VT gets hit by a loon

[mkloby]

Amazing... simply amazing...

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

This school killing just disturbs a bit, and my reasoning is probably a bit poor.

I think that was the only thing you said that made any goddamn sense.

[Erich]

the twirp was troubled and upon his OWN initiative he went prowling after women, made bomb threats and then created a suicidal environment for himself after he reaped carnage on innocents..........what a poor fool

[Matt308]

And the "gun owner" had been committed in 2005 for some mental disorder. This a series of tragedies that has culminated in too many innocent deaths.

[FLYBOYJ]

This guy was a time bomb and even if he didn't have access to a firearm he would of killed eventually....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

Soldiers are trained to control themselves out of uniform, and are also trained to not target noncombatents. A soldier is also trained to never, never harm his fellow countrymen, for above all things his job is to protect them.

But what about the enemy civillians? Isn't the obligation and affection to them much less as a soldier?

Not trying to slam soldiers or military personnel, but in uniform, in a warzone, if a soldier was told to attack a university in Baghadad, NOT a university in the United States, would his training allow or help him to do it? Would his soldier mentality, trained to kill with nerves under control, give him more resolve? Would remorse play a factor?

I'm not a soldier so I don't know. But I know soldiers are ideally taught to kill with out constraint to themselves, only to orders.

No in todays military we are encouraged to think about our actions. Yes we are to allways obey orders but if the order is not morally just you have every right to object to it. You will have to answer for it, but if you are right in your morals you have nothing to fear for questioning that order.

The orders to kills civilians or attack civilian establishments just does not fly.

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch

And that soldiers under battle stress of ALL countries have been more likely than a civilian to kill ENEMY civilians en mass, and it has happened.

Yes it happens but as a whole the majority of Soldiers (atleast in our army) do not stand for this. I know I would have stopped my fellow soldiers from doing so, but then again I did not serve with anyone that would have allowed something like this to happen.

[Matt308]

And that's what separates us from the majority of the world. Hell, we conquer, leave and those defeated become world powers.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

Soldiers are trained to control themselves out of uniform, and are also trained to not target noncombatents. A soldier is also trained to never, never harm his fellow countrymen, for above all things his job is to protect them.

But what about the enemy civillians? Isn't the obligation and affection to them much less as a soldier?

Not trying to slam soldiers or military personnel, but in uniform, in a warzone, if a soldier was told to attack a university in Baghadad, NOT a university in the United States, would his training allow or help him to do it? Would his soldier mentality, trained to kill with nerves under control, give him more resolve? Would remorse play a factor?

I'm not a soldier so I don't know. But I know soldiers are ideally taught to kill with out constraint to themselves, only to orders.

And that soldiers under battle stress of ALL countries have been more likely than a civilian to kill ENEMY civilians en mass, and it has happened.

I think that's a little bit of a ridiculous post... As Adler said, if an officer gives an order to target civilians, you're OBLIGATED to object, and if not rescinded, to no follow it! I can't just order Marines to kill civilians. US servicemen are not "ideally taught to kill without constraint to themselves, only to orders." That's just false. I'm actually amazed that you could think that.

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by mkloby

I'm actually amazed that you could think that.

You are entirely too polite.

[Glider]

Gun control doesn't have to be about banning them or stopping people from owning them does it?
Can I ask if you would be against a law that said that each gun had to have its unique gun markings (bullet traces) logged in a database so that weapons used illegally would be easily identified? Or would you be against the fitting of locks on most weapons so that the number of accidents could be reduced?

Banning wouldn't work even if the authorities wanted them to as there are so many in circulation, the genie once out of the bottle, wouldn't go back in no matter how they try.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Glider

Gun control doesn't have to be about banning them or stopping people from owning them does it?

It doesn't but there are many here who would want it that way for political purposes.

Originally Posted by Glider

Can I ask if you would be against a law that said that each gun had to have its unique gun markings (bullet traces) logged in a database so that weapons used illegally would be easily identified? Or would you be against the fitting of locks on most weapons so that the number of accidents could be reduced?

Some States require locks - mine are except for one. As long as the data base cannot be used to consficate from law abiding citizens.

Originally Posted by Glider

Banning wouldn't work even if the authorities wanted them to as there are so many in circulation, the genie once out of the bottle, wouldn't go back in no matter how they try.

And in the US its been that way for 231 years.

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Glider

Gun control doesn't have to be about banning them or stopping people from owning them does it?
Can I ask if you would be against a law that said that each gun had to have its unique gun markings (bullet traces) logged in a database so that weapons used illegally would be easily identified? Or would you be against the fitting of locks on most weapons so that the number of accidents could be reduced?

Banning wouldn't work even if the authorities wanted them to as there are so many in circulation, the genie once out of the bottle, wouldn't go back in no matter how they try.

Both of those are either state laws or voluntarily enacted. Next.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I think that was the only thing you said that made any goddamn sense.


Yeah, I suppose I sounded like a pacifist or something. Killing instinct in humans probably stems from the survival instinct, but manifests itself in many differant ways, some horrid and some just and some just plain self defence. Saying that just the natural human instinct to kill is the same thing, when it's not. It's governed by the codes and morals in your life.

You are right Adler, of course. If the Military rules you are fighting under are just and protecting the innocent, you have no fear in rejecting violence to non-combatants.

I don't think those in the armed forces are serial killers or gun criminals. I think the military has some of the toughest and sacrificial guys in this country, and that they are serving something outside themselves, their home and country.

I probably would have liked the average Nazi Wehrmacht soldier better than these school killers, regardless of the mad cause they were serving.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I still dont get what you were trying to compare the two for though. It made no sense to me.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Killing instinct.

But humans aren't animals, I realize that and much more complex in our actions.

We reason and can justly or unjustly ration out death to other men.