have drug sniffing dogs come in and sniff the lockers for drugs.<span id='postcolor'>

Well then you must have pretty stoned dogs there (sniffing that stuff all day).

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 29 2002,03:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">grrrrr, what do mean? Do I talk too much? I will flame you, I will roast you on the olympic flame in Athens (or wherever there might be one still burning)!    

   <span id='postcolor'>

thats the best flame i ever got

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 29 2002,02:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, and giving lunatics access to guns cant be all that fine and dandy.

and neither is taking them away from law abiding citizens who havent done anything wrong, and deserve to be able to protect themselves should something come up..

and nobody "gives" them anything... "lunatics" as you call them would never be able to legally get a firearm.. only illegally.. so they are already circumventing the law.. so changing it wouldent help..

Now, that makes sense. Arm the schools. Eh?

yes.. why not?, some hospitals have armed security.. so do banks, subways.. large office buildings of all kinds.. the malls... almost everywhere EXCEPT schools have some formed of armed police/security..

is a building full of money.. or full of sick people.. worth protecting.. but a building full of children not? why?  what would be wrong with schools having a few armed security officers?  I see no problem with it.. it may seem like overkill.. but so does anything else untill the shit hits the fan..

you act like there is some taboo against defending a school.. there is no logic behind leaving a school defencless<span id='postcolor'>

still reading through posts but over in UK primary schools and possibly secondry schools had greater security measures implemented after dunblane which was quite sensible.

From what i`ve seen some schools in bad parts of the US are a bit like airports as in theres metal detectors and guards when entering the premises.

A point on security in hospitals,im sure its more to do with the saftey of the ppl working there rather than the sick ppl as i would guess in the casualty unitthere would be a bit of trouble e.g drunks and crap causing shit.

[pathfinder 0]

A point on security in hospitals,im sure its more to do with the saftey of the ppl working there rather than the sick ppl as i would guess in the casualty unitthere would be a bit of trouble e.g drunks and crap causing shit.

------------------------------------------------------------

Actually sometimes when gang violence is involved, a person brought in can receive another visit from the gang member that tried to kill them the first time. It happens more than you think. But would happen more if not for armed gaurds.

[Major Fubar 0]

OK, my 2 cents worth:

A lot of what Denoir says makes sense, and I think Assault and Wobble dismissed it too lightly and just said it was wrong. But coming from Australia, and seeing the knee jerk reaction our goverment had to our Port Arthur massacre, I dont think a total ban on guns is the answer.

Control guns, yes, but don't ban them. I completely agree with Wobble in that the majority of law abiding gun owners shouldn't be punished for the actions of 1 maniac. I don't think it is unreasonable, though, to implement some basic gun control/safety measures, such as keeping your weapons in a gun safe for instance. The simple fact is that the vast majority of guns used in crimes at one time belonged to a law abiding gun owner/gun shop and were stolen. Simple logic dictates that if you make it harder for your gun to be stolen it will be harder (in the long term) for criminals to get ready access to guns.

Banning guns will eliminate homicides? No. Did Timothy McVey use a gun? Did the Semptember 11 terrorists? In Australia, the vast majority of murders are commited with knives compared to guns. If someone is truly determined to kill people, they can easily do this without a firearm.

OK, back to the original topic: computer games causing (or contributing to) homicides. Bullshit. Just the latest media/political scapegoat. Before that it was role playing games, before that heavy metal music, before that action movies. Face facts, some people are just born (or become) defective. If these things (games etc.) are the main factor for violence in society, how did people Jack the Ripper and Lizzy Borden come to be?

Part of it is genetic, part is envrionment. If you looked into most cases of mass murderers you would find a very f**ked up home/shool/work life and many early signs that the individuals had serious problems. If it wasn't a computer game that triggered (NOT caused) the violence, it could have just as easily been an annoying TV commercial, or being teased by a classmate, or being rejected by a girl you asked out on a date, or a million other things.

The sad fact is people want a quick fix, an easy blame. They don't want to look deeper into the cause of these peoples problems.

I can tell you one thing: someone banning violent computer games is a lot more likely to trigger a homicidal rage in me than playing them is

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 29 2002,03:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ April 29 2002,03:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">my high school has a armed cop. and at random have drug sniffing dogs come in and sniff the lockers for drugs.<span id='postcolor'>

Well then you must have pretty stoned dogs there (sniffing that stuff all day).<span id='postcolor'>

Dogs?? wtf?? hey in my high school 80% of the students smoke grass and hashis (or whatever it's called in english), and lot's of 'em carry knifes for self defence and we only have an unarmed security guard at the door...

[LordZach 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ April 28 2002,18:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">my high school has a armed cop. and at random have drug sniffing dogs come in and sniff the lockers for drugs.<span id='postcolor'>

at mine a bunch of parents complained about the gun so now he just walks around with a radio...guess if bad stuff starts happening he has to call for backup. i wonder what they're supposed to carry?

[PitViper 0]

arm schools? nah..

however, the principal should probably have a rifle or handgun or two in a safe in his/her office. There should also be a few teachers that have access and that are able to operate them.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 28 2002,19:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Damm, you are so horny about guns over there, that you have a hard time giving them out of your hands. And the funny thing is that you keep them even though they dont serve any purpose anymore. Is shooting hair-spray cans so important? Use a bow and an arrow!<span id='postcolor'>

don't serve any purpose? what do you mean?

surely you arent going to challenge an armed criminal with mace? you might as well just give up and die.

[LordZach 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 29 2002,07:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 28 2002,19:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Damm, you are so horny about guns over there, that you have a hard time giving them out of your hands. And the funny thing is that you keep them even though they dont serve any purpose anymore. Is shooting hair-spray cans so important? Use a bow and an arrow!<span id='postcolor'>

don't serve any purpose? what do you mean?

surely you arent going to challenge an armed criminal with mace?  you might as well just give up and die.<span id='postcolor'>

stop, think, count to 10? wait that's not right...

[Hilandor 1]

just shows the gun laws everywhere tho

our scottish news headlined a few weeks ago becuase 1 airgun that had been altered to take real bullets was found in a police raid for drugs.

(maybe wasnt an airgun but was something as low in the gunrange as an airgun)