Omaha Shootings: Selfish Act of a Bastard

  • Thread starter Thread starter J77
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the impact of media coverage on mass shootings and the ongoing debate about gun control in the U.S. Participants express concern that sensationalizing these events may encourage potential perpetrators to seek notoriety. There is a call for stricter gun laws, particularly regarding individuals with mental health issues, though some argue that such laws may not effectively prevent violence. The conversation also touches on the cultural significance of gun ownership in America, with many believing that a complete ban is unlikely due to powerful lobbying groups like the NRA. Ultimately, the dialogue highlights the complexities of addressing gun violence while balancing individual rights and public safety.
  • #61
It could be foreign, or the US government itself. How do you know this won't happen?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
turbo-1 said:
That's really not necessary in places like Maine. No foreign invader would try to invade here because there are way more guns than households here, and even trying to take control of roads would be impossible if the populace decided to resist. A more sensible target would be Boston, where people have to jump through hoops to even own a handgun and where a well-placed RPG into a LNG tanker would decimate the waterfront and most of the center of the city.
They would just bomb Maine. Kind of like Indiana Jones shooting the swordmaster. Why would an invading force contemplate hand to hand battle with the residents? Give me your lobsters!
 
  • #63
cristo said:
You don't actually think that any foreign military force is going to try and invade the US, do you?
No. In the time that the US was being established, that was a distinct and ever-present possibility. Nowadays, the threat is internal. The 2nd amendment is as relevant as ever.
 
  • #64
Evo said:
They would just bomb Maine. Kind of like Indiana Jones shooting the swordmaster. Why would an invading force contemplate hand to hand battle with the residents?
We are too big and thinly-settle to bomb. This isn't WWII Japan. the point is that this state could not be occupied easily, and neither could a whole lot of states outside of NY, RI, MA, MD, CT, CA, OH, PA, and a few others.

If you want my lobsters, you'll have to pry them from my cold dead fingers.
 
  • #65
cristo said:
You don't actually think that any foreign military force is going to try and invade the US, do you?

Of course not...Canada knows all those Mainiacs are armed...hmm...so is Detroit (not necessarily legally)...North Dakota is pretty big on hunting...yeah, I think if they were going to try to invade, it would have to be through Washington state, and we'd have them cornered and sent back across the border in no time. :biggrin:
 
  • #66
cyrusabdollahi said:
It could be foreign, or the US government itself. How do you know this won't happen?

There'd be no foreign invasion, since the only point in an invasion would be to try and overthrow the government, and occupy the country. This doesn't happen to superpowers! If anyone has a problem that's that big, then it will simply end in a nuclear war.

It could be a US government invasion, but isn't it a little paranoid to be thinking like that? Afterall, they are the people that you elected to run your country! Besides, the rest of the world would step in way before it got to civilians fighting the army and the government.
 
  • #67
turbo-1 said:
We are too big and thinly-settle to bomb. This isn't WWII Japan. the point is that this state could not be occupied easily, and neither could a whole lot of states outside of NY, RI, MA, MD, CT, CA, OH, PA, and a few others.
Bombing would make much more sense. Just obliterate the key areas, no one cares about people in remote areas. They have nothing of importance and are nowhere of strategic importance. I don't think that homeowners with guns would be a deterrant to an armed force with bombs.
 
  • #68
Moonbear said:
...North Dakota is pretty big on hunting...
North Dakota is the least visited state. :biggrin:

http://img2.travelblog.org/Photos/20079/119326/f/818641-Least-Visited-State-In-The-US-0.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69
cristo said:
There'd be no foreign invasion, since the only point in an invasion would be to try and overthrow the government, and occupy the country. This doesn't happen to superpowers! If anyone has a problem that's that big, then it will simply end in a nuclear war.

It could be a US government invasion, but isn't it a little paranoid to be thinking like that? Afterall, they are the people that you elected to run your country! Besides, the rest of the world would step in way before it got to civilians fighting the army and the government.


Are you nostradamus? I don't understand how you speak of what will happen in the future as if it were a fact. Did any nuclear bombs go off in the invation of Iraq? They are fightings us dirty with guns because they all have them in their homes.
 
Last edited:
  • #70
cristo said:
What, so we should not have any laws because they don't make any difference? Come on!

I'm saying that spur of the moment things like this would not happen if every household did not own a gun.


And you're supporting the fact that Americans should be allowed to own guns? Wow.

first all let it be known that I do not own a gun.

I would NOT support such an impossible law as a total ban on guns. It is ludicrous to even think about it. In fact I am not in favor of gun control in general, we do not need more laws, the US is already throwing more people in jail then we have jails.


Clearly Cristo you are not American and simply do not understand the basic premise of the US. There is this hard to gain, easy to lose thing called freedom. The US has demonstrated that given the freedom to legislate you can legislate away freedom.
 
  • #71
Integral said:
Clearly Cristo you are not American and simply do not understand the basic premise of the US. There is this hard to gain, easy to lose thing called freedom. The US has demonstrated that given the freedom to legislate you can legislate away freedom.
Wouldn't you say that Canada, the UK, really any civilized western country has pretty much the same freedoms? I think that claiming we lose our freedom if guns are made illegal is nonsense, did we lose our freedom when we made explosives illegal? But gun ownership is too widespread to make it illegal with any meaning, it's just not going to happen because the majority doesn't want it to happen which pretty much makes it impossible to enforce.

The Dutch have much fewer laws concerning prostitution and drugs. I'd say this would equate to them having more personal freedom than Americans.
 
Last edited:
  • #72
It could be a US government invasion, but isn't it a little paranoid to be thinking like that? Afterall, they are the people that you elected to run your country! Besides, the rest of the world would step in way before it got to civilians fighting the army and the government.

Step in how? By invading themselves? Then we get the contradiction that the impossible foreign invasion will prevent the possible domestic invasion
 
  • #73
Evo said:
Wouldn't you say that Canada, the UK, really any civilized western country has pretty much the same freedoms? Where, exactly, are we superior?
No. Canadians have pretty much lost the right to own small caliber (.22 cal) handguns and people in GB have lost the ability to own any handguns at all unless they are chambered for obsolete rounds that cannot be obtained commercially.
 
  • #74
Integral said:
Clearly Cristo you are not American and simply do not understand the basic premise of the US. There is this hard to gain, easy to lose thing called freedom. The US has demonstrated that given the freedom to legislate you can legislate away freedom.

Cleary I don't. However you, as a US citizen, should realize that it is rather difficult for the rest of the world to understand your constitution which preaches freedom and liberty when your government doesn't treat the citizens of other countries in the same way: c.f. Guantanamo bay. To the rest of the world, this is highly hypocritical [1] and impossible to understand!
 
  • #75
turbo-1 said:
No. Canadians have pretty much lost the right to own small caliber (.22 cal) handguns and people in GB have lost the ability to own any handguns at all unless they are chambered for obsolete rounds that cannot be obtained commercially.

You can, you just have to jump through a few more hoops than you did before eg I think now you are supposed to be a member of a gun club to own a handgun. I know lots of people with them so it can't be that hard, of course now with the new gun laws it is definitely harder than it was. You are right though, I am sure they are much easier to get in the states.
 
  • #76
cristo said:
Cleary I don't. However you, as a US citizen, should realize that it is rather difficult for the rest of the world to understand your constitution which preaches freedom and liberty when your government doesn't treat the citizens of other countries in the same way: c.f. Guantanamo bay. To the rest of the world, this is highly hypocritical [1] and impossible to understand!

and has nothing to do with gun ownership!

Also, why should they? They are not US citizens, they don't have the rights of a US citizen. They have rights by international law, that's it.
 
  • #77
The UK is not gun free, i think £250 will get you one.

Gun crime in UK.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #78
cyrusabdollahi said:
and has nothing to do with gun ownership!
I never said it had anything to do with gun ownership laws.. I said it had to do with liberty and freedom; is that not what the constitution stands for?

Also, why should they? They are not US citizens, they don't have the rights of a US citizen. They have rights by international law, that's it.
Ahh.. ok, so now I get the point. America has one set of laws for their own citizens, but screw anyone else. They're nowhere near as superior as you are, and so don't deserve any freedom, or in fact any rights at all?
 
  • #79
My point is waiving your arms and pointing to Guantanamo is just reaching for straws. It has nothing to do with gun laws in the united states.

Second point, as I already said, people do NOT have the rights of a US CITIZEN if they are not a, us citizen. You have rights as per international law. I don't know where your getting 'screw everyone else' and, 'invade other countries whenever they want' stuff from.
 
  • #80
I'm not waving my arms or clutching at straws; I was responding to a post on freedom!

Never mind, cyrus, there is no point in this discussion, like I said hours ago.
 
  • #81
Sure there is! I am not trying to be mean to you mate :smile:

I think your intentions are good, but your expectations on how the world works are unrealistic. Why would a suspected enemy combatant be given more rights than are afforded to him by international law? This makes no sense. There are realistic limits as to how 'nice' you can be to your enemy. If you think this stuff is 'new' then your sadly misinformed. My high school professor was in vietnam. He once asked us, 'what do you think happened when we caught prisoners in the middle of the jungle?' 'They were blind folded and then shot, because you can't drag them along with you and risk being killed'
 
Last edited:
  • #82
cyrusabdollahi said:
Sure there is! I am not trying to be mean to you mate :smile:
Ok, thanks. I just meant there wasn't any point because we're both at completely different ends of the spectrum with our beliefs here!

I think your intentions are good, but your expectations on how the world works are unrealistic. Why would a suspected enemy combatant be given more rights than are afforded to him by international law?
The key word here is "suspected." The phrase "prisoners of war" has changed a lot in the last few years: it used to mean members of an army attacking, but now means, in some cases, suspected terrorists. It's getting very dangerous when a country starts locking people up, indefinitely, for some suspected crimes. Now, I appreciate that a lot of people at Guantanamo will be guilty, and deserve to be locked up, but there are bound to be some who are not guilty of anything, but simply "suspected." Of course, who knows which is which? No-one, so what should your government do? Let them all free, or keep them all detained? I think this sort of decision is one that is encroaching on civil liberties.
This makes no sense. There are realistic limits as to how 'nice' you can be to your enemy. If you think this stuff is 'new' then your sadly misinformed. My high school professor was in vietnam. He once asked us, 'what do you think happened when we caught prisoners in the middle of the jungle?' 'They were blind folded and then shot, because you can't drag them along with you and risk being killed'
Of course, but then I suspect the argument would be that they were in a jungle, and taking these POWs along with them would danger their own lives.
 
  • #83
The key word here is "suspected." The phrase "prisoners of war" has changed a lot in the last few years: it used to mean members of an army attacking, but now means, in some cases, suspected terrorists. It's getting very dangerous when a country starts locking people up, indefinitely, for some suspected crimes. Now, I appreciate that a lot of people at Guantanamo will be guilty, and deserve to be locked up, but there are bound to be some who are not guilty of anything, but simply "suspected." Of course, who knows which is which? No-one, so what should your government do? Let them all free, or keep them all detained? I think this sort of decision is one that is encroaching on civil liberties.

Yes, of course there should be a system to make sure innocent people are not put into jail. But again, its not their civil liberties that are being lost. They dont have civil liberties as defined for a US citizen. We have to respect their international rights, but that's it.

But now we have strayed a far far ways away from gun ownership in the US. This is a totally different topic.

PS- Dont get me wrong. I think GIPMO is a disgusting place and an insult to freedom. But that does not change the rights we so called *have* to give to non citizens.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
What's ironic is here we have you two arguing from other sides of the spectrum... cristo believes it's worth endangering people's lives in the name of freedom, and cyrus saying it's not strictly necessary
 
  • #85
Office_Shredder said:
What's ironic is here we have you two arguing from other sides of the spectrum... cristo believes it's worth endangering people's lives in the name of freedom

I think that's not what cristo is saying. I don't think there's any clear statistical evidence that carrying guns serves as a deterrent. For example, see this review article by the National Academy of Sciences

This chapter is concerned with the question of whether violent crime is reduced through the enactment of right-to-carry-laws, which allow individuals to carry concealed weapons.1 In all, 34 states have right-to-carry laws that allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns. Proponents of these laws argue that criminals are deterred by the knowledge that potential victims may be carrying weapons and therefore that the laws reduce crime. However, it is not clear a priori that such deterrence occurs. Even if it does, there may be offsetting adverse consequences. For example, increased possession of firearms by potential victims may motivate more criminals to carry firearms and thereby increase the amount of violence that is associated with crime. Moreover, allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons may increase accidental injuries or deaths or increase shootings during arguments. Ultimately, it is an empirical question whether allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons generates net social benefits or net social costs.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=120
 
Last edited:
  • #86
I don't have any studies to say if guns reduce crime one way or another, but I will point out that the constituion does not allow for guns to prevent crime.
 
  • #87
cyrusabdollahi said:
I don't have any studies to say if guns reduce crime one way or another, but I will point out that the constituion does not allow for guns to prevent crime.

Yeah, I know.

I'm not commenting on whether the US should implement gun control laws or not, but pointing out that one shouldn't take it for granted that owning guns serve as a deterrent and reduce crime. There are studies which go both ways. For example, from the same article I linked to earlier,

The statistical analysis of the effects of these laws was initiated by John Lott and David Mustard (1997) and expanded by Lott (2000) and Bronars and Lott (1998) (hereinafter referred to simply as Lott). Lott concludes that the adoption of right-to-carry laws substantially reduces the prevalence of violent crime. Many other researchers have carried out their own statistical analyses using Lott’s data, modified versions of Lott’s data, or expanded

My personal belief is that there are cultural factors unique to the US which contributes towards gun related violence.
 
Last edited:
  • #88
cristo said:
Cleary I don't. However you, as a US citizen, should realize that it is rather difficult for the rest of the world to understand your constitution which preaches freedom and liberty when your government doesn't treat the citizens of other countries in the same way: c.f. Guantanamo bay. To the rest of the world, this is highly hypocritical [1] and impossible to understand!

Not changing subjects much are we? Neither I nor any other non Bush American understands what is going on In Gitmo. You must understand that the current administration is an abomination. I feel that the last 2 elections should be seen as a test, all who voted for bush failed. Wish there was a way to prevent them from voting again.
 
  • #89
Evo said:
Wouldn't you say that Canada, the UK, really any civilized western country has pretty much the same freedoms? I think that claiming we lose our freedom if guns are made illegal is nonsense, did we lose our freedom when we made explosives illegal? But gun ownership is too widespread to make it illegal with any meaning, it's just not going to happen because the majority doesn't want it to happen which pretty much makes it impossible to enforce.

The Dutch have much fewer laws concerning prostitution and drugs. I'd say this would equate to them having more personal freedom than Americans.

Seems like you got a glimmer, perhaps a hint, at what I am trying to say. Read it again Sam, Given the freedom to legislate we legislate away freedom. This is a much broader statement then just gun laws.
 
  • #90
siddharth said:
My personal belief is that there are cultural factors unique to the US which contributes towards gun related violence.

I agree with this opinion, but I don't think it is restricted to gun related violence. I think violence in general has become a part of the American way of life, if it hasn't always been so. Consider the heroes and role models of the United States and how they use violence. The firearms provide a convenient method for acting on those violent tendencies.

The U.S. is both highly individualistic and highly subjective. There are bound to be internal conflicts in a system like that. Put enough pressure on any system and it will eventually spring a leak. If the situation becomes intolerable we must decide to lose a bit of individual freedom or be a little less subjective of others. Basically, I believe that Americans in general value their individual freedoms, but do not respect the freedoms of other Americans. I would be happy to be more objective than I am, but I will not for the life of me willingly forfeit one ounce of individual freedom for the security of the system. People > Status


Bombs are probably illegal because they can't be directed at a specific target. While a criminal might use a pistol in a drive-by, a lawful citizen would not be wise to defend his property or life with a grenade. Home-made explosives do not require a high level of education or expensive or rare components to assemble. I have known people who made them from scratch for their own entertainment. Most criminals have an objective besides random injury and death. Explosives are more likely to be used by terrorists than your common criminal. There isn't much controversy over the regulation of private ownership of explosives. (except around the 4th of July. Ironic that we celebrate freedom by blowing things up. Not that I don't enjoy it.)

Ugh, I hope that paragraph structure doesn't look as scatter-brained to everyone else as it does to me right now.
 

Similar threads

RIP Al Jaffee (102), Mad cartoonist extraordinaire
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Altriusm, a nice way to express your selfishness?
  • · Replies 155 ·
6
Replies
155
Views
19K
Book Review: The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Can Returning to Academia Reignite a Former Consultant's Passion for Science?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Ron Popeil: Celebrating the Life of an Iconic TV Inventor & Salesman
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Ferris Eugene Alger
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
300
Do you think iam being selfish?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Anybody following (or followed) Jack Ryan (2018)?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
268
Made for TV movie about a former professor who becomes homeless
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Saving Private Ryan: Realistic War Movie?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
11K