Yeah the church one is because they wouldn't let him stay the night.
I think a lot of the shootings are because of the medias attention and the gangsta life being glorified in music, tv, movies, video games. While some people are able to realize that this type of life is totally pointless and will end in your own death a death of a loved one or life in prison some kids and adults still can't find their own identity or get away from this type of lifestyle.
The mall shooting, the church shooting are probably a case of a very unstable person having access to a firearm that shouldn't.
People want this stuff to stop but how can you stop an unstable person if you don't know they are unstable. These are random acts and while there may be some signs that something might happen they are almost impossible to prevent.
Thing is you can't blame it on the guns. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer didn't use guns and look at all that crazyness and the number of people they killed. If someone loses touch with reality and just doesn't care any longer then it doesn't matter if they have an assault rifle, butcher knife, car, bomb or a rope they can cause enough tragedy before they are stopped.
[ QUOTE ]
Thing is you can't blame it on the guns. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer didn't use guns and look at all that crazyness and the number of people they killed. If someone loses touch with reality and just doesn't care any longer then it doesn't matter if they have an assault rifle, butcher knife, car, bomb or a rope they can cause enough tragedy before they are stopped.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer were serial killers, which is very different from a spree killer. The psychology behind them is very different, and if a potential spree killer doesn't have access to a firearm (which is what enables killing sprees), they are not going to suddenly turn into a serial killer. It just doesn't work like that.
That's why you don't often hear about killing sprees in countries where firearms are completely banned (i.e. Japan, UK, etc.). Firearms are pretty much the only weapons that are conducive to killing sprees, because knifes, cars, rope and even bombs don't allow for the same kind of spontaneity as with guns.
And no one is blaming the guns, we blame the killers. Just like I don't blame the Plutonium for vaporizing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but that doesn't mean I have to condone the use of nuclear weapons.
I want to live in Jesse's ideal world. Where there are no gangster rappers or violent video games. And I can legally purchase tactical nuclear warheads, as long as I pass a psych exam that says I'm not psychopathic. Since the destructive potential of different weapons is irrelevant...
I knew there would be some flame messages. My point wasn't that these guys are serial killers. My point is people will kill other people no matter what. Yeah a spree killers weapon of choice is a gun because that is the most effective device that is obtainable.
Now you are bringing in the morality of the US using the atomic bomb in WW2. Well it saved lives of Allied soldiers and it ended the Pacific War that is why it was done.
It's kinda funny that everyone that is from a foreign country has these opinions about America. How many of you have actually been and lived here for some time?
I have been all over the world and have seen what it is like in other countries and I'm glad I have that freedom to purchase a firearm if I so desire.
A country takes the civilians right to bear arms away to control it's people. Don't misunderstand that. Without guns you can't overthrow your government if it came to that or protect yourself from your government if so desired.
I don't have an ideal world. I listen to gangster rap and play violent video games. Hell I make them for gods sake.
I just think the whole guns need to be banned. People need god in their lives to save them talks is a little horseshit.
wait, pretty much *everyone*, american or not, agrees that the atomic bombs were overkill. At the very least, the second one -- we knew what they could do, and we hit civilian targets. It wasn't just saving lives, it was making a statement, and showing utter disregard for human life in general.
First of all, my post wasn't even close to being a flame. Second, you completely missed my point for bringing up Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I really don't care about anyone's opinion on dropping the atom bomb... I wasn't trying to start another debate, I was only demonstrating that your "don't blame the guns" argument is completely asinine.
No one here is blaming the guns for the murders, just like no one blames Plutonium for the deaths in Nagasaki or Hiroshima. The "don't blame the guns" argument is a straw man argument that suggests we are trying to shift the blame from the murderers themselves to an inanimate object (the guns), which is bullshit. Get it now? Just because a person advocates banning firearms DOES NOT mean that they are trying to shift the blame to the guns. It's an insulting argument... as if anyone here is a big enough fucking moron to mistake a block of cold steel for a sentient being that makes decisions.
And for the record, I was born in the US and have lived here my entire life, and same goes for my father, and his father, and his father before him, and so on for at least a century and a half.
Ok I am guilty of this too but this whole thread has gone way off it's original topic and onto something else. I guess more of violence in America or the rest of the world.
I'm not on here to piss people off or call anyone out. So if anyone takes it that way take it with a grain of salt and by know you should all know that I say basically what I am thinking or what I believe. It's not the right way at all times but I'm open to being wrong and making changes.
Keyser I wasn't really saying you were blaming the guns or even anyone else here. I'm referring to what I read in the news and hear on the radio. Maybe I should have mentioned that.
And for the mention of people that don't live in the US and have never been here well then I guess that doesn't apply to you now does it good sir.
I'm not gonna sit here and talk compare Europe or Russia to the US because I have never personally been there.
I will agree that gun violence and murders that stem from heated arguments that escalate into another person laying on the sidewalk with bullets filling up his body is completely out of hand and I wish we could find a way to prevent it.
There are many reasons people kill or feel the need to kill someone. Some people grow up around that sort of thing like gangs and this incident in the mall was just a kid that had some real issues and needed help and didn't look for it and decided he wanted to be known for the rest of eternity as a person that killed 8 innocent people while they were at work or shopping and then took his own life.
What about the people that are infected with HIV that know they are infected having unprotected sex with someone that doesn't know. Isn't that the same as sticking a gun to someones head? Sure it's not an instant death but living the rest of your life with a disease that will someday kill you. Now that would be pretty damn bad.
Guns are easy to come by. Maybe too easy from all these examples of people that have used them to take innocent lives.
Is the answer to take them all away? Is the answer to let everyone have one? While I don't think either one of those is a good idea. Who does know the right answer?
Another thing is we can't really compare countries to each other because each one is different in so many ways. Whether it be economic, racial, religion, government, etc there are too many things different from each country to the next to make a fair assessment.
Hell comparing Compton, California to say Miami, Florida is a total different story. While both are in the US they are both so completely different in terms of violence and what happens in the cities.
There are so many murders in Compton or the surrounding areas that don't make the news everyday. Why? Because they aren't happening in middle - upper class America and because of their race. So that makes them not news worthy. Sad isn't it.
[ QUOTE ]
wait, pretty much *everyone*, american or not, agrees that the atomic bombs were overkill. At the very least, the second one -- we knew what they could do, and we hit civilian targets. It wasn't just saving lives, it was making a statement, and showing utter disregard for human life in general.
No personal disrespect intended Jesse, I did however mean to take a shot at your statement about crazies, their weapons of choice and who's to blame.
Like I stated in an earlier post, I think blame falls entirely on the guy who pulls the trigger. Although in this case, America's current gun laws may have been the reason there were 8 victims, rather than less, or none at all. Of course there will always be nutters like this guy, that doesn't mean people should just accept the current situation and turn a blind eye to laws that that make it easier for them to do greater harm to others.
I don't pretend to know what's best for everyone and how they should run their countries. But if a kid who works in McDonald's could legally buy and AK in Australia, I'd be concerned about that.
And the whole overthrowing the government thing? Fine, but Bush has been in power for nearly 8 years and I'm still waiting for someone to take a shot at him! What's taking so long?
[ QUOTE ]
Japan started it!
[/ QUOTE ]
Haha! I'd love to see some up-tight military/government type look straight into a camera and say that in a WWII doccumentary.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wait, pretty much *everyone*, American or not, agrees that the atomic bombs were overkill. At the very least, the second one -- we knew what they could do, and we hit civilian targets. It wasn't just saving lives, it was making a statement, and showing utter disregard for human life in general.
[/ QUOTE ]
Japan started it!
[/ QUOTE ]
I love how Japan showed so much compassion for its enemy and its own people.
- The Bataan death march, people being executed if they tried to help someone who fell. Almost half of the 90,000 POW's died. The only reason they where moved was to weed out the herd.
- Pearl Harbor, America is the only navy that stands in the way of our lil land grab. We are not at war with them and they more than likely won't do shit to us, but lets fuck em up anyway.
- The Massacare and rape of Nanjing
- The use of suicide pilots. We don't have time or respect enough to train you to fly properly so just dive at the big metal thing if you can, oh and by the way here's a pamphlet to help you feel better about it.
- The idea that they would have used civilians as cannon fodder if japan was invaded, which was the only way they where going let the war end. The Japanese propaganda machine was in full swing The loss of civilian life on the Japanese side would have been less if we invaded, but it would have been a blood bath on both sides. Lets face it America was running long on a war and low on patients especially after dealing with the Japanese high command which just didn't understand when to stop. It would have been a long and bloody fight if we hadn't dropped fat man and little boy, with MANY Japanese civilians being tossed into the American meat grinder by their own government.
The goal, bring a quick end to the war, shock the entrenched delusional Japanese high command into surrender, and do it by expending as few American lives as possible. It was as much compassion as America could afford at the time. It was given careful thought and not done flippantly with that "YEEHA blow shit up American attitude" everyone thinks. It's fun a great to criticize the US when you don't have to make the tough calls or sign the death warrants of your own troops. It's fine to sit 60 years in the future and wonder why America didn't drag out the war and waste its military personnel just so some euro-dick that hates the US wouldn't have a reason to complain. We totally should have slaughtered ourselves on the shores of Japan being forced to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians that would be forced into the fight by their leaders, just to be humane to an inhumane enemy.
People fail to put themselves back in the proper frame of mind when reviewing history. They often think of the bombings as if the US just up and bombed them in todays world, for no real reason. Honestly if Japan had surrendered earlier it would have never happened. As it was it took them 6 days to surrender after the last A-Bomb fell. They came to the conclusion that surrender was the only option, long after they had nearly been blown off the planet, and tried to formulate a way to keep on fighting which included tossing more Japanese civilians at American soldiers. We came to the conclusion to drop the bombs long after we considered every last alternative. At the time it was the only way to snap a delusional high command into realizing it had been defeated without throwing our men and women on the tip of the spear. Which we where geared up to do, by the way.
I honestly don't understand why people assume what is good for them is good for everyone else and they must impose their will on everyone, American politicians included. America's a big boy let it take care of itself even if you think thats a mistake. I have strong feelings about outside sources trying to "fix things" when they know nothing about the problem, again American politicians included. I don't pretend to know the ins and out of a culture I know very little about and assume I can come up with the right answers to all of its ills with a one sentence answer. Thats just blind arrogance that leads to failure.
I appreciate your concern, but kindly butt out and let us handle our own problems. We'll let you know when we need your help. Applying your stereotypical views and candy land ideals won't help.
Besides if it does make a huge mistake that ends up slaughtering millions of Americans a few sprees at a time. Thats less nut jobs for you to laugh at, its a win in everyones eyes?
Who needs more crazy gun/bible toting inbreds right? Just hang out in your utopia and wait for America to eat itself.
[ QUOTE ]
The goal, bring a quick end to the war, shock the entrenched delusional Japanese high command into surrender, and do it by expending as few American lives as possible. It was as much compassion as America could afford at the time.
[...]
Honestly if Japan had surrendered earlier it would have never happened.
[...]
We came to the conclusion to drop the bombs long after we considered every last alternative.
[/ QUOTE ]
Japan was suing for peace that entire summer. They had offered to surrender status quo ante bellum (they wanted the Emperor to retain some power in their government, which is why they refused to surrender unconditionally). Dropping the bomb served to win a diplomatic victory in that it kept the Soviet Union out of the peace settlement, and it was a demonstration of our nuclear capability to Stalin -- who we were growing more and more uneasy with as the war neared an end -- but it was far from the most compassionate thing we could afford to do... far from it.
The difference between dropping the bombs and not dropping the bombs is only the difference between an unconditional surrender and a surrender status quo ante bellum. It was not the "last alternative," as you put it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The goal, bring a quick end to the war, shock the entrenched delusional Japanese high command into surrender, and do it by expending as few American lives as possible. It was as much compassion as America could afford at the time.
[...]
Honestly if Japan had surrendered earlier it would have never happened.
[...]
We came to the conclusion to drop the bombs long after we considered every last alternative.
[/ QUOTE ]
Japan was suing for peace that entire summer. They had offered to surrender status quo ante bellum (they wanted the Emperor to retain some power in their government, which is why they refused to surrender unconditionally). Dropping the bomb served to win a diplomatic victory in that it kept the Soviet Union out of the peace settlement, and it was a demonstration of our nuclear capability to Stalin -- who we were growing more and more uneasy with as the war neared an end -- but it was far from the most compassionate thing we could afford to do... far from it.
The difference between dropping the bombs and not dropping the bombs is only the difference between an unconditional surrender and a surrender status quo ante bellum. It was not the "last alternative," as you put it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your simplifying this way to much keyser. The japanese did not want peace all summer. Shit man they were training civilians to commit suicide telling them Americans were cannibals and would eat them if captured. There was a big thing this summer on Okinawa where the government was banning the telling of this truth in history class. Surrender was not an option to them.
The dropping of the bomb was not compassionate and I would argue with anyone that said it was. It was numbers man. We all would have lost more people in a traditional conflict.
--- edit ---
Strange this topic turned into a discussion of the most violent weapon in our history. I guess it's in our nature to escalate things.
oh and I simplified it to much to Keyser. Would take a seperate thread and hours to really wade through a discussion on this one.
Now we are on a subject that is actually interesting, woot for derailing!
[ QUOTE ]
but it was far from the most compassionate thing we could afford to do... far from it
[/ QUOTE ]
The compassion I talk about was mostly for our own troops to whom we didn't wish to slaughter by the millions.
If a blood thirsty spree killer has a snake bite and the only way to save his life is to cut off a limb, I'm not going to cut mine off also just so someone 60 years in the future will look back on my sacrifice and say "wow what a compassionate guy". He has the problem, hes loosing the limb, especially when he was the idiot shaking the snake by the tail.
We also didn't wish for our troops to have to fight civilians. Depending on how much the Japanese public defended its home. Estimates of civilian casualties ran between 5 million to 10 million IF we invaded. Yes we would have won, but it would have been a horrific battle for both sides. So we took the humane approach, for the sake of our own people, not theirs. It wasn't a mercy bombing for Japan, no one really thought they deserved mercy. It was the end to the war that everyone desperately needed. The Japan you know today is not the same Japan America had to fight back then. PLEASE understand that. The decision came down to a horrific loss of life was going to take place one way or the other. The people that could avoid it (Japan) weren't going to. It can be on both sides or it can be on the enemy side.
We considered the alternatives and for years they planned for an invasion of Japan. Thats right America was ready to suffer the losses if Japan didn't back down, and they weren't going to back down, the military leadership wouldn't let it. That was the plan to end the war, slaughter ourselves to end the war. Japan had a fantastic propaganda campaign going and it worked so well they had every man, women and child ready to fight. Everyone was expected to make due with what they had. Children where forced into factories, anyone between the age of 15-60 was expected to pick up whatever they had, often just a spear, and fight.
Japans brutality and delusional leadership actually made it possible for the US to green light the bombs.
Read up on the subject, read accounts from both sides. It was horrific yes, it should never be used again. And hopefully no one will ever have to fight such a fanatical, delusional populace again.
You suggest I read up on the subject, but you're the one who seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that the Japanese were trying to mediate a peace agreement through the Soviets. You guys have said that "surrender wasn't an option for them," which isn't quite accurate. Unconditional surrender wasn't an option for them, but they knew they couldn't win, so they were suing for peace in an attempt to end the war with an agreement that would keep their imperial system of government intact.
You make the argument that the Japanese leadership were so brutal and uncompassionate that they were willing to sacrifice millions of their own civilians (which is true), but then you turn around and claim that the deaths of 200,000 civilians is what convinced them to surrender? That doesn't seem to make much sense. Suddenly they care about the wellbeing of their own citizens? We had been firebombing them for several months prior to dropping the big one... we bombed the shit out of 67 major cities with napalm and killed around half a million civilians -- in total, more than double the damage that was caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
What really convinced the Japanese to surrender is when the Soviet Union broke their neutrality pact, and finally declared war on Japan, because this ended Japan's hope of a peace agreement that would allow them to keep their system of government. The atomic bombs surely contributed to the surrender, but they were far from an "only option" or a "last resort" as so many people would like to believe. In regards to the firebombing, General Curtis LeMay said himself that if we had lost the war, he would have been tried for war crimes.
The point Truman made and a major reason why the bomb was dropped was to save allied lives. In war you are not concerned with the loss of your enemies lives. Japan waged war on the US first and the battles of Iwo Jima and other pacific battles were way too costly on American soldiers and to invade Japan it would easily cost a million of our own soldiers and an estimated 500,000 british soldiers. To keep up a fight that we didn't want to keep up.
Japan didn't surrender after all the conventional bombs were dropped and didn't want to give up what they had.
So the order to drop the bomb was given. Was it the right thing? At the time I believe it was. It was done to save the lives of American and British troops.
The Japanese could have surrendered long before we dropped the bomb but they did not and they were willing to sacrifice their own people if a land war was to happen.
Think of it this way. If someone where to invade the USA how hard do you think our people would fight to keep our country? I would pick up a rifle again to protect my country. The Japanese all had that same belief and would fight to the death to keep their land.
The civilian leaders where trying to pursue peace, while the military leadership, the actual ruling power in the Empire wasn't going to stop unless it was left in a status that it could some day relaunch its plans to expand. It kind of takes the teeth out of your peace deal if you can't actually order the military to cease operations. The imbalance of military power in the Empire is what lead them to war in the first place. Bad things happened to the people who tried to stop the military in the years leading up to the war.
You don't let someone stab you and then put them in "time out" and let them keep their knife. The type of cease fire Japan's military wanted was just that.
Half a million Japanese citizens died in the fire bombing raids, over a period of several months. It is easier to digest smaller numbers of casualties over a long period of time. But watching two complete cities, population and all evaporate in the blink of an eye was something new and not so easy to work around. They didn't know if we had more bombs like that, they didn't know when and if we where going to continue that kind of bombing. Their choices quickly went from, surrender for now and rebuild (which wasn't actually on the table), to surrender or be destroyed.
"we bombed the shit out of 67 major cities with napalm and killed around half a million civilians -- in total, more than double the damage that was caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Exactly and they didn't surrender. The causality estimates on both sides where in the millions if the allied forced did go ahead with the plans to invade by sea which was the only other option.
[ QUOTE ]
It is easier to digest smaller numbers of casualties over a long period of time.
[/ QUOTE ]
When we firebombed Tokyo in March (nearly half a year before we dropped the atomic bombs), we killed approximately 100,000 civilians in a single night. That's 20,000 more than were killed by Fat Man being dropped on Nagasaki (and that's if you count the residual deaths caused by exposure to radiation, around half of which occurred months and years later).
And they surrendered when? After two cities ceased to exist. It goes to prove that they didn't give two craps about their own people dying. They where going to keep going until something forced them to stop. The sudden realization that your entire country could be nothing more then a char mark was what it finally took.
If the US hadn't bombed, we would remember the bloody invasion and the senseless slaughter the Empire forced its people to endure. Either way it was going to be a big horrific nightmare of an end. The people who could put a stop to it (Japan's military leadership) didn't. It continued to rack up huge numbers of civilian casualties while it delayed and tried to get a cease fire that would let it rebuild and relaunch. Only until it was threatened with utter annihilation was it forced to surrender.
They surrendered only after the Soviet Union declared war on them and began to invade Manchuria, because that ended their last hope of coming to a peace agreement that would allow them to keep their imperial system of government. They had a neutrality pact with the Soviets, and they hoped they could use the Soviets to mediate a peace settlement. So when the Soviets broke that pact, they had no choice but to finally accept the unconditional surrender.
[ QUOTE ]
The sudden realization that your entire country could be nothing more then a char mark was what it finally took.
[/ QUOTE ]
Their country already was a char mark. We completely destroyed 67 of their major cities before we ever dropped the atomic bombs. Imagine cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Dallas, Houston and so on being turned into 75% rubble. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was really nothing new, it was just a more efficient way of doing something that we had been doing for the previous 6 months.
[ QUOTE ]
Their country already was a char mark. We completely destroyed 67 of their major cities before we ever dropped the atomic bombs. Imagine cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Dallas, Houston and so on being turned into 75% rubble. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was really nothing new, it was just a more efficient way of doing something that we had been doing for the previous 6 months.
[/ QUOTE ]
But the point is is that they wouldn't surrender even after all the fire bombing. We weren't going to lose 2 million soldiers because of an enemy that refused to surrender despite it's civilian and military casualties.
Yes the pact with Russia aided in their decision but it was not the reason they quit. Hell some of their military leaders still wanted to fight and never give up and many committed suicide because they felt as if their honor was shamed.
How many a-bombs have been dropped since though? Hasn't it in a way saved lives? When was the last war where losses ranged in the 5 million area? The a-bomb changed war fare forever.
It was a tragic thing but Japan joined Germany in this War and to me that puts them in the bad guy list. Was the bomb a revenge for Pearl Harbor? Possibly.
This debate can go on forever and I'm glad we have been rather mature about it without people flaming each other.
[ QUOTE ] Unconditional surrender wasn't an option for them, but they knew they couldn't win, so they were suing for peace in an attempt to end the war with an agreement that would keep their imperial system of government intact.
[/ QUOTE ]
In general, I agree with your POV, but here's where I get off the bus. When I made the "Japan started it" comment, I was mostly being funny. However... when a nation chooses to start a war, when it launches an unprovoked attack on other countries, taking millions of lives, it forfeits the right to negotiate it's own surrender. As an American in 1945, I would particularly have had a problem with this. You declare war on my country, you kill my people and then when you know you are going to lose, you try to set your own favorable terms in defeat? Fuck you, here's an atomic bomb. You still insist on debating a way out of this to your liking, even after we've proven we can and will destroy you? Fuck you, here's another atomic bomb. Ah, now you'll comply with the entirely just requirements of the Potsdam Declaration? Good idea, we'll treat you with respect and dignity, unlike the millions of Chinese you slaughtered when you conquered them.
I don't think that two wrongs make a right, but I also don't think that the Japanese have a leg to stand on. They knew in the spring of 1945 that they couldn't win the war, and they still hoped for one last demoralizing American defeat so that they could withdraw on more favorable terms. That's right, they knew they were going to lose but still wanted to kill a bunch of Americans on the way out, just in order to get a better deal. If the Allies had offered harsh terms to Japan, something that would have broken the country, that would have been one thing, but the Potsdam Declaration was a very fair treatment of a foe, and it held only those who were responsible for the war to account for their actions. That the Japanese still tried to decline those terms... you reap what you sow.
The most common argument I hear against the atomic bombs was the massive loss of civilian life. The people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't soldiers, they were civilians, that's true. You know who I never got to meet? My grandfather's brother. To this day, my grandfather still talks of him, of things they did together as children, of growing up on the farm, of the last time they saw each other. My great uncle was killed in World War II. You know what he was before he was drafted, against his wishes, to defend America from the Japanese? He was a civilian.
Being required to put on a uniform and stand a post doesn't make his death any more acceptable than those that died in the atomic bombings. All war is tragic; don't start wars.
keyser, you cant win, there is no bomb for sanity. there is no room for argumentation left, when you hit on deaf ears. fixed positions just like in the trenches. Some of us will value the life of a human, friend or foe, higher than the "chance" of being on the "right" side. And it would probably need the full world to be in ashes first, until people start to realize that there is always only just losers.
dont take the lack of "sanity", as too much of a flame here, but I think the lack of experience in US history to have high civilian losses in wars, to have your cities and environment shaped by war, and have ruins of it scattered visible everywhere, will often lead to this argumentation/stances even on things like gun control. It's more a traditional/historic thing, than of "reason" in my euro-trash opinion And eventhough it will always remain a problem between nations, I hope not many have to join the club of total devasted cities and people. As long as war = send troops somewhere else, it remains abstract. I am glad Europe with its bloody history manages a record with every year there is no war on this continent, although I wished it wouldnt have taken so many atrocities before to come to this conclusion. And with Kosovo and alike we see how fragile things are. Once the generation who survived dies, and history becomes less prominent and "abstracted" thru tv shows and such again, it will mean (and already does) that everyone is challenged to prevent conflicts. As good as it was that people took up the fight and defeated the "bad", the message of many games and shows about the "heroic grandfather", remains to keep a questionable myth about war = place for heroes, while war is like no option, but the failing of all sanity before. And now I drifted completely off-topic
On topic, the swiss often have great arguments about whether they should take the SIG away from their reserves or not. While mostly a high rate of gun-usage in suicides is the reason here, yes even a person who tries to commit suicide is worthy to be rescued. And yes you are more likely to pull the trigger in affect, than do it in another way. Simply as it is more simple, and we humans are very emotional beings acting impulsively.
[ QUOTE ]
However... when a nation chooses to start a war, when it launches an unprovoked attack on other countries, taking millions of lives, it forfeits the right to negotiate it's own surrender.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a sentiment that I can understand, but it's far from what some people like to claim. The problem I have is people who say we were forced to drop the bombs, as if we had no other choice. It wasn't the only way to end the war.
I also think you make a great point with your grandfather's brother. The only difference between a civilian and a soldier is a uniform, which isn't much of a difference at all. Sometimes we forget. But I still think there's something to be said about a government intentionally picking civilian targets (which include women and children) and aiming for the maximum possible damage. When people do it to us, we call it terrorism, but when we do it to others on a much more massive scale, we seem so quick to justify it and sometimes even glorify it.
Replies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij3ymiDWhdM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings
Deaths are nothing new, but damn it seems like there a lot of nuts shooting up shit in the last few years.
I think a lot of the shootings are because of the medias attention and the gangsta life being glorified in music, tv, movies, video games. While some people are able to realize that this type of life is totally pointless and will end in your own death a death of a loved one or life in prison some kids and adults still can't find their own identity or get away from this type of lifestyle.
The mall shooting, the church shooting are probably a case of a very unstable person having access to a firearm that shouldn't.
People want this stuff to stop but how can you stop an unstable person if you don't know they are unstable. These are random acts and while there may be some signs that something might happen they are almost impossible to prevent.
Thing is you can't blame it on the guns. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer didn't use guns and look at all that crazyness and the number of people they killed. If someone loses touch with reality and just doesn't care any longer then it doesn't matter if they have an assault rifle, butcher knife, car, bomb or a rope they can cause enough tragedy before they are stopped.
Thing is you can't blame it on the guns. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer didn't use guns and look at all that crazyness and the number of people they killed. If someone loses touch with reality and just doesn't care any longer then it doesn't matter if they have an assault rifle, butcher knife, car, bomb or a rope they can cause enough tragedy before they are stopped.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer were serial killers, which is very different from a spree killer. The psychology behind them is very different, and if a potential spree killer doesn't have access to a firearm (which is what enables killing sprees), they are not going to suddenly turn into a serial killer. It just doesn't work like that.
That's why you don't often hear about killing sprees in countries where firearms are completely banned (i.e. Japan, UK, etc.). Firearms are pretty much the only weapons that are conducive to killing sprees, because knifes, cars, rope and even bombs don't allow for the same kind of spontaneity as with guns.
And no one is blaming the guns, we blame the killers. Just like I don't blame the Plutonium for vaporizing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but that doesn't mean I have to condone the use of nuclear weapons.
Now you are bringing in the morality of the US using the atomic bomb in WW2. Well it saved lives of Allied soldiers and it ended the Pacific War that is why it was done.
It's kinda funny that everyone that is from a foreign country has these opinions about America. How many of you have actually been and lived here for some time?
I have been all over the world and have seen what it is like in other countries and I'm glad I have that freedom to purchase a firearm if I so desire.
A country takes the civilians right to bear arms away to control it's people. Don't misunderstand that. Without guns you can't overthrow your government if it came to that or protect yourself from your government if so desired.
I don't have an ideal world. I listen to gangster rap and play violent video games. Hell I make them for gods sake.
I just think the whole guns need to be banned. People need god in their lives to save them talks is a little horseshit.
Like Johnny Storm says.... FLAME ON...
No one here is blaming the guns for the murders, just like no one blames Plutonium for the deaths in Nagasaki or Hiroshima. The "don't blame the guns" argument is a straw man argument that suggests we are trying to shift the blame from the murderers themselves to an inanimate object (the guns), which is bullshit. Get it now? Just because a person advocates banning firearms DOES NOT mean that they are trying to shift the blame to the guns. It's an insulting argument... as if anyone here is a big enough fucking moron to mistake a block of cold steel for a sentient being that makes decisions.
And for the record, I was born in the US and have lived here my entire life, and same goes for my father, and his father, and his father before him, and so on for at least a century and a half.
I'm not on here to piss people off or call anyone out. So if anyone takes it that way take it with a grain of salt and by know you should all know that I say basically what I am thinking or what I believe. It's not the right way at all times but I'm open to being wrong and making changes.
Keyser I wasn't really saying you were blaming the guns or even anyone else here. I'm referring to what I read in the news and hear on the radio. Maybe I should have mentioned that.
And for the mention of people that don't live in the US and have never been here well then I guess that doesn't apply to you now does it good sir.
I'm not gonna sit here and talk compare Europe or Russia to the US because I have never personally been there.
I will agree that gun violence and murders that stem from heated arguments that escalate into another person laying on the sidewalk with bullets filling up his body is completely out of hand and I wish we could find a way to prevent it.
There are many reasons people kill or feel the need to kill someone. Some people grow up around that sort of thing like gangs and this incident in the mall was just a kid that had some real issues and needed help and didn't look for it and decided he wanted to be known for the rest of eternity as a person that killed 8 innocent people while they were at work or shopping and then took his own life.
What about the people that are infected with HIV that know they are infected having unprotected sex with someone that doesn't know. Isn't that the same as sticking a gun to someones head? Sure it's not an instant death but living the rest of your life with a disease that will someday kill you. Now that would be pretty damn bad.
Guns are easy to come by. Maybe too easy from all these examples of people that have used them to take innocent lives.
Is the answer to take them all away? Is the answer to let everyone have one? While I don't think either one of those is a good idea. Who does know the right answer?
Another thing is we can't really compare countries to each other because each one is different in so many ways. Whether it be economic, racial, religion, government, etc there are too many things different from each country to the next to make a fair assessment.
Hell comparing Compton, California to say Miami, Florida is a total different story. While both are in the US they are both so completely different in terms of violence and what happens in the cities.
There are so many murders in Compton or the surrounding areas that don't make the news everyday. Why? Because they aren't happening in middle - upper class America and because of their race. So that makes them not news worthy. Sad isn't it.
wait, pretty much *everyone*, american or not, agrees that the atomic bombs were overkill. At the very least, the second one -- we knew what they could do, and we hit civilian targets. It wasn't just saving lives, it was making a statement, and showing utter disregard for human life in general.
[/ QUOTE ]
Japan started it!
Like I stated in an earlier post, I think blame falls entirely on the guy who pulls the trigger. Although in this case, America's current gun laws may have been the reason there were 8 victims, rather than less, or none at all. Of course there will always be nutters like this guy, that doesn't mean people should just accept the current situation and turn a blind eye to laws that that make it easier for them to do greater harm to others.
I don't pretend to know what's best for everyone and how they should run their countries. But if a kid who works in McDonald's could legally buy and AK in Australia, I'd be concerned about that.
And the whole overthrowing the government thing? Fine, but Bush has been in power for nearly 8 years and I'm still waiting for someone to take a shot at him! What's taking so long?
[ QUOTE ]
Japan started it!
[/ QUOTE ]
Haha! I'd love to see some up-tight military/government type look straight into a camera and say that in a WWII doccumentary.
Anyone remember? I know my dad keeps his guns locked up and only has the key on him so he trys to avoid stuff like that.
Yeah if some general looked right into a camera and said Japan started it I am pretty sure I would die of laughter.
I know my dad keeps his guns locked up
[/ QUOTE ]
well, that's something i suppose ...
[ QUOTE ]
wait, pretty much *everyone*, American or not, agrees that the atomic bombs were overkill. At the very least, the second one -- we knew what they could do, and we hit civilian targets. It wasn't just saving lives, it was making a statement, and showing utter disregard for human life in general.
[/ QUOTE ]
Japan started it!
[/ QUOTE ]
I love how Japan showed so much compassion for its enemy and its own people.
- The Bataan death march, people being executed if they tried to help someone who fell. Almost half of the 90,000 POW's died. The only reason they where moved was to weed out the herd.
- Pearl Harbor, America is the only navy that stands in the way of our lil land grab. We are not at war with them and they more than likely won't do shit to us, but lets fuck em up anyway.
- The Massacare and rape of Nanjing
- The use of suicide pilots. We don't have time or respect enough to train you to fly properly so just dive at the big metal thing if you can, oh and by the way here's a pamphlet to help you feel better about it.
- The idea that they would have used civilians as cannon fodder if japan was invaded, which was the only way they where going let the war end. The Japanese propaganda machine was in full swing The loss of civilian life on the Japanese side would have been less if we invaded, but it would have been a blood bath on both sides. Lets face it America was running long on a war and low on patients especially after dealing with the Japanese high command which just didn't understand when to stop. It would have been a long and bloody fight if we hadn't dropped fat man and little boy, with MANY Japanese civilians being tossed into the American meat grinder by their own government.
The goal, bring a quick end to the war, shock the entrenched delusional Japanese high command into surrender, and do it by expending as few American lives as possible. It was as much compassion as America could afford at the time. It was given careful thought and not done flippantly with that "YEEHA blow shit up American attitude" everyone thinks. It's fun a great to criticize the US when you don't have to make the tough calls or sign the death warrants of your own troops. It's fine to sit 60 years in the future and wonder why America didn't drag out the war and waste its military personnel just so some euro-dick that hates the US wouldn't have a reason to complain. We totally should have slaughtered ourselves on the shores of Japan being forced to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians that would be forced into the fight by their leaders, just to be humane to an inhumane enemy.
People fail to put themselves back in the proper frame of mind when reviewing history. They often think of the bombings as if the US just up and bombed them in todays world, for no real reason. Honestly if Japan had surrendered earlier it would have never happened. As it was it took them 6 days to surrender after the last A-Bomb fell. They came to the conclusion that surrender was the only option, long after they had nearly been blown off the planet, and tried to formulate a way to keep on fighting which included tossing more Japanese civilians at American soldiers. We came to the conclusion to drop the bombs long after we considered every last alternative. At the time it was the only way to snap a delusional high command into realizing it had been defeated without throwing our men and women on the tip of the spear. Which we where geared up to do, by the way.
what the hell where we talking about?
I appreciate your concern, but kindly butt out and let us handle our own problems. We'll let you know when we need your help. Applying your stereotypical views and candy land ideals won't help.
Besides if it does make a huge mistake that ends up slaughtering millions of Americans a few sprees at a time. Thats less nut jobs for you to laugh at, its a win in everyones eyes?
Who needs more crazy gun/bible toting inbreds right? Just hang out in your utopia and wait for America to eat itself.
I appreciate your concern, but kindly butt out and let us handle our own problems
[/ QUOTE ]
If only our american government had that same opinion of other countries...
[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate your concern, but kindly butt out and let us handle our own problems
[/ QUOTE ]
If only our american government had that same opinion of other countries...
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed X 100.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate your concern, but kindly butt out and let us handle our own problems
[/ QUOTE ]
If only our american government had that same opinion of other countries...
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed X 100.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed again but that is why everyone hates Politicians.
I will say that someone will probably take a shot at Hillary if she becomes president.
heres the story: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/blogger.threat.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText
dude is in my class too but I dont know him.
Picked it up on DVD.
It definitely shed light on why those bombs were dropped. I think it was necessary but horrible.
The goal, bring a quick end to the war, shock the entrenched delusional Japanese high command into surrender, and do it by expending as few American lives as possible. It was as much compassion as America could afford at the time.
[...]
Honestly if Japan had surrendered earlier it would have never happened.
[...]
We came to the conclusion to drop the bombs long after we considered every last alternative.
[/ QUOTE ]
Japan was suing for peace that entire summer. They had offered to surrender status quo ante bellum (they wanted the Emperor to retain some power in their government, which is why they refused to surrender unconditionally). Dropping the bomb served to win a diplomatic victory in that it kept the Soviet Union out of the peace settlement, and it was a demonstration of our nuclear capability to Stalin -- who we were growing more and more uneasy with as the war neared an end -- but it was far from the most compassionate thing we could afford to do... far from it.
The difference between dropping the bombs and not dropping the bombs is only the difference between an unconditional surrender and a surrender status quo ante bellum. It was not the "last alternative," as you put it.
[ QUOTE ]
The goal, bring a quick end to the war, shock the entrenched delusional Japanese high command into surrender, and do it by expending as few American lives as possible. It was as much compassion as America could afford at the time.
[...]
Honestly if Japan had surrendered earlier it would have never happened.
[...]
We came to the conclusion to drop the bombs long after we considered every last alternative.
[/ QUOTE ]
Japan was suing for peace that entire summer. They had offered to surrender status quo ante bellum (they wanted the Emperor to retain some power in their government, which is why they refused to surrender unconditionally). Dropping the bomb served to win a diplomatic victory in that it kept the Soviet Union out of the peace settlement, and it was a demonstration of our nuclear capability to Stalin -- who we were growing more and more uneasy with as the war neared an end -- but it was far from the most compassionate thing we could afford to do... far from it.
The difference between dropping the bombs and not dropping the bombs is only the difference between an unconditional surrender and a surrender status quo ante bellum. It was not the "last alternative," as you put it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your simplifying this way to much keyser. The japanese did not want peace all summer. Shit man they were training civilians to commit suicide telling them Americans were cannibals and would eat them if captured. There was a big thing this summer on Okinawa where the government was banning the telling of this truth in history class. Surrender was not an option to them.
The dropping of the bomb was not compassionate and I would argue with anyone that said it was. It was numbers man. We all would have lost more people in a traditional conflict.
--- edit ---
Strange this topic turned into a discussion of the most violent weapon in our history. I guess it's in our nature to escalate things.
oh and I simplified it to much to Keyser. Would take a seperate thread and hours to really wade through a discussion on this one.
[ QUOTE ]
but it was far from the most compassionate thing we could afford to do... far from it
[/ QUOTE ]
The compassion I talk about was mostly for our own troops to whom we didn't wish to slaughter by the millions.
If a blood thirsty spree killer has a snake bite and the only way to save his life is to cut off a limb, I'm not going to cut mine off also just so someone 60 years in the future will look back on my sacrifice and say "wow what a compassionate guy". He has the problem, hes loosing the limb, especially when he was the idiot shaking the snake by the tail.
We also didn't wish for our troops to have to fight civilians. Depending on how much the Japanese public defended its home. Estimates of civilian casualties ran between 5 million to 10 million IF we invaded. Yes we would have won, but it would have been a horrific battle for both sides. So we took the humane approach, for the sake of our own people, not theirs. It wasn't a mercy bombing for Japan, no one really thought they deserved mercy. It was the end to the war that everyone desperately needed. The Japan you know today is not the same Japan America had to fight back then. PLEASE understand that. The decision came down to a horrific loss of life was going to take place one way or the other. The people that could avoid it (Japan) weren't going to. It can be on both sides or it can be on the enemy side.
We considered the alternatives and for years they planned for an invasion of Japan. Thats right America was ready to suffer the losses if Japan didn't back down, and they weren't going to back down, the military leadership wouldn't let it. That was the plan to end the war, slaughter ourselves to end the war. Japan had a fantastic propaganda campaign going and it worked so well they had every man, women and child ready to fight. Everyone was expected to make due with what they had. Children where forced into factories, anyone between the age of 15-60 was expected to pick up whatever they had, often just a spear, and fight.
Japans brutality and delusional leadership actually made it possible for the US to green light the bombs.
Read up on the subject, read accounts from both sides. It was horrific yes, it should never be used again. And hopefully no one will ever have to fight such a fanatical, delusional populace again.
You make the argument that the Japanese leadership were so brutal and uncompassionate that they were willing to sacrifice millions of their own civilians (which is true), but then you turn around and claim that the deaths of 200,000 civilians is what convinced them to surrender? That doesn't seem to make much sense. Suddenly they care about the wellbeing of their own citizens? We had been firebombing them for several months prior to dropping the big one... we bombed the shit out of 67 major cities with napalm and killed around half a million civilians -- in total, more than double the damage that was caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
What really convinced the Japanese to surrender is when the Soviet Union broke their neutrality pact, and finally declared war on Japan, because this ended Japan's hope of a peace agreement that would allow them to keep their system of government. The atomic bombs surely contributed to the surrender, but they were far from an "only option" or a "last resort" as so many people would like to believe. In regards to the firebombing, General Curtis LeMay said himself that if we had lost the war, he would have been tried for war crimes.
Japan didn't surrender after all the conventional bombs were dropped and didn't want to give up what they had.
So the order to drop the bomb was given. Was it the right thing? At the time I believe it was. It was done to save the lives of American and British troops.
The Japanese could have surrendered long before we dropped the bomb but they did not and they were willing to sacrifice their own people if a land war was to happen.
Think of it this way. If someone where to invade the USA how hard do you think our people would fight to keep our country? I would pick up a rifle again to protect my country. The Japanese all had that same belief and would fight to the death to keep their land.
You don't let someone stab you and then put them in "time out" and let them keep their knife. The type of cease fire Japan's military wanted was just that.
Half a million Japanese citizens died in the fire bombing raids, over a period of several months. It is easier to digest smaller numbers of casualties over a long period of time. But watching two complete cities, population and all evaporate in the blink of an eye was something new and not so easy to work around. They didn't know if we had more bombs like that, they didn't know when and if we where going to continue that kind of bombing. Their choices quickly went from, surrender for now and rebuild (which wasn't actually on the table), to surrender or be destroyed.
"we bombed the shit out of 67 major cities with napalm and killed around half a million civilians -- in total, more than double the damage that was caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Exactly and they didn't surrender. The causality estimates on both sides where in the millions if the allied forced did go ahead with the plans to invade by sea which was the only other option.
It is easier to digest smaller numbers of casualties over a long period of time.
[/ QUOTE ]
When we firebombed Tokyo in March (nearly half a year before we dropped the atomic bombs), we killed approximately 100,000 civilians in a single night. That's 20,000 more than were killed by Fat Man being dropped on Nagasaki (and that's if you count the residual deaths caused by exposure to radiation, around half of which occurred months and years later).
If the US hadn't bombed, we would remember the bloody invasion and the senseless slaughter the Empire forced its people to endure. Either way it was going to be a big horrific nightmare of an end. The people who could put a stop to it (Japan's military leadership) didn't. It continued to rack up huge numbers of civilian casualties while it delayed and tried to get a cease fire that would let it rebuild and relaunch. Only until it was threatened with utter annihilation was it forced to surrender.
And they surrendered when?
[/ QUOTE ]
They surrendered only after the Soviet Union declared war on them and began to invade Manchuria, because that ended their last hope of coming to a peace agreement that would allow them to keep their imperial system of government. They had a neutrality pact with the Soviets, and they hoped they could use the Soviets to mediate a peace settlement. So when the Soviets broke that pact, they had no choice but to finally accept the unconditional surrender.
[ QUOTE ]
The sudden realization that your entire country could be nothing more then a char mark was what it finally took.
[/ QUOTE ]
Their country already was a char mark. We completely destroyed 67 of their major cities before we ever dropped the atomic bombs. Imagine cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Dallas, Houston and so on being turned into 75% rubble. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was really nothing new, it was just a more efficient way of doing something that we had been doing for the previous 6 months.
Their country already was a char mark. We completely destroyed 67 of their major cities before we ever dropped the atomic bombs. Imagine cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Dallas, Houston and so on being turned into 75% rubble. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was really nothing new, it was just a more efficient way of doing something that we had been doing for the previous 6 months.
[/ QUOTE ]
But the point is is that they wouldn't surrender even after all the fire bombing. We weren't going to lose 2 million soldiers because of an enemy that refused to surrender despite it's civilian and military casualties.
Yes the pact with Russia aided in their decision but it was not the reason they quit. Hell some of their military leaders still wanted to fight and never give up and many committed suicide because they felt as if their honor was shamed.
How many a-bombs have been dropped since though? Hasn't it in a way saved lives? When was the last war where losses ranged in the 5 million area? The a-bomb changed war fare forever.
It was a tragic thing but Japan joined Germany in this War and to me that puts them in the bad guy list. Was the bomb a revenge for Pearl Harbor? Possibly.
This debate can go on forever and I'm glad we have been rather mature about it without people flaming each other.
Unconditional surrender wasn't an option for them, but they knew they couldn't win, so they were suing for peace in an attempt to end the war with an agreement that would keep their imperial system of government intact.
[/ QUOTE ]
In general, I agree with your POV, but here's where I get off the bus. When I made the "Japan started it" comment, I was mostly being funny. However... when a nation chooses to start a war, when it launches an unprovoked attack on other countries, taking millions of lives, it forfeits the right to negotiate it's own surrender. As an American in 1945, I would particularly have had a problem with this. You declare war on my country, you kill my people and then when you know you are going to lose, you try to set your own favorable terms in defeat? Fuck you, here's an atomic bomb. You still insist on debating a way out of this to your liking, even after we've proven we can and will destroy you? Fuck you, here's another atomic bomb. Ah, now you'll comply with the entirely just requirements of the Potsdam Declaration? Good idea, we'll treat you with respect and dignity, unlike the millions of Chinese you slaughtered when you conquered them.
I don't think that two wrongs make a right, but I also don't think that the Japanese have a leg to stand on. They knew in the spring of 1945 that they couldn't win the war, and they still hoped for one last demoralizing American defeat so that they could withdraw on more favorable terms. That's right, they knew they were going to lose but still wanted to kill a bunch of Americans on the way out, just in order to get a better deal. If the Allies had offered harsh terms to Japan, something that would have broken the country, that would have been one thing, but the Potsdam Declaration was a very fair treatment of a foe, and it held only those who were responsible for the war to account for their actions. That the Japanese still tried to decline those terms... you reap what you sow.
The most common argument I hear against the atomic bombs was the massive loss of civilian life. The people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't soldiers, they were civilians, that's true. You know who I never got to meet? My grandfather's brother. To this day, my grandfather still talks of him, of things they did together as children, of growing up on the farm, of the last time they saw each other. My great uncle was killed in World War II. You know what he was before he was drafted, against his wishes, to defend America from the Japanese? He was a civilian.
Being required to put on a uniform and stand a post doesn't make his death any more acceptable than those that died in the atomic bombings. All war is tragic; don't start wars.
dont take the lack of "sanity", as too much of a flame here, but I think the lack of experience in US history to have high civilian losses in wars, to have your cities and environment shaped by war, and have ruins of it scattered visible everywhere, will often lead to this argumentation/stances even on things like gun control. It's more a traditional/historic thing, than of "reason" in my euro-trash opinion
On topic, the swiss often have great arguments about whether they should take the SIG away from their reserves or not. While mostly a high rate of gun-usage in suicides is the reason here, yes even a person who tries to commit suicide is worthy to be rescued. And yes you are more likely to pull the trigger in affect, than do it in another way. Simply as it is more simple, and we humans are very emotional beings acting impulsively.
However... when a nation chooses to start a war, when it launches an unprovoked attack on other countries, taking millions of lives, it forfeits the right to negotiate it's own surrender.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a sentiment that I can understand, but it's far from what some people like to claim. The problem I have is people who say we were forced to drop the bombs, as if we had no other choice. It wasn't the only way to end the war.
I also think you make a great point with your grandfather's brother. The only difference between a civilian and a soldier is a uniform, which isn't much of a difference at all. Sometimes we forget. But I still think there's something to be said about a government intentionally picking civilian targets (which include women and children) and aiming for the maximum possible damage. When people do it to us, we call it terrorism, but when we do it to others on a much more massive scale, we seem so quick to justify it and sometimes even glorify it.