The Virginia Tech Tragedy. ~ LB-69

Your absolutely right that it happens everywhere, I live only 20 minutes away from Monash and remember it well. Australia actually still holds the dubious record for numbers killed by a lone gunman.
35 people were killed by one guy at Port Arthur Tasmania in 1996.http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/portarthur.html.

Ladyboy Hunter Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 201 Points: 143

I was out for a few beers last night and got a sms saying "There is a party at virginia tech tonight, free shots for all students".

Its crazy what kind of sense of humour some people have.

Not Crazy......Sick Bastards Mad

After the space shuttle blew up in the early 90's, the joke on the radio the next day was "What does NASA stand for? Need anouther 7 astronauts" Now that was sick too.

There is always going to be some sick jokes after a tragic event.

Moderator Joined: 21 Jun 2006 Posts: 2513

I don't want to sound a insensitive, but sometimes you have to embrace the absurdity of such events to accept them as being real.

Making such jokes is taking it a bit too far, but often the people who make them are unable to deal with the reality of such events, or are in fear and trying to distance themsleves from the event.

It was a tragedy, but watching an hour of pattaya people news a day can soon make you numb to this.

While I have no strong feelings about possessing a gun, either way, the important thing to remember in the debate about gun control in the U.S. is that the right to have weapons is specifically granted in the Constitution. So, regardless of the gun lobby or anyone else, to change this would require changing the Constitution. This is something that's not taken lightly.

Perhaps the Laws should be tightened up a bit , I know in my country you are allowed to have guns , mostly hunting type guns on a standard gun licence , and other types in increasingly harder categories .
You cannot carry a hand gun , and that includes the majority of the Police.
I have a gun licence but am seriously considering not renewing it as I have not owned a gun for about 12 years.

I agree with you, Patrick. I don't want to set off a firestorm among my fellow countrymen, but I have always felt that the reference in the Constitution was specifically talking about a militia, not individuals. I know it has been interpreted differently lately, but that's how it reads. This issue is being debated ad nauseum in our country, but certainly there has to be some sort of sane comprimise.

Ladyboy Lover Joined: 15 Feb 2007 Posts: 40 Points: 77

I'm a fairly patriotic fellow, so when I hear criticism of my country, even though it may be justified, it makes me wince. Guns are undeniably an integral part of American culture, particularly in the western states (a side note here: there are as I count them five distinct regional cultures in the US, the Eastern Seaboard, the Deep South, the Midwest, the Southwest, and the West Coast. While largely related, they have many unique characteristics that distinguish them from one another). I personally own several firearms which I carry when I am at home, concealed in town and open in rural areas. I can't speak for the other regions, but on the West Coast firearm ownership is looked at as a kind of responsibility akin to the Minutemen during the revolution, and stems from the need for protection from outlaws and indian threats of only a handful of decades past. The Old West is not so far gone as many believe, and culture is a slowly changing thing.

As for constitutional rights concerning firearms, there is some debate as to whether the right to bear arms is granted to a state regulated militia, such as the National Guard, or granted to individual citizens. Having read the Second Amendment carefully, I see how there can be debate as the text seems intentionally vague. The intent of the Second Amendment is clear though, and is to give security to the freedom of Americans from an oppressive government. The logic being that an armed populace will not be forced to suffer tyranny by military edict. It is my belief that the Second Amendment is aimed at individual citizens, but the modern American military is far too powerful for any individual or group of individuals to challenge. Therefore the National Guard seems the more realistic guarantee against tyranny. Of course, the National Guard is currently deployed alongside the regular military in every conflict the United States is currently engaged in, and ultimately are under the control of the federal government so it’s role as a check against governmental tyranny is suspect. In short, firearm ownership is something that will exist in America for a long, long time to come and the debate will continue.

I recommend to anyone that feels unsafe in the presence of so many firearms as there are in the US to purchase and wear body armor. That may sound hyperbolic, but realistically speaking, there would be far fewer lives lost to shooting violence if body armor were as ubiquitous as guns are. At home in the states it is illegal for me to carry concealed while wearing body armor, although I do wear it when I carry open or when I am unarmed.

Good post, Expat. I agree that the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. I think that the real problem is the extreme views on both sides; the NRA feeling that NO restrictions should be placed on people's rights (armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, etc.) and the other side feeling that too many restrictions should be implemented. I once had a discussion with a good friend of mine who is very pro-NRA, and who feels that there should not be any limitations on the peoples' right to bear arms. I then said that I assumed he felt it would be okay if someone were to have a small atom bomb. He said that was crazy, but I pointed out that it would be consistant with his feelings of no restrictions of any sort. Anyway, if a little "give and take" were to be applied, maybe we could get some sanity in our laws. By the way, I agree with your getting upset about the criticism of the USA. This thread actually started on a completely different topic. I responded to an off-hand comment by Patrick, we went off on a tangent, and the moderator split it off and put it in this Off Topic section. By the way, Patrick and I have no problems with this, as you can see from the above posts. I kind of over-reacted hip at the use of one particular word, which Patrick immediately rescinded. As Franck pointed out on more than one occasion, Patrick is a true gentleman. Speaking of Franck, let's get back to the main thing - LADYBOYS!!!!

Thanks for the kind words Macman. I understand the whole gun thing is a contentious issue for you all. I also understand where ex Pat is coming from. But any situation that prompts people to feel the need to go around their own home town wearing body armour....?

You're welcome, Patrick. Umm, I think Ex Pat was joking about the body armour (I switched to the English/Aussie way of spelling that word just for you, mate. We Yanks usually go with "armor".) Very Happy

Macman

Bloody Hell, I thought it was you lot that didn't get irony and subtle humour Rolling Eyes

Funny thing about the difference in American English and Engish english, whenever I hear a Brit or Aussie complaining that the Ameriacans mangle the written word, I love tou point out that the american spelling of color,program, armor etc is actually old engish. Our spellings colour programme,armour are actually affectations from the French.

Patrick - did you do that "tou" on purpose or was it a typo? I suspect it was on purpose. If sou , very, very goode. The spelling difference that always throws me for a loop when I see it is the "s" versus "z". We use the "ize" a lot, but I notice that the Brit/Aussie spelling is often "ise".