 |
|
|
|
Next: Law and order in Dubai
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 515
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:14 pm
Post subject: A shooting in South
Archived from groups: rec>travel>usa-canada (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Feb 05, 2005
Posts: 881
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:17 pm
Post subject: Re: A shooting in South [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:43:35 -0700, Hatunen
<hatunen.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:
>Last November in the Finnish town of Rauma a teenager killed
>eight students and himself. Finland has a population of about 6m,
>making it 1/50 the size of the USA. So scaled up that incident
>would be the equivalent of 400 students killed in the USA.
>
>Not only that, according to
>http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/07/school.shooting/index.html
>"It was the first school shooting in Finland since 1989, when a
>14-year-old student shot and killed two others in the coastal
>town of Rauma, the Finnish news agency STT reported."
I'll cross Rauma off my must-see list.
But, much as I hate agreeing with Markku, the gun problem in
the USA is madness. And yes, I know we have had our own
share of mad killers here (Port Arthur and Hoddle Street
come to mind, among others) but I can still be pretty
certain that no-one I am likely to meet on the street is
packing a gun. If I happen to piss someone off they may give
me a knuckle sandwich or a knee to the groin, although I've
never had that happen to me either, but it is extremely
unlikely that they will get a gun and come back to shoot me
and everyone near me.
The only time I ever saw a gun in civilian hands in public
in this country was a guy in the back of my cab when I drove
the night-shift. Once. Which I reported to the cops as soon
as I dropped him off. That was once in 17 years of driving
cabs, mainly night-shift, in a city of 4 million.
The "right to bear arms" goes back to the days of the wars
of independence. So what or who are you all worried about
now? The Canadians? The Mexicans? The Cubans? Your
government? Your own citizens seem to be shooting many more
of you than a mythical invading army is ever likely to.
Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 03, 2006
Posts: 441
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:17 pm
Post subject: Re: A shooting in South [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 04, 2006
Posts: 317
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:34 pm
Post subject: Re: A shooting in South [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Alan S" <nothere DeleteThis @there.com> wrote in message
news:308sq3hjr2i10160d3jelltsdrfpbtcan1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:43:35 -0700, Hatunen
> <hatunen DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Last November in the Finnish town of Rauma a teenager killed
>>eight students and himself. Finland has a population of about 6m,
>>making it 1/50 the size of the USA. So scaled up that incident
>>would be the equivalent of 400 students killed in the USA.
>>
>>Not only that, according to
>>http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/07/school.shooting/index.html
>>"It was the first school shooting in Finland since 1989, when a
>>14-year-old student shot and killed two others in the coastal
>>town of Rauma, the Finnish news agency STT reported."
>
> I'll cross Rauma off my must-see list.
>
> But, much as I hate agreeing with Markku, the gun problem in
> the USA is madness. And yes, I know we have had our own
> share of mad killers here (Port Arthur and Hoddle Street
> come to mind, among others) but I can still be pretty
> certain that no-one I am likely to meet on the street is
> packing a gun. If I happen to piss someone off they may give
> me a knuckle sandwich or a knee to the groin, although I've
> never had that happen to me either, but it is extremely
> unlikely that they will get a gun and come back to shoot me
> and everyone near me.
>
> The only time I ever saw a gun in civilian hands in public
> in this country was a guy in the back of my cab when I drove
> the night-shift. Once. Which I reported to the cops as soon
> as I dropped him off. That was once in 17 years of driving
> cabs, mainly night-shift, in a city of 4 million.
>
> The "right to bear arms" goes back to the days of the wars
> of independence. So what or who are you all worried about
> now? The Canadians? The Mexicans? The Cubans? Your
> government? Your own citizens seem to be shooting many more
> of you than a mythical invading army is ever likely to.
>
>
> Cheers, Alan, Australia
> --
> http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
> latest: Slovenia
Most of the shootings are drug related. But the drug war will not be ended
in any foreseeable future. Too much money being made by both sides in the
war. >> Stay informed about: A shooting in South |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 30, 2006
Posts: 124
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:13 pm
Post subject: Re: A shooting in South [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Alan S" <nothere.DeleteThis@there.com> wrote in message
news:308sq3hjr2i10160d3jelltsdrfpbtcan1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:43:35 -0700, Hatunen
> <hatunen.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Last November in the Finnish town of Rauma a teenager killed
>>eight students and himself. Finland has a population of about 6m,
>>making it 1/50 the size of the USA. So scaled up that incident
>>would be the equivalent of 400 students killed in the USA.
>>
>>Not only that, according to
>>http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/07/school.shooting/index.html
>>"It was the first school shooting in Finland since 1989, when a
>>14-year-old student shot and killed two others in the coastal
>>town of Rauma, the Finnish news agency STT reported."
>
> I'll cross Rauma off my must-see list.
>
> But, much as I hate agreeing with Markku, the gun problem in
> the USA is madness. And yes, I know we have had our own
> share of mad killers here (Port Arthur and Hoddle Street
> come to mind, among others) but I can still be pretty
> certain that no-one I am likely to meet on the street is
> packing a gun. If I happen to piss someone off they may give
> me a knuckle sandwich or a knee to the groin, although I've
> never had that happen to me either, but it is extremely
> unlikely that they will get a gun and come back to shoot me
> and everyone near me.
>
> The only time I ever saw a gun in civilian hands in public
> in this country was a guy in the back of my cab when I drove
> the night-shift. Once. Which I reported to the cops as soon
> as I dropped him off. That was once in 17 years of driving
> cabs, mainly night-shift, in a city of 4 million.
>
> The "right to bear arms" goes back to the days of the wars
> of independence. So what or who are you all worried about
> now? The Canadians? The Mexicans? The Cubans? Your
> government? Your own citizens seem to be shooting many more
> of you than a mythical invading army is ever likely to.
It's the way of life here Alan. Gun control is much like the abortion
issue. It will just go on and on. Yes, I agree that it's gotten out of
hand, but people who have guns for protection, are worried about the
criminals with guns, mainly. I do not own a gun for protection, but I have
a large number of collectables which are not intended to be fired. There is
no ammunition for them. Why should I give up my collection, while the local
drug dealers remain better equipped than the police? We won't see a change
here until the government starts enforcing the laws which are already on the
books. >> Stay informed about: A shooting in South |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 515
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:36 am
Post subject: Re: A shooting in South [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Hatunen" <hatunen.RemoveThis@cox.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:gd7sq35e1nrg4ofb6drfrseueo3s3tu333@4ax.com...
>
> Last November in the Finnish town of Rauma a teenager killed
> eight students and himself. Finland has a population of about 6m,
>
Such an incident has never occured in Rauma. Rauma is a very nice town with
a district of old wooden houses (Vanha Rauma). In last summer festival
"Raumanmeren juhannusjuhlat" witnessed a rape and a death in which the
instant cause of death was similar to the death of Jimi Hendrix.
Kanaali-Koskinen also got his pet-name after the canal (kanaali) flowing
through the city along which he murdered a man and tossed him to the canal.
About on the same date he murdered another chap in a house in town and to
conceal his tracks he set the house on fire. He has murder other people too.
He is actually from the neighbouring town of Pori.
However, this has little to do with the problem of accessing firearms in the
USA which is a webb of insanity. >> Stay informed about: A shooting in South |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 20, 2003
Posts: 48
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:56 am
Post subject: Re: A shooting in South [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 10, 2006
Posts: 1452
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:57 pm
Post subject: Re: A shooting in South [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:56:44 -0600, Zane
<zanekurz DeleteThis @sansnetcom.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:01:40 +1100, Alan S <nothere DeleteThis @there.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>The "right to bear arms" goes back to the days of the wars
>>of independence. So what or who are you all worried about
>>now? The Canadians? The Mexicans? The Cubans? Your
>>government? Your own citizens seem to be shooting many more
>>of you than a mythical invading army is ever likely to.
>
>Many historians agree that the reason for the US Constitutional
>Amendment that keeps the federal government from banning firearms was
>to make sure that the populace would be able to overthrow the
>Government in the future, if need be.
And many historians don't agree. Butmost agree that the intend
was to maintain a well-armed militia.
>There are a lot of writings by
>the people involved at the time to support this.
For instance?
>Given that, the weasel wording about militias makes sense -- kind of
>hard to make it a crime to overthrow the government by force and then
>explicitly say you need to stay ready to rebel.
Most colonial defense was done local militias, sometimes under
the command of British officers. I saee no reason to question the
same intent for the new nation (save for the British officers),
which had no standing army.
>At the time, there wasn't, and never had been, a government anywhere
>in the world that didn't need overthrowing.
Switzerland?
>A lot of the "founders"
>were scared to death of the power they were giving a central
>government.
That's certaianly true for some of the Founders, and the
Constitution is certainly a compromise. But as written, they
hadn't given the constitution all that much power.
>How this viewpoint plays into the current debate is complicated.
Even more so now.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> Stay informed about: A shooting in South |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 30, 2006
Posts: 124
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:11 pm
Post subject: Re: A shooting in South [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Markku Grönroos" <kurkku DeleteThis @hassuserveri.fi> wrote in message
news:ZQyrj.294758$P32.134086@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> However, this has little to do with the problem of accessing firearms in
> the USA which is a webb of insanity.
I'll ask again. Why do you care? Why are you so obsessed with the way *we*
live? >> Stay informed about: A shooting in South |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 20, 2003
Posts: 48
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:30 pm
Post subject: Re: A shooting in South [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 05, 2005
Posts: 881
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:04 pm
Post subject: Re: A shooting in South [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:30:29 GMT, Zane
<zanekurz.TakeThisOut@sansnetcom.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:57:24 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:56:44 -0600, Zane
>><zanekurz.TakeThisOut@sansnetcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:01:40 +1100, Alan S <nothere.TakeThisOut@there.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>>The "right to bear arms" goes back to the days of the wars
>>>>of independence. So what or who are you all worried about
>>>>now? The Canadians? The Mexicans? The Cubans? Your
>>>>government? Your own citizens seem to be shooting many more
>>>>of you than a mythical invading army is ever likely to.
>>>
>>>Many historians agree that the reason for the US Constitutional
>>>Amendment that keeps the federal government from banning firearms was
>>>to make sure that the populace would be able to overthrow the
>>>Government in the future, if need be.
>>
>>And many historians don't agree.
>
>No kidding?
>
>> Butmost agree that the intend
>>was to maintain a well-armed militia.
>
>I don't know whether that's accurate or not. I don't know how you
>could know either.
>
>>>There are a lot of writings by
>>>the people involved at the time to support this.
>>
>>For instance?
>
>For just one --
>"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear
>arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
>government." -- Thomas Jefferson
>
> (snip)
>
>I don't intend to debate gun control -- I was intending to offer an
>Aussie a factor on "goes back to the days of the wars of independence"
>that he might not have been aware of -- that fending off an invading
>army was (probably) not considered by everyone involved in the
>Constitutional process as the only reason for letting people decide to
>arm themselves. In the opinion of some it wasn't the main reason.
>
>Zane
I did include "your government" in the list.
Lets get real. In the modern world the possibility of an
armed revolt against your government is unlikely in the
extreme; the possibility of one succeeding is even more
remote. The same applies to the possibility of invasion by
any current world nation.
The annual average of deaths by firearms in the USA is about
30,000. That means that in just two years you exceed your
losses in the entire period of the Vietnam War. In three
years you reach the same level as Vietnam and Korea
combined. It took five years to lose 405,000 in WWII, but it
will only take a little over 13 years to do the same in
peace at home.
Your present gun-control (or lack of it) system is insane.
Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia >> Stay informed about: A shooting in South |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 04, 2006
Posts: 317
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:04 pm
Post subject: Re: A shooting in South [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Alan S" <nothere.RemoveThis@there.com> wrote in message
news:le6vq3t7tqkq7v7v95v94rccn57jthoksq@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:30:29 GMT, Zane
> <zanekurz.RemoveThis@sansnetcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:57:24 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:56:44 -0600, Zane
>>><zanekurz.RemoveThis@sansnetcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:01:40 +1100, Alan S <nothere.RemoveThis@there.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>>>The "right to bear arms" goes back to the days of the wars
>>>>>of independence. So what or who are you all worried about
>>>>>now? The Canadians? The Mexicans? The Cubans? Your
>>>>>government? Your own citizens seem to be shooting many more
>>>>>of you than a mythical invading army is ever likely to.
>>>>
>>>>Many historians agree that the reason for the US Constitutional
>>>>Amendment that keeps the federal government from banning firearms was
>>>>to make sure that the populace would be able to overthrow the
>>>>Government in the future, if need be.
>>>
>>>And many historians don't agree.
>>
>>No kidding?
>>
>>> Butmost agree that the intend
>>>was to maintain a well-armed militia.
>>
>>I don't know whether that's accurate or not. I don't know how you
>>could know either.
>>
>>>>There are a lot of writings by
>>>>the people involved at the time to support this.
>>>
>>>For instance?
>>
>>For just one --
>>"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear
>>arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
>>government." -- Thomas Jefferson
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>I don't intend to debate gun control -- I was intending to offer an
>>Aussie a factor on "goes back to the days of the wars of independence"
>>that he might not have been aware of -- that fending off an invading
>>army was (probably) not considered by everyone involved in the
>>Constitutional process as the only reason for letting people decide to
>>arm themselves. In the opinion of some it wasn't the main reason.
>>
>>Zane
>
> I did include "your government" in the list.
>
> Lets get real. In the modern world the possibility of an
> armed revolt against your government is unlikely in the
> extreme; the possibility of one succeeding is even more
> remote. The same applies to the possibility of invasion by
> any current world nation.
>
> The annual average of deaths by firearms in the USA is about
> 30,000. That means that in just two years you exceed your
> losses in the entire period of the Vietnam War. In three
> years you reach the same level as Vietnam and Korea
> combined. It took five years to lose 405,000 in WWII, but it
> will only take a little over 13 years to do the same in
> peace at home.
>
> Your present gun-control (or lack of it) system is insane.
>
> Cheers, Alan, Australia
> --
> http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
> latest: Slovenia
You do not have to have a lot of people to stop tyrants. One person with a
weapon can change history. An armed populace will make the pols think twice
about being tyrants. >> Stay informed about: A shooting in South |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 10, 2006
Posts: 1452
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:16 pm
Post subject: Re: A shooting in South [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:30:29 GMT, Zane <zanekurz DeleteThis @sansnetcom.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:57:24 -0700, Hatunen <hatunen DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:56:44 -0600, Zane
>><zanekurz DeleteThis @sansnetcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Many historians agree that the reason for the US Constitutional
>>>Amendment that keeps the federal government from banning firearms was
>>>to make sure that the populace would be able to overthrow the
>>>Government in the future, if need be.
>>
>>And many historians don't agree.
>
>No kidding?
>
>> Butmost agree that the intend
>>was to maintain a well-armed militia.
>
>I don't know whether that's accurate or not. I don't know how you
>could know either.
Well, duh. Maybe because the Constitution says, "A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."
See also http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/020.pdf
page 1274 for a Supreme Court decision, United States v. Miller,
regarding the milita aspect.
The entire case can be read at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> Stay informed about: A shooting in South |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 05, 2005
Posts: 881
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Post subject: Re: A shooting in South [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:31:27 -0800, "Calif Bill"
<bmckeespam.TakeThisOut@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>You do not have to have a lot of people to stop tyrants. One person with a
>weapon can change history. An armed populace will make the pols think twice
>about being tyrants.
>
*sigh*
If you say so. Sure didn't stop Saddam. Nor has it stopped
dubya, although his tyranny tends to be external for most.
Anyway, I'll call it quits there. You guys are still going
to demand that your guns must be taken from your "cold dead
hands". The way things are going, they probably will be.
Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia >> Stay informed about: A shooting in South |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
