|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Afraid to hold a gun? That's not my case. I've only gotten rid of my Winchester repeater recently and the last weapons system I was trained on when I was in the military was worth more than an F-15. I've shot weapons you can only dream of ever shooting. |
Oh, you were shooting guns in the Canadian military that no American could ever dream of shooting? Now that's pretty funny...
| Quote: |
| So, sure, I've got nothing against people owning a hunting rifle (venison is fine eating). But unlike you, however, I am able to recognize that civilians have no business arming themselves to the teeth. |
A good thing it's not up to you then. And just where the hell do you get off thinking you have a clue about other peoples' business? |
As a matter of fact, the weapons system I worked on was never purchased by the US. Too expensive was the reason.
Besides, aren't you just a gun crazy civilian? If that's the case, then I clearly used weapons you can only dream of ever touching.
Other people's business? I feel safer walking the streets of South Korea than I would in the US because I know there will never be some trigger-happy idiot who's going to pull his handgun and start blasting at the sound of a car backfiring. Wanting to be safe from some idiotic gun crazy civilian makes it my business.
Wanting American children, any children, to be safe from the harm caused by firearms is human nature.
Last edited by 12ax7 on Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| As a matter of fact, the weapons system I worked on was never purchased by the US. Too expensive was the reason. |
Oh really? Last I checked the US spends more on the military than your whole GDP. So that's a bit hard to believe.
| Quote: |
| Besides, you're just a gun crazy civilian, aren't you? If that's the case, then I clearly used weapons you can only dream of ever touching. |
I'm not gun crazy at all actually. I own a Glock and have a 12-gauge that I rarely use. Very standard. I have shot some pretty big guns, but again I'm not on here to brag or act as if it's some sort of macho thing. For me guns are about self-defense, not about acting tough.
| Quote: |
| Other people's business? I feel safer walking the street of South Korea than I would in the US because I know there will never be some trigger-happy idiot who's going to pull his handgun and start blasting at the sound of a car backfiring. |
Yeah, because you know nothing about the US. You've probably never even been, am I wrong? Or if you have, it was probably to go to Disneyland for a weekend or something...
If you'd actually lived in the US, your above post would've instead read as: "I feel safer walking the street of South Korea than I would in the US because I know there will not be criminals and gangs on the streets." The notion that anyone's afraid of "trigger happy idiots" is laughable. People are afraid of criminals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| As a matter of fact, the weapons system I worked on was never purchased by the US. Too expensive was the reason. |
Oh really? Last I checked the US spends more on the military than your whole GDP. So that's a bit hard to believe.
| Quote: |
| Besides, you're just a gun crazy civilian, aren't you? If that's the case, then I clearly used weapons you can only dream of ever touching. |
I'm not gun crazy at all actually. I own a Glock and have a 21-guage that I rarely use. Very standard. I have shot some pretty big guns, but again I'm not on here to brag or act as if it's some sort of macho thing. For me guns are about self-defense, not about acting tough.
| Quote: |
| Other people's business? I feel safer walking the street of South Korea than I would in the US because I know there will never be some trigger-happy idiot who's going to pull his handgun and start blasting at the sound of a car backfiring. |
Yeah, because you know nothing about the US. You've probably never even been, am I wrong? Or if you have, it was probably to go to Disneyland for a weekend or something...
If you'd actually lived in the US, your above post would've instead read as: "I feel safer walking the street of South Korea than I would in the US because I know there will not be criminals and gangs on the streets." The notion that anyone's afraid of "trigger happy idiots" is laughable. People are afraid of criminals. |
Just because the US spends more than anyone else doesn't mean it doesn't weigh its purchases (yes, hard to believe, but it does). You can be incredulous all you want, it doesn't change the fact that's the case.
So, you never served in the military? In other words, I have a greater and broader experience with firearms than you do.
So, you have a handgun and a shotgun...So, why do you insist on coming off as gun crazy, because that's the arguments you are making. You sound like you're one of those conspiracy theorists/survivalists.
I'd be willing to be I've been to the US far more often that you've been to Canada.
People will be trigger-happy because they see criminals everywhere. Thanks for agreeing with my point.
That's it. You're going around and around in circles. Fact is, this thread is about the murder of 20 kids and their teachers by a guy who shouldn't have had access to firearms. How many time will this have to happen before you admit that something's gotta change? And don't even bother arguing about putting armed guards in schools or arming the teachers. That's asinine.
Last edited by 12ax7 on Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Consult the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Where are firearms mentioned in there? |
WTF does the UN have to do with anything? When's the last time you voted one of them into office??
Seriously, I now regret I even seriously engaged a troll like you. You don't even have the decency to post properly with counter sources, you just swoop in with your lazy, dismissive one-liners, totally devoid of substance. What a waste of time. |
Right, so was it you who said that owning a rifle is a human right? That's what the UN Declaration of Human Rights has to do with it. Don't get it? |
So until the UN sat down and wrote out this Declaration...no one had any human rights until then?
Obviously this can't be true...therefore the U.N. is irrelevant to this discussion.
Long before the Declaration and long before the U.N. came into existence people had rights. And sovereign countries can if they so wish recognize* additional basic human rights in addition to those the U.N. says are human rights.
*Since basic human rights don't exist to be granted or taken away by governments (we all have them) I use the term "recognize". |
The US signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights, buddy. |
Which does NOT mean that the human rights it ALREADY granted its own citizens are null and void. All it means is that those rights in the UN Declaration are ADDED on to the rights of the US citizens (if they didn't already have them).
In other words if the U.S granted its citizens the right to bear arms and THEN signed the UN declaration then its citizens would have all the rights in the UN declaration AND the right to bear arms.
The declaration does NOT take away rights it adds them. What is so hard to understand about that? Sovereign countries have the right to ADD rights as they wish...they merely are banned from TAKING AWAY the rights mentioned in the UN Declaration when they sign. |
TUM is correct.
Is there a right to the internet in the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Probably not. And yet, Finland may create such a right. Same with America and firearms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Consult the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Where are firearms mentioned in there? |
WTF does the UN have to do with anything? When's the last time you voted one of them into office??
Seriously, I now regret I even seriously engaged a troll like you. You don't even have the decency to post properly with counter sources, you just swoop in with your lazy, dismissive one-liners, totally devoid of substance. What a waste of time. |
Right, so was it you who said that owning a rifle is a human right? That's what the UN Declaration of Human Rights has to do with it. Don't get it? |
So until the UN sat down and wrote out this Declaration...no one had any human rights until then?
Obviously this can't be true...therefore the U.N. is irrelevant to this discussion.
Long before the Declaration and long before the U.N. came into existence people had rights. And sovereign countries can if they so wish recognize* additional basic human rights in addition to those the U.N. says are human rights.
*Since basic human rights don't exist to be granted or taken away by governments (we all have them) I use the term "recognize". |
The US signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights, buddy. |
Which does NOT mean that the human rights it ALREADY granted its own citizens are null and void. All it means is that those rights in the UN Declaration are ADDED on to the rights of the US citizens (if they didn't already have them).
In other words if the U.S granted its citizens the right to bear arms and THEN signed the UN declaration then its citizens would have all the rights in the UN declaration AND the right to bear arms.
The declaration does NOT take away rights it adds them. What is so hard to understand about that? Sovereign countries have the right to ADD rights as they wish...they merely are banned from TAKING AWAY the rights mentioned in the UN Declaration when they sign. |
TUM is correct.
Is there a right to the internet in the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Probably not. And yet, Finland may create such a right. Same with America and firearms. |
Missed the whole point. Owning guns is not a human right (as it's been claimed here), it's a constitutional right in the US. Constitutions can be amended. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Just because the US spends more than anyone else doesn't mean it doesn't weigh its purchases (yes, hard to believe, but it does). You can be incredulous all you want, it doesn't change the fact that's the case. |
I'm not saying it's not the case. I'm saying I'm skeptical about what you're saying. Care to provide a link?
| Quote: |
| So, you never served in the military? In other words, I have a greater and broader experience with firearms than you do. |
You're some random person on the internet. For all I know you're 14 years old, living in your mom's basement. For all you know, I'm a freaking Navy Seal. But actually, no I'm fairly proud to say I haven't been in the military.
| Quote: |
| So, you have a handgun and a shotgun...So, why do you insist on coming off as gun crazy, because that's the arguments you are making. You sound like you're one of those conspiracy theorists/survivalists. |
I don't "come off" as anything. That's just your preconceived notions. You also think I watch Fox news and support American imperialism around the world. In short, you know nothing about it.
Being a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment does not make one a "gun nut". That is just you being brainwashed by the media into thinking that way. I don't feel the need to own an M-60 to defend myself. A Glock is perfectly adequate. But the principle remains the exact same.
| Quote: |
| I'd be willing I've been to the US far more often that you've been to Canada. |
Whatever. I've been to Vancouver twice. Nice enough city, it didn't revolutionize my outlook on the world, however.
| Quote: |
| People will be trigger-happy because they see criminals everywhere. Thanks for agreeing with my point. |
No, actually they won't be trigger happy, because people aren't so dumb as to think they can just start blasting a gun without consequences. Your promoting the most asinine stereotypes imaginable. Goes to show how out of touch with reality you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Missed the whole point. Owning guns is not a human right (as it's been claimed here), it's a constitutional right in the US. Constitutions can be amended. |
And the UN charter of "human rights" can't be amended??? (here's where a lol emoticon would actually be warranted)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Just because the US spends more than anyone else doesn't mean it doesn't weigh its purchases (yes, hard to believe, but it does). You can be incredulous all you want, it doesn't change the fact that's the case. |
I'm not saying it's not the case. I'm saying I'm skeptical about what you're saying. Care to provide a link?
| Quote: |
| So, you never served in the military? In other words, I have a greater and broader experience with firearms than you do. |
You're some random person on the internet. For all I know you're 14 years old, living in your mom's basement. For all you know, I'm a freaking Navy Seal. But actually, no I'm fairly proud to say I haven't been in the military.
| Quote: |
| So, you have a handgun and a shotgun...So, why do you insist on coming off as gun crazy, because that's the arguments you are making. You sound like you're one of those conspiracy theorists/survivalists. |
I don't "come off" as anything. That's just your preconceived notions. You also think I watch Fox news and support American imperialism around the world. In short, you know nothing about it.
Being a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment does not make one a "gun nut". That is just you being brainwashed by the media into thinking that way. I don't feel the need to own an M-60 to defend myself. A Glock is perfectly adequate. But the principle remains the exact same.
| Quote: |
| I'd be willing I've been to the US far more often that you've been to Canada. |
Whatever. I've been to Vancouver twice. Nice enough city, it didn't revolutionize my outlook on the world, however.
| Quote: |
| People will be trigger-happy because they see criminals everywhere. Thanks for agreeing with my point. |
No, actually they won't be trigger happy, because people aren't so dumb as to think they can just start blasting a gun without consequences. Your promoting the most asinine stereotypes imaginable. Goes to show how out of touch with reality you are. |
Link? Sure. The US had something similar, but it was cut out of the budget at the end of the Cold War instead of being updated with newer, more expensive tech.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/chaparral.htm
"I don't "come off" as anything."
You were the one who went off on a rant about the US government being criminals, etc, or did I just imagine that?
"I don't feel the need to own an M-60 to defend myself. A Glock is perfectly adequate. But the principle remains the exact same."
Defend yourself from whom? Statistically speaking, your guns are more likely to be used against a family member or to blow your brains out than they are to prevent a home invasion. I'm not saying you will, but I think you've got irrational fears, and that's quite ironic given your suggesting that people who are for gun control are brainwashed by the media since your fears are most probably a product of your media's sensationalistic reporting of crime. Don't deny it, we get US cable TV in Canada. The clear contrast between US and Canadian news coverage speaks volumes about the culture of fear that exists in the US.
So, you went to Vancouver...Felt naked without your guns? Of course not, and yet Vancouver is one of the most dangerous Canadian towns right now because of the gang violence. Just off the top of my head, I've been to Dallas, New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Boston. Did I feel the need for a gun to protect myself? Of course not. I'm Canadian. I haven't been brainwashed to envision a mugger around every corner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.amazon.com/Columbine-Dave-Cullen/dp/0446546925/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356317830&sr=8-1&keywords=columbine
I just read this book. It's an in depth exploration into Columbine and debunks many of the myths and goes in depth into the mentality of the shooters based on their journals, videos, and Eric Harris' website. The biggest thing that stood out to me was how many warning signs their was in Eric Harris' life, and how little was done to act on it, especially his dad and the local police. As for gun control, it might have had an effect in Columbine, the killers talk about how hard it is to get a gun, since they are under 18, and they get a friend to get one at a gun show. I'm not really sure that it would have mattered much though, they also bought one off a drug dealer, who was given 9 years for his part in it. Also, there was an armed guard in Columbine, and an eventual SWAT team that really didn't manage to make any sort of a difference.
I get the feeling that there were probably similar warning signs for Adam Lanza based on what I've seen so far, and what people who knew him said about him. I think that the only gun control that would have ultimately mattered, at least in the case America, in this case would have been his mother taking better control of the guns, and not encouraging shooting as a hobby with someone with her issues. It may be cynical, but I feel like everyone who is offering solutions is just pulling out their pet ideas and issues, and this goes for everyone on any political side, regardless of right or left. I think that despite our best intentions this isn't something that can be solved on a national level, but can only be solved on a family, school, community, local police level. I think there are some things that national groups can do to raise awareness, and make sure that more people know about warning signs, and what to do about them, and to teach kids what to do if their friends start talking about shooting up the school. Other than raising awareness and providing education, I doubt there is much we can do as a country, as much as I hate that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding the whole, "Oh, it's just the media and their glorification of school shooters," folks, ever glance at this? School killings have been going on for ages in the United States, decade after decade. Long before the current media frenzy existed. Long before prozac and other drugs became popular. Before violent video games too.
The more I think about it, the more I think the NRA and the other people mirroring its, "Everything is wrong in America except guns!" argument are completely full of crap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Regarding the whole, "Oh, it's just the media and their glorification of school shooters," folks, ever glance at this? School killings have been going on for ages in the United States, decade after decade. Long before the current media frenzy existed. Long before prozac and other drugs became popular. Before violent video games too.
The more I think about it, the more I think the NRA and the other people mirroring its, "Everything is wrong in America except guns!" argument are completely full of crap. |
Well, you don't get the first "named" shooting incident worthy of a wikipedia page until Charles Whitman decided to climb the Bell Tower (You had the Bath Massacre, but that was a bombing). In 1940 you get the first real "nutjob" act that produces a large number of casualties (and probably deserves an entry).
The interesting thing is that most of the incidents from 1868-1940 were shootings with a specific victim in mind and the body counts were drastically lower.
Also important to note is that guns were just as lethal and available during that time period as the are now. In competent hands, a Winchester Repeater or a 1903 Springfield, or a a Colt revolver or a 1911 is just as capable of causing Sandy Hook levels of casualties as any modern rifle.
So I think there is something "modern" about this issue. It's clearly not about access to lethal guns. It's about the idea that massacring a bunch of people as an act of insanity or "revenge against society" just didn't hold as much appeal to the frustrated. Things seemed more personal back in the day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Also important to note is that guns were just as lethal and available during that time period as the are now. In competent hands, a Winchester Repeater or a 1903 Springfield, or a a Colt revolver or a 1911 is just as capable of causing Sandy Hook levels of casualties as any modern rifle. |
Yes, and if you ban guns, knives work just as well, right? This tendency to pretend that all weapons -- or even all guns -- are somehow created equal is pure rhetorical smoke bomb (and hypocritical as well). If a Colt revolver from 1911 is literally just as effective and deadly as any modern weapon available, weapons innovation would have stopped with that revolver. "In competent hands," is an especially interesting qualifier. What about in the minimally trained hands of an angry teenager? What about in incompetent hands? And even in highly trained hands, are we seriously going to pretend a fellow armed with a Cold revolver is at the apex of his killing potential? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Consult the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Where are firearms mentioned in there? |
WTF does the UN have to do with anything? When's the last time you voted one of them into office??
Seriously, I now regret I even seriously engaged a troll like you. You don't even have the decency to post properly with counter sources, you just swoop in with your lazy, dismissive one-liners, totally devoid of substance. What a waste of time. |
Right, so was it you who said that owning a rifle is a human right? That's what the UN Declaration of Human Rights has to do with it. Don't get it? |
So until the UN sat down and wrote out this Declaration...no one had any human rights until then?
Obviously this can't be true...therefore the U.N. is irrelevant to this discussion.
Long before the Declaration and long before the U.N. came into existence people had rights. And sovereign countries can if they so wish recognize* additional basic human rights in addition to those the U.N. says are human rights.
*Since basic human rights don't exist to be granted or taken away by governments (we all have them) I use the term "recognize". |
The US signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights, buddy. |
Which does NOT mean that the human rights it ALREADY granted its own citizens are null and void. All it means is that those rights in the UN Declaration are ADDED on to the rights of the US citizens (if they didn't already have them).
In other words if the U.S granted its citizens the right to bear arms and THEN signed the UN declaration then its citizens would have all the rights in the UN declaration AND the right to bear arms.
The declaration does NOT take away rights it adds them. What is so hard to understand about that? Sovereign countries have the right to ADD rights as they wish...they merely are banned from TAKING AWAY the rights mentioned in the UN Declaration when they sign. |
TUM is correct.
Is there a right to the internet in the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Probably not. And yet, Finland may create such a right. Same with America and firearms. |
But is it a Human Right?
If a Fin travels outside of Finland, can they claim it as their right? Would anyone take them seriously?
I've asked, but visitorQ seems to be ignoring it - VQ, did you not say that owning a gun is a human right? If so, did you also purchase/own one in Korea when you lived here?
If not, how were you able to live without one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Regarding the whole, "Oh, it's just the media and their glorification of school shooters," folks, ever glance at this? School killings have been going on for ages in the United States, decade after decade. Long before the current media frenzy existed. Long before prozac and other drugs became popular. Before violent video games too.
The more I think about it, the more I think the NRA and the other people mirroring its, "Everything is wrong in America except guns!" argument are completely full of crap. |
Well, you don't get the first "named" shooting incident worthy of a wikipedia page until Charles Whitman decided to climb the Bell Tower (You had the Bath Massacre, but that was a bombing). In 1940 you get the first real "nutjob" act that produces a large number of casualties (and probably deserves an entry).
The interesting thing is that most of the incidents from 1868-1940 were shootings with a specific victim in mind and the body counts were drastically lower.
Also important to note is that guns were just as lethal and available during that time period as the are now. In competent hands, a Winchester Repeater or a 1903 Springfield, or a a Colt revolver or a 1911 is just as capable of causing Sandy Hook levels of casualties as any modern rifle.
So I think there is something "modern" about this issue. It's clearly not about access to lethal guns. It's about the idea that massacring a bunch of people as an act of insanity or "revenge against society" just didn't hold as much appeal to the frustrated. Things seemed more personal back in the day. |
You're not completely off track, but your not looking at all the facts.
I doubt the killer at Sandy Hook had competent hands. He was a deranged kid, nothing more, nothing less.
And one thing that is "modern" about this issue is the engineering with which the weapons are made today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think there might also be another way of looking at this... that these mass shootings have more to do with suicide, and going out with a 'bang', then it does with killing as many as possible.
Sure, the killing is part of it, but it seems to me it's almost part of the process, while the 'end' of the killer is the ultimate goal.
I wonder if Korea will go this way in the future. We've obviously got a very high suicide rate here, yet there's still a 'keep it to one's self' kind of vibe to it. But perhaps with the growing feeling of disenfranchisement, we might see more people lashing out as part of their 'end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot 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
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
