April 18th, 2007
|02:10 am - Gun control in America|
Discussion on the Virginia Tech shooting on Monday spread like wildfire across the net as soon as the news was heard. On websites like Facebook condolences and grievances flooded various groups set up in tribute of this horrific event. Needless to say, the issue of gun control was the hotbed of discussion once more. Instead of discussing the need for America to possibly ban guns from private home ownership, however, if you click on that link I provided above and scroll to the bottom you'll read this quote posted by someone on facebook:
" 'Maybe if some of those kids in the classroom had a gun and knew how to use it could defend themselves less people would have died,' wrote Jessica Cowles on Facebook."
Um....what?? Yes that's the solution to shootings, give people more guns to play with, that's brilliance I say!! Would you really feel safer in a classroom of say 200 people if even half of them all carried guns? That's ludicrous!! Even if you did have a gun yourself, if 100 people were playing trigger-happy, can you really defend yourself? More than likely they'd be so panicked in such a situation as the shooting on Monday that they'd be firing their guns every which way and shooting dozens more innocent students, I would guess instead of 33 dead we'd be dealing with triple digit casualty numbers. What kind of pathetic and delusional idea is that to drop into every person's hand a gun??? What kind of civilization do we live in if it becomes necessary for every person to own a gun in order to feel safe? I thought the entire concept of HAVING a society and special law-enforcement personnels was precisely so that we don't each individually need to consistently worry about personal safety.
America, you never fail in making me want to smash my head against a wall...or desk...or something hard.
[EDIT]: Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as though this opinion regarding guns is limited to a bimbo or two on facebook.
Timely, but sad moment.
Apologies for the intrusion into your personal LJ. Access to the michaelmoore
community has been restored. If you still wish to participate in that community, please accept my further apology at the delay, and reapply. Thankyou.
Re: Timely, but sad moment.
Thanks for the heads up =^-^=
Because one person on Facebook represents all of America.
Seriously, sweetie, your America bashing is out of hand sometimes. Stop blaming everything on us like Canada is perfect. =(
I'm sorry, it just.... >_<
Obviously I know that one person doesn't represent all of America, hell the entire population of Americans using Facebook probably doesn't even represent the majority of populations living in America. No Canada's not perfect, no country's perfect, but America has a history of saying one thing, doing another, and rubbing the fact that they can do so in the face of just about every other country in the world.
America spends 400 billion dollars on it's military every year, while the second biggest spend, China, spends only 50 billion. In context, that's more money spent on the military than all the countries of NAFTA put together along with China and Russia added. Since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, there hasn't been any other country with close to enough military power to even attempt to threaten the United States, yet instead of using this opportunity to demilitarize and spend some money on the citizens, America's become more militarized. The United States has military bases all around the world, take a look at the following map that maps out where American military bases and troops are located globally:http://www.miprox.de/USA_speziell/US-Military-Bases-Worldwide.jpg
Internationally, there's only 46 countries with no American military presence, there's only 191 countries signed onto the UN, so 75% of countries in the world have American military presence.
It invades Iraq without the consent of the international population (and I'm not even talking about civilian population consent here, even the governments of the international community opposed the invasion through the UN) under the label of democracy and liberating the Iraqi people - of course this is AFTER they lied about the WMD - yet Bush vetoes 2 bills by the House of Reps and the Senate to withdraw troops by next year.
Just to mock the international community even more, the first representative that Bush sent to the UN had publicly claimed that there is no such thing as a United Nations.
Through institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the USA forces developing countries that are in debt and in need of loans to reform their economic policies, 99.9% of the time involving deregulation/privatization of their public services, devaluation of their money, opening their borders to "free trade", and the handing over of their central banks to the IMF (International Monetary Fund) or the World Bank which, by the way, aren't democratic organizations, influence of votes on decisions are decided by how much contribution a country makes to the organization, and America obviously makes the most contributions, so they basically have a monopoly over decisions. This has resulted in the collapse of just about every single country who's ever had the misfortune to come under the the target of the IMF or World Bank reforms. Multinational corporations, most of which are based in America, rejoice at the opportunity to swoop into a country, reap all the benefits, and when the situation looks bad, pull all the money out and abandon the country.
America's had a history of being the icon for liberty and democracy in the contemporary world, but taking a look at which countries historically America has supported either militarily or financially is clearly another train of thought. America has supported just about every single oppressive authoritarian state such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Chile and many more, often more than once through various conflicts. Not only support authoritarian states, America also has a reputation for removing democratically elected politicians who aren't so America-friendly and replacing them with dictators themselves who, in return, of course become buddy-buddy with the United States.
In its own backyard, the Bush administration has used the 9/11 events as an opportunity to gain consent from the Congress for military power so that if Bush decided to head to war, he doesn't even need to consult the Congress - the representative for the people of America. September 11th killed over 3000 America civilians, since then, the war in the Iraq has gotten over 3000 American soldiers killed along with countless Iraqi civilians so that Bush can have his own little oil field. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, he has killed his own people in the past using bio-chemical weapons, yet he was the same person who America supported back when Iraq was fighting Iran.
All of Bush's top administrative personnels like Cheney, Wolfwitz, and Rumsfeld have stakes in the oil and national defense industries. When oil prices go up, their wallets reap in the benefits. When war is declared and the country buys military equipment, their wallets overflow with the profit. The line between serving the public in their duty as politicians and being private stake-holders in business corporations isn't just blurred, it's just not there anymore. Between their wallets and your safety, which one are they leaning towards more I wonder? War has become the most profitable business in the 21st century, so will it be international peace for us or happy wallets for them?
The list goes on and on, literally never-ending. I'm sorry if my anti-American stance on issues offends you, but my field is International Development. How can there be any development in countries struggling to survive when there's a country like America dominating the scene? No other country's perfect, but no other country since decolonization has its nose so deeply embedded into the business of every single other nation. Just a few months ago, when the Chinese parliament was in session they proposed a 14% increase to their military spendings. Of course America jumped right in accusing China that such a move contradicts China's claim that it supports and promotes international peace. Although I agree that military increase is often not a good thing and should be avoided whenever possible, what right does America have to accuse any other country of dislodging international peace? Even with a 14% increase, China's military spendings would be around $57 billion/year, still $343 billion below the USA's. The bottom line is, if there is to be any form of international cooperation, peace, and prosperity, America will need to either change it's approach to dealing with other countries or it needs to collapse. That's the bottom line I'm afraid. Maybe in the 2008 elections your new president will have a more altruistic take on foreign policies and the wave of anti-Americanism will quell, but that doesn't mean people forget what America's done in the past. I know people from other countries who's first reaction when they heard of September 11th was to rejoice that America finally received a sprinkle of its own medicine. Those sentiments unfortunately isn't rare outside of our little bubble of comfort. When disdain and contempt for a country permeates to such a level that even when civilian lives are lost yet those in other countries can't help but feel a bit of satisfaction, maybe it's time to re-think your foreign policy approaches.
You could have just said, "Sorry for the misunderstanding." I could care less about any country's governing system personally.
It wasn't a misunderstanding, I'm sorry to have offended you, but I'm not sorry for my stance on issues. I don't consider myself anti-American, it's not as if all American policies are horrific and "evil" using the vocabulary of Bush, and definitely not all the people in America are bad, but I am against policies from any country that are hypocritical, solely driven by self-interest, and two-faced, America just happens to be a country that consistently displays these qualities in their foreign policies, and on top of that broadcasts it loud and clear to rub other peoples' noses in it.
Canadians like to think we have a reputation for being nicer and more community-driven and all that, but as such, we only give a minute amount of money in foreign aid every year and we DO get involved in conflicts overseas despite popular belief. I hate those aspects about Canada as much as I hate them about America, however, we don't go around to countries claiming to liberate the people and bringing them "democracy" while in the meantime actually doing it for our own benefit, and we definitely don't broadcast it all over (one of the reasons for all the illusion that Canada only operates as peacekeepers under the UN and such) that's the difference.
You stated in your first comment that no country is perfect and that blaming it all on America is unfair. I was simply pointing out through my examples that although no other country is perfect, no other country also can have as much impact, positive or negative, as the United States, therefore, as the leader in military and economic power in the present world, the USA should be taking the role of using that power responsibly more serious than any other nation, something which it has failed to do continuously.
|Date:||April 18th, 2007 09:11 am (UTC)|| |
Was watching the news with my breakfast this morning and some lady was on, advocating that people should be able to carry concealed weapons to prevent stuff like school shootings. Her argument was that crazy gunmen always target helpless victims and that random shootings never happen at NRA meetings. I felt like strangling her. Some people take the right to bear arms a little too far.
Hmm...sounds like someone should go shoot up an NRA meeting. I'd feel great having my kids in a school where he or she needs to hide a gun in his/her underwear, maybe I'll get him/her a hand grenade instead. Doesn't it give you a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that your best friend beside you can within a second increase the ventilation system of your head if you feel the urge to disagree with something he/she said?
Seriously, the only time arms should be needed individually is in self-defense. They should change that amendment to the right to self-defend.
|Date:||April 18th, 2007 10:04 am (UTC)|| |
It just seems like people that advocate carrying concealed weapons don't even bother looking on the other side of the coin. What about all those people that accidentally shoot their family/friends? Making guns easily accessible doesn't prevent deaths.
And what the lady on the news seemed to be implying is that vigilante justice should be allowed. If people like her have their way, those with concealed weapons will be able to act as jury, judge, and executioner all in the name of self-defense. What would be the point of the justice system then? I really don't know what those people are thinking of sometimes.
|Date:||April 18th, 2007 10:07 am (UTC)|| |
I agree, these people advocating putting more guns in more hands is outrageous and just plain stupid. You'd think that as this isn't the first time a shooting at a school has happened (America or elsewhere), people would be chanting on the streets "Do away witht the 2nd amendment". Your point about law enforcement is very relevant to this discussion-everyone having guns doesn't make us safer and basically undermines the value of our law and order society. On another note,the documentary you mentioned in your previous post sounded interesting-if you could upload it that would be dandy!-James
My dad was annoyed that none of the students tried to rush him. He was a scrawny Asian kid with a gun and he figured that a class of 30 would have at least one person capable of taking him down. I told him that being the first to die because of suicidal heroism isn't the way to go, and he responded that it would be better than sitting in lockdown position in a classroom and being executed.
As much as I wouldn't want to die, I'd probably try to be the stupid hero.
Edit: The shooter was a scrawny Asian kid, not my dad. Whoops.
I think this is like the by-stander effect. Even if it's just one kid, as long as he's not shooting you, then the impulse is for self-preservation, that's what makes heroes so hard to come by. If a bunch of kids had rushed him, for sure he'd have gone down, but in the process, some of the kids probably would have gotten injured or killed, maybe not as many as 32, but who wants to be the ones killed?
The ironic thing is, even if someone IS suicidal, when faced with an event like this I'll bet you their first instinct is also self-preservation. Dying by jumping off a roof or slitting the wrists is ok, but when that bullet comes flying the first reaction is to duck.
I think it's easy to sit in the aftermath complaining that no one rushed him, but in that panic of the moment, who has the time to play hero? Even if your legs are still working and your brain can still process thoughts other than run run run, your thoughts would probably run along the lines of your friends, your family, the things you have yet to do, maybe a date you made with someone, maybe an email you have yet to reply to, all of these things which drive you to seek survival first and foremost before playing hero. But you know, as romantic as the idea is for someone to have stood up and saved the day, we can't fault them for not doing so.
|Date:||April 21st, 2007 12:26 pm (UTC)|| |
may be better discribed as gun out of control issue