Well, by now you've probably heard of yesterday's horrible massacre in Ft Hood, Texas. Some monster, who happened to be a recently promoted major and a psychiatrist, apparently didn't want to go to Iraq and, y'know, do his goddamned job. With a handgun (originally reported as two, but he did not use the second sidearm according to the most recent reports), he opened fire in the base, wounding 30 people and killing 12. He was taken down by a civilian police officer who responded to the scene within three minutes of the first report. He remains in a coma, but is expected to recover in time to have his ass kicked and killed.

There's so much that is fucked up about this story.

It took awhile, but his name was eventually revealed to be Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Immediately, people began drawing conclusions that he is a home grown terrorist, though evidence shows that he may be simply a Muslin immigrant who joined the military with originally good intentions. For whatever reasons, some alleged to be harassment due to his religion, he grew increasingly bitter in the years leading up to this incident. His bitterness goes back to at least Sept 11th, 2001, where he, already in the military at this time, claims he was harassed due to his Muslim beliefs.

Now...Our military may not be the cleanest, most friendly force on the planet, and there's records of shit like this happening (see; Abu Grahb), but that sure as hell doesn't mean this guy is tragic figure. He's still an asshole. An asshole who happens to be Muslim.

Unfortunately, people are going to focus on that Islamic aspect of him and try to justify his actions, or at least explain them. Here, I'll cut away all of that bullshit right now and "explain" him to everyone. Ready?

Guy's an asshole.

There. That's my prognosis. While his bitterness may be in part caused by his experiences with bigotry in the military, it doesn't change the fact that he killed people due to the fact that he didn't want to go overseas and do what he was trained to do. He wasn't even going to be on the front lines- he's a psychiatrist who was supposed to help traumatized soldiers. Somehow, Psycho Mantis-style, their trauma became his, and he developed some sort of fear of going over there.

Guess what, asshole? You signed up for it. You VOLUNTEERED for it. At some point, you WANTED to do it, because that's what soldiers do. Did you think you were the exception? A special case? Did you want to hide behind your religion while you sat around and griped? Well, FUCK YOU. Our soldiers deserved alot better than you. I wish you had just offed yourself instead of sharing your emo fit with dozens of innocent men and women who are way more heroic than you could ever be, douchebag.

To capitalize on how much of a bastard this jerk is, he was reportedly using a "5.7 caliber pistol". Not too many handguns use that particular round. In fact, only ONE uses it- the FN Five-seveN. What makes this so insidious is that this isn't a pistol the US military issues (they issue either the Beretta M9 or the Colt M1911A1 for the Marines), so he bought it as a civilian. Now, the Five-seveN was designed for the potent 5.7 x 28mm NATO cartridge.

Normally, you can't get the NATO version of this cartridge here in America, as it has incredible armor-piercing capabilities. That's what this particular cartridge was designed to do. However, as an active officer, it's possible he could get his hands on the NATO version. Ballistics isn't in yet, but it wouldn't shock me to hear that he was using the NATO version.

This would mean that was he came to the party expecting people wearing body armor, though as a soldier stationed there, he knows weapons aren't carried around the base unless you're an MP or other rare cases. In other words, it was a shooting gallery, and he brought something that was meant to rack up a high kill count and put up a fight against any armored personnel.

Chances are, since the Five-seveN was the source of controversy back when it was first introduced to America a few years ago, the media will pick up on this factoid and start leading the charge for an Assault Weapons Ban, which helps no one but assholes like Hasan, who don't care about such bans. Time will only tell if this will be the case, though.

The heroic actions of Sgt. Kimberly Munley and her partner brought Hasan down before he could do any more damage. She was shot in the gunfight, but is expected to make a full recovery. I hope she, and the other people who pulled together to help each other during and after the shooting, get some recognition.

Its just a horrible event that is going to spiderweb over the next few days and stir up alot of shit. All because of one man's slefishness.

I don't think he'll get much sympathy from anyone except extremists. Frankly, there's a LOT of options open to him. He coulda quit. He could have just said "no" to the assignment, face a dishonorable discharge, and quit. Make a run for Mexico or Canada. Instead he decided to shoot up his co workers and probably hoped to die in the corssfire.

I can't see his religion being used as an excuse. I mean, I can see peopel trying to understand his point of view. Understanding is different from excusing. Ultimately, this guy is a real shame to Muslims everywere for his criminal, cowardly actions.

Seems to me like the guy didn't want to fight his own people but as gauntlet said there were many options open to him to get out of it. The shooter was also born in Virgininia, he joined right out of highschool or something. I can understand going into the army as an immature kid and later wanting out due to fear but fuck, so many better options than shooting a bunch of people, sickeing really.

I still don't see why the US keeps automatic and semiautomatic weapons legal, banning them would have a SERIOUS imapct on the number of shootings you guys had. Hell in australia it reduced the number of mass shootings in a 14 year period to zero, surely it could reduce the number by 5 or 6 over the same period of time.

Because what's a military without guns?
Target practice.

Idiocy.

For one, a semi-auto handgun was used in this incident- not a full auto. Fully auto machine guns are very rarely used in shootings due to the cost involved with getting them (usually around $10,000 and much more). As a matter of fact, there have only been 2 incidents since 1949 where legally registered machine guns have been used in violent acts, and one of them was by an off-duty cop who found his wife sleeping with another man. Two incidents in 50 years is a pretty good record, I'd say.

But you only ever hear of the worst incidents, like this one. You rarely hear of the incidents where people defended themselves, their family, or complete strangers using their legally acquired weapons. Contrary to popular belief, the VAST MAJORITY of gun owners here in America are law abiding citizens. The few assholes out there, like Hasan and that jerk in Orlando, represent a very slim minority of gun owners here in the States. It is not fair to marginalize everyone based on a handful of maniacs who get the media's attention.

It is exactly like marginalizing entire races or creeds based on the actions of a select few. It is not fair to label all Muslims as terrorists due to the actions of Al Quaida, the Taliban, or Major Hasan here.

And the gun ban in Australia, which I'm familiar with, didn't do quite so much to curb violent crime in that country due to the fact that, compared to America, violent crimes aren't as prolific. Don't listen to everything the media tells you- take it all with a grain of salt. All they did was disarm you and take away your rights, and you bought into the whole "you're safer!" slogan.

Take a look at Britain, who practically banned all guns from private possession a few years ago. Violence has escalated there so badly, with stabbings becoming the new way to victimize people, that they're actually trying to ban glass containers in bars/pubs so that people won't be able to break them and turn them into makeshift knives. Think about that, and how fucked up that is.

And as a matter of fact, the gentle minds of our Federal Government banned a number of "assault weapons" for a ten-year period (1994-2004). Besides costing the Democrats their majority seatings in Congress and the House follwing its passage, it did pretty much nothing to stop crimes involving these so-called "assault weapons". Actually, they got worse, with shit like the North Hollywood Hills Shootout, which involved illegally modified AK-47s and AR-15s.

Bans like this wouldn't work here in America, because they empower the criminals, who DON'T FUCKING CARE ABOUT BANS. There's tons of illegally imported weapons getting here every day, along with the tons of already unregistered, "invisible" guns, so bans would only function to disarm honest, law abiding citizens, like myself, and make us defenseless against criminals who just don't care and will always have access to higher powered weapons than what's available legally.

Here, I'll even relate such a ban to this Ft Hood shooting. Back in the day, a few decades ago, Hasan would never have been able to kill as many people as he did in that base. Why? Because everybody there would have had at least their sidearm handy. He was able to shoot and kill so many people with a single handgun because the soldiers now have to lock up their weapons in the armory. This effectively made our US Army soldiers...SOLDIERS...defenseless in a goddamned military compound. What fucking sense does that make?! Had at least one soldier there been able to carry, Hasan would have been taken out much sooner, and the toll wouldn't have been as bad.

This acts as a microcasm for what would happen if guns were banned for everyone here in America. The criminals would still have access to the millions of illegal weapons out there, and we'd have no choice but to pray that the cops would reach us as fast as Sgt Munley did, which isn't always the case. Even if the cops do reach us in time, there's still a chance we'd end up in a hostage situation, or killed in the crossfire of a gunfight. At least if we're armed, we can do something without relying on the cops. We have power; some control over our own destiny, which is what America is supposed to be about.

And let's face it Corvid- if a determined criminal in Austrailia wanted to shoot up a school or a police station or your house, he could. Don't think for a second that just because there's a ban in place, and that most of your private weapons were confiscated that there's no such thing as the black market. If the will exists, it will happen. All that has happened is you were given the illusion of safety at the cost of security. Granted, the violent will in Austrailia isn't as strong as America's, but some day, an example will be set. Its a nasty thought, and I don't want any innocent civilians of ANY country to be killed, but all it takes is a single person with deadly intent to make it happen. History has shown us this countless times before.

Human beings are THE most violent, ruthless creatures on Earth. We're also tool users, to boot. Nothing will change either one of those facts. You'd be foolish to think otherwise. I would not feel safer if I were made to be defenseless against some maniacal stranger. At least, with a gun, I have a fighting chance.

Incidentally, during the last Mechs Meet here in Detroit, I carried a gun on me when I went to the ghetto to pick up the others. I knew they wouldn't be comfortable with this knowledge, so I didn't mention it, and I kept the thing hidden from them. I brought it because I know the reality of the city- its cruel and dangerous. I did not feel comfortable hiding it from them, but I did feel safer. I felt like I could do something if we got attacked. I felt empowered, as though I could help them, and myself, if it needed to happen. The need never arose, and I'm very thankful for that.

The point of me owning and carrying a gun isn't to use it. I don't WANT to, and I hope I never have to. But, it is there for me, like any other tool. It has no will of its own, no evil aura. The point of my gun is to save myself and other people. This is how most gun-owning Americans feel.

Well, you did leave the bullet cartridge in pretty clear sight in the hotel. I don't think you kept it as secret as you think. Nobody metnioned it .... I don't think anyone was as bugged as you think.

I intend to move out to a small town in the middle of the state with my girlfriend in a few years. One of the only drawbacks of that area is that it's covered in dingos. Hell if I'm going up there unarmed. If we choose to get any animals [Probably just chickens for eggs. The place we're looking at isn't that big, and farming is hardly the point of it.] then they'll need protecting too if a preadator comes.

But it doesn't matter. Because it's difficult as hell to get a decent gun here.

I should probably have clarified at the start that by here I mean Australia. Yeah...

I think "dingos" pretty much narrows it down, Letra.

And yes, I can easily see this shooting boosting drone-like support for gun control, as it is with every shooting. There is nothing a government can take advantage of better than a disarmed public. Not only does it put innocent people at the mercy of criminals and the fluctuating punctuality of law-enforcement, it's downright condescending, as your government is outright assuming you're far too violent and irresponsible to own a simple tool such as a handgun. That's why I love living here in the open-carry state of NM. Our local government actually treats us like friggin' adults.

This is also why I love mississippi. Everyone I know owns some kind of weapon, gun, or self-defense mechanism. In lucedale, there has been not one record of house break-in's since 2003, at least to my knowledge. The reason why is only an idiot would break into a house where everyone in town hunts.

You might be in some luck. From what I understand of current Austrailian law, farmers and rural people can own a firearm if they can provide a legitimate reason. It may have changed since the last time I read up on it, however.

It's probably going to be something like a .22 LR, but at least its something.

And Maha, you've provided a perfect example of the old adage, "an armed society is a polite society". You don't have to constantly fire off a gun in order for it to be an effective deterrence. If people know you're armed, they'll be less prone to attack you. Its fundamental, really.

That's why all of these shootings have one thing in common. Its always one or two cowardly assholes going into unarmed, so-called gun-free and "safe" places like schools or office buildings, where they know they can do as they want. You take away the ability to legally defend themselves from these bastards and you'll just end up with more and more of these incidents, because you'll just be giving them more places to rack up easy kills with minimal opposition.

There's a reason why my cop friend told me to get a CCW. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

I did leave that bullet out G, mostly as an open invitation, or a subtle clue. I thought I'd probably be "made" by someone at some point, but I didn't think anybody knew I was carrying. I also lazily left one of my extra mags laying around at some point.

Now, bonus points to any Mech who can correctly guess where I carried my gun.

There's no reaosn for anyone to shout out "Rich, you're carrying!?" Nobody thinks you're gunning for us. And we all know you like guns. ^_'

But if I knew you were levaing a hint, I mighta called you on it. To fulfill expectations. Sorry to dissappoint.

Idiocy? Was that really called for?

Anyway, my point wasn’t that fully automatics are used in shooting every day, I don’t know guns and so I never speculated on what weapons are used I simply said that Semi and Fully automatic weapons should be illegal. They have no purpose, hunting, defence and everything else can be done JUST as effectively with other weapons, other nations who ban them defend their homes and hunt just as well without them so I don’t see the point in ownership. I know majority of US citizens are responsible owners, I know it would marginalise some people based on the actions of a few but this is something that could potentially save a few dozen people a year, I’d be more than willing to lose my right to something I don’t need if it means a few school kids might walk home without being shot at.

The media in Australia has nothing to do with my opinions on the success or failure of the buyback scheme, my opinion on it is reflected by police statistics which show that our shootings rarely top more than 4 victims and the fact that in the 13 years since the laws came in we’ve had 0 mass shootings. It’s possible this can be attributed to a change in attitude or something but even if the scheme prevented or limited the carnage of one shooting then I say it was worth it.

London has problems with violence in clubs and on the streets, places it wouldn’t be legal to carry a gun under any circumstance anyway, should London relax their laws it would mean nothing since they would all be required to leave their guns at home, a few more might get shot though in revenge attacks though. The only way to stop the stabbings and bashings in London streets that involve allowing people to use guns is to let them carry them on the streets, with them already drunk and rowdy this would only make killing easier. The banning glass though, yeah that’s dumb, a few clubs and bars in Melbourne did that and all it meant was fists got used more and more people got put into comas, that and my cup cracked at a wrestling show/concert and I had coke all over my hands!

It wouldn’t make you defenceless, I’m not talking about removing all guns, as I said last time that would be fucking retarded. What I’m saying is that a revolver works just as well for defence as a semi/fully automatic weapon if they didn’t criminals would have overrun any nation that outlawed them and Victorian police would be beaten into submission.

I know the black market exists, it costs like 200-500 to pick up a desert eagle or some shit so I know if a criminal wants to they can get their hands on it. What the ban is doing is making it harder to get your hands on that sort of gun so that should someone decide to go nuts they have to REALLY try to find a gun capable of doing a lot and people aren’t going to search out their local black market for one they’ll just take what they can. The way I see it is, if a revolver is good enough for my cops to patrol the street with than its good enough for me to defend my home with, I don’t own a gun but if I were there is no need for me to fire 12 shots or something in a couple seconds, two or three should have the dude down, hurt or running. Besides if I don’t own a big gun then there is no need for criminals to own one, hell most burglaries here are done with bats or knives because there is no escalation, we don’t have big guns so they don’t need big guns and that’s all it is, escalation.

Anyway, I don’t want to leave you defenceless mate, despite us bumping heads all the time I got nothing against you and wouldn’t want you harmed in any way, I’m just saying that if you want to defend yourself a revolver will do just fine. I know that the TRUE issue here is not the guns but the mental health and the attitude of a minority of people throughout the world not just the US but until we can pull a miracle out our asses and fix that or help repair the damage we’re all going to have to take a few hits on this. We’re not talking about things like stripping you of your rights to own guns or defend yourself, we’re talking about limiting it to try and hopefully slow down the shootings. I know it might not work, the US has an entirely different attitude to gun ownership (this topic is proof of that) so what may have worked here probably won’t work there but I think it wouldn’t hurt.

Oh and Regulus, it's nothing to do with thinking you're incapable or a retard, its more to do with stopping the moron or child down the street who isn't responsible from shooting someone.

I will agree though that the men and women at Fort Hood should have been armed, even when on base in peace times they should be armed because life is too unpredictable and military targets are bigger targets than anywhere else. That being said, the difference between them and your average person at home is that they are skilled and trained professionals under supervision so they should be carrying more than a simple revolver.

All that being said, I know nothing about guns and I got no interest in the things so if any terminology is wrong its cause of that.

Sorry, changing this bit to letra, in QLD dingoes are regarded as pests and you're legally allowed to thin their numbers on your property, over all they are a vulnerable speces but legally you can shoot them. Should finding a gun be too hard and you're after a more effective measure to keep them away get a BIG dog like a Mastiff or a Saint Bernard because they will intimidate Dingos also get them to piss around your property as much as you can. Dingos tend to run around alone so keeping them away wouldn't be hard this way, shooting them would only mean another would wander by eventually and it would be less effective. Oh and Regulus, it's off topic but Dingos don't just live in Australia, they're spread all throughout indonesia as well.

Corvid makes a few good points. I don't think you're an idiot.

I didn't take offense to it or anything i just didn't think it was necessary to make it even slightly personal especially since we're two dudes on the net discussing things we have no control over.

My use of the word "idiocy" referred to your arguement, not you. If people can't distinguish that, then that's their problem, not mine. I've heard this arguement numerous times, and I'll just never buy into it.

Again, banning semi auto weapons will not work here. All that's going to do is give honest citizens less tools and less choices, while criminals will still have all of the current weapons at their disposal. The only way you'd be able to clear up the tremendous black market here would be to demand every weapon producing nation to control their supply to the utmost possible. Then, you'd have to go door to door to find the current supply of now-illegal weapons.

Aside from being a logistical nightmare, it'd be crminal under our Constitution. At that point, the federal government would have stepped over way too many boundries. Keep in mind that the American Revolution's real beginnings were when the British attempted to disarm the Americans. Its a very serious matter.

Why should we have to conceed a bit of our safety when its a few psychos that give the rest of us a bad name? Furthermore, will the Army take a step down and start using revolvers, M1 Garands, and hunting shotguns? Yeah right.

They'll get to keep their M16s, grenades, and other high tech goodies, and the citizens have to make due with 100 year old Wild West tech? A point is being missed here, and a very important one that Regulus touched on.

One of the reasons the Second Amendment was included in the original Constitution was that regular citizens were supposed to be armed, not only to form an impromptu militia, but to keep the Army in check. Our founding fathers knew that an Army that was devastatingly over-armed compared to our regular citizens could be misused, and used by a tyrant to subjegate people.

"A Government big enough to give you everything you ever wanted, is also big enough to take it all away."

That's a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson, and it pretty much sums up the rationale behind the Second Amendment. The world hasn't outgrown tyranny or power-mad politicians in the past 200 years. We mustn't become arrogant or rely on the government for everything, otherwise that'll lead us to disaster, in one form or another. Its a point that isn't just based on weapons, but every single right found in the Constitution. We must never conceed these rights under any pretenses, or else we sacrifice too much for too little.

Basically, if we conceed and take a step back, while the Army has us all hopelessly outgunned (as we already are), we're taking a very big risk. A risk that can be avoided. I'm not advocating that citizens should be able to own tanks or easily be able to get machine guns, but we need to keep the gap to a minimum. It is another instance of deterrence- if it isn't worth it to attempt a coup or total take over, then it will be less likely to happen.

My second point is that revolvers aren't any less dangerous than semi-autos. Did you know that with some practice, you can reload a revolver even faster than a semi-auto? It only takes a cheap, easy to get device called a "speed loader", and you can reload all chambers nearly instantly.

Pretty much nullfies the supposed firepower advantage that semi-autos have over "those old" revolvers. Hasan could have done as much damage with a revolver as he did with that semi-auto. Maniacs simply use semi-autos nowadays because they are percieved to be better in every single way, but really, the strengths and weaknesses of these two designs make them about equal at the end of the day.

I like having a choice. I prefer semi-autos over revolvers because I like the designs of them and the wide range of little choices I have with them. I can also conceal a thin-shaped semi-auto against my slender frame better than a bulky revolver, which would pretty obvious. I feel self-concious as it is carrying a 3-pound chunk of dead weight that can be hidden fairly well- it'd be a different story if it was twice as wide and created a very obvious bulge on my body, no matter where I hid it.

By the way, the most popular semi-auto design in the world is still the Colt 1911. The magazine capacity of that gun is usually between 7 or 8, while most revolvers use 6 (with some modern ones having 7 or 8 cylinders). That's not a huge advantage over revolvers, is it?

No, it's not. Most self-defense shootings are over in less than 3 shots, meaning it all boils down to preference of the shooter. A semi-auto ban would merely take away a choice for the shooter. It wouldn't make shootings any less deadly.

Also, a semi-auto ban would hurt the already damaged economy at this point. Pretty much all of the American weapons makers would either go out of business or leave the country, while the foreign brands would also be hurt, which will damage the world economy as well. Ammunition sales would be hurt drastically. The firearms industry is one of the few bright spots we have right now, and taking that away would not be a good political or economical move. Putting even more people on the street with out many chances of landing good work? Great move.

In other words, how will you pay for this decision? You really can't at this point.

When people make rash, sweeping generalizations, without considering ALL of the after effects of that choice, THAT'S what I call idiocy. Maybe the Austrailian gun ban worked for you, but you never had a big firearms industry over there, it was never a huge part of your culture, and it was never a garaunteed right. That isn't the case over here. So, when you open your mouth without doing the research or considering all of the possibilities, it just doesn't make sense. You simply don't live here, so you haven't seen what I've seen. You haven't seen how people can go down to the ghetto in Detroit for an hour and come back with a full-auto AK-47 that the government doesn't know is here. A gun ban would not do anything to stop that. All it'd do is make these illegal weapons peddlers richer.

People around the world complain that Americans try to dictate world policy and tell everyone else what to do, but other nations' citizens are just as guilty as us. Me? If you think the gun ban works for your country, good for you. I don't agree, but I won't stuff a gun in your hand, nor will I attempt to tell you how your country should be run. Try it some day.

You may feel you have no control over what your country does, but I know I have a voice here in America. I enjoy using it. Without it, politicans could pass whatever retarded nonsense they wanted to without ill-effect. At least here, I can find other like-minded people, and our collective voice becomes too hard to ignore.

You have a voice too. Maybe not as strong a voice as mine, but you have one. It's up to you if you want to use it or not, but don't claim you're helpless against your own government. If you are, what does that say about your government? I wouldn't be able to stand that myself, so I'll fight anything that makes my voice weaker.

What works for Austrailians won't always work for Americans, and vice versa.

Back to G, that bullet is a good luck charm I carry around, regardless of me being armed or not.

I didn't want to proclaim I was carrying because I didn't know how everyone felt (I don't talk to Needle all that much, so I didn't want to scare her. Likewise with Gemmy, or anyone else who may not have felt comfortable with the idea). I know its not a concept that sits well with everyone, and I can understand that. This isn't the Old West. The least I could do is show some respect and make a compromise.

I'm not disappointed at all that you didn't take the "invitation". It may have been for the better. Maybe someone may have inwardly felt a little intimidated or insecure with that knowledge- I wouldn't know.

Hell, to be honest, it was my first time carrying. I felt pretty self-concious about it. I don't actually like carrying, but I like that I have the option to. I don't have to carry the damned thing with me everywhere I go, and I wouldn't want to. The point is that I can, because it is a right that people fought for, and I honor that.

I only carry when I feel its necessary. I feel it is a tool that needs to be used with discretion and moderation, and shouldn't be taken to extremes. If more people understood that, we'd live in a less violent world.

Which is comprised of a cluster of islands very close to Australia. That's why I said it narrows it down.

And it's still condescending because the government is now assuming that I am not capable enough to hide weapons from children. People with kids and guns have a responsibility to teach their children about the lethality of a gun should it be improperly used, and to lock it up if necessary. I don't have kids, so I don't need to make sure my gun is locked up to deter idiots from getting their hands on it; however, you can bet that when kids come over they are NEVER going to find that gun.

Freedom isn't about doing whatever you want. It's about assuming responsibility for your actions, that's why when my freedoms are restricted, I take it as an insult and a lack of trust between me and my government.

Y'know there's nothing I can really say to add to what Rich said but remark on how "well" the long gun registry works in Canada. I still don't get the logic behind how a grossly overbudget will stop gun violence by forcing law-abiding gun owners to register their weapons when criminals will circumvent it anyway by buying their guns and ammo on the black market. Then again, this was the brainchild of the Liberal Party of Canada who don't give a fuck about you if you live outside Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver because let's face it-- there are very little votes to be gained from rural Canada.

It probably doesn't help that Alberta's as close to America as Canada's going to get. Particularly, when you factor in our populist/libertarian leanings. That's one reason why the LPC seems to have nothing but contempt for my home province.

Actually it’s not illegal, the supreme court has stated that the amendment is restricted by reason and you yourself said that, because after all, your neighbours shouldn’t be allowed to own a tank should they? All rights, every damn one of them is restricted by laws and reason so that they do not stomp on the right of others, if you want I can list EVERY human right and ways your government or mine restricts those through laws and you'd agree with most if not all of them. So whose rights are being restricted by psychos having easy access to high powered weapons, the victim, their right to life is taken away much more easily. As we both said, majority of you guys are responsible but there is a minority we have to keep in mind when we decide how easy it is to do things. This is all about restricting your right to bear and keep arms to help prevent some deaths, we're not talking about taking away that right only stopping it from stomping on other peoples right to life.

Your military will never rise up, to argue it would be ridiculous. Should they by some miracle rise up civilian militias would stand no chance, you’d get slaughtered regardless of what you guys carried. Should you set up rebel groups to fight back, once the fight is over who would take power? Nobody would agree and you’d just fuck things up further like rebels do in African nations, it’s a stupid idea. Your best bet would be to wait for other nations to step in, should the US stop for even a day the global economy would crash so no nation would let it happen, if it did they’d jump in anyway. Either way the idea of ‘keep the gap minimal’ is the mentality of terrorist groups buying up RPGs and shit, your civilians are not supposed to rival the military, otherwise rebels groups could form and you’d all be fucked. The safest bet is not pose a threat to the military and remember you stand no chance but you military stands no chance against the rest of the world. As I said those, debating this is stupid, it won’t happen and there is more of a chance of China invading.

Your point about keeping the gap minimal is why Criminals buy powerful illegal weapons anyway, they don’t want to be left behind. Should civilians stop carrying automatic weapons and start carrying guns criminals think are less powerful the crims will have no reason to go above and beyond necessity to get their hands on big guns. Most criminals are poor, why would they buy an expensive weapon when a cheaper one will work just as well? It would end escalation and probably make things safer on the whole.

As you said revolvers are just as effective at defending as an automatic pistol, the difference is, in the hands of someone with minimal knowledge (as the case often is) a revolver is less likely to kill multiple people in a shooting. They fire slower and reload slower in the hands of your average person, your average person being the one who tends to do these shootings and they have no idea of how to make a speed reloading device or the desire to. My point was all along, revolvers are just as good for defence as a semis and fully automatic weapons.


I’m not an economist, so I won’t speculate but the government has many economists, I’m sure they could figure something out.

No nation is autonomous anymore, decisions made in one nation can have huge implications in another. The fact is many things going on in the US effect us down here and that is why people tell you how they feel things should be done over there, it’s our right to voice concerns over things that directly or indirectly effect us. After all, our nation gives us a voice so we can speak about things that concern us, since the USA’s decisions have an impact over here we have the right to speak up. Like you said, I have freedom of speech and I use it, I’m speaking up against something that has an effect over here and it’s a guaranteed right that I can do that.

Oh and Regulus, my mistake, i appoligise.

So, we're supposed to just roll over and die IF such an event occurs? You're missing the point entirely.

Alot of people have died to protect these rights, and anybody who takes that fact seriously will not let any threat take them, either foreign or domestic. The point isn't if we can win or lose, but to act as a deterrent.

An example is found in the Appalacian Mountains. There's alot of rednecks in the mountains, and the FBI and ATF, frankly, are afraid of who's in there as they have no idea what they're armed with. YET, there are NEVER any stories of people getting shot to death up there. Nobody's staging a rebellion. They just want to be left the fuck alone. This is the concept of deterrence. The point isn't to use the weapons against the government, but to keep them in check. Doesn't matter that the government has stealth bombers, M1 tanks, and M16s- they're afraid to go in there.

One of our founding fathers once stated that "People should never fear their government, but the government should fear the People". You sound as though you're a man that fears his government to some extent, or has become far too complacent to let them handle the hard stuff.

Where the hell do you get that door to door searches in a witch hunt for legally owned personally property (in addition to illegal property) are legal? They're NOT. If they were, that'd have been changed a long time ago, Ruby Ridge-style. We have this thing, perhaps you've heard of it, called "due process", as well as "search warrants." Start handing out exceptions to that, and you'll be suprised how resourceful some of us can be against the Army.

Afterall, it wouldn't the first time a vastly under-armed and under-manned force has beaten the US military before.

By the way, the first thing the Nazis did before segregating the Jews was make sure they were disarmed. That's probably why there's a pretty good reason why alot of Jews here in the States are pro-gun rights. Something about them having personal knowledge of such events, maybe? NAH.

Guess this is the major difference between American thinking and Austrailian thinking. Americans who respect and UNDERSTAND our Constitution love it, and we won't give any part of it up, or even bend it. One part of that promise includes thinking for yourself, and not leaving important shit like this up to the government.

As a Libertarian, I feel that the government's job is to regulate and control my tax dollars and provide protection against foreign threats. Everything else can go.

I do not rely on my federal government for all of the solutions, as those people don't live in my neighborhood. Blanket policies, such as a national gun ban, are harmful because they hurt the places where law abiding citizens, like the poeple in Maha's town, where such a ban does NO GOOD WHAT SO EVER. Yeah, good thing we restricted the choices of those goddamned citizens. They sure were causing alot of trouble.

You are apparently content to let some politician dictate important policies that have direct influence on the way you live your life, whereas I am not. I don't vote for politicians based on what they can promise me, but rather, I base my vote on the judgements I'VE made, and what they can maintain, because I'm losing more and more with each election.

Rate of fire is he same. And it doesn't take a genius to learn how to reload a revolver quickly. About an hour will do. Also, revolvers are generally more powerful than semi-autos, so that's one advantage that revolvers hold over semi-autos. The basic .357 Magnum can defeat alot of common body armor types, which is arguably even worse than having multiple shots of weaker ammo.

Incidentally, you never really countered my 1911 point- the point that 1911s are usually paired with a 8-round magazine. Its STILL the most popular form of semi-auto here in America. Gonna make a huge stink about 2 more rounds?

Where do you draw the line?

Well, that's tough. That's your nation's fault for not establishing a more tough-skinned economy and social structure that isn't so dependant on a super-power. Maybe if you had shown some national pride and bought home-grown products you wouldn't be as prone to our decisions. But you don't live here and, more importantly, you don't vote here, so you have no voice here.

Besides, who you speaking to? Some dude on the internet? Great use of that freedom. Meanwhile, I'm a card-carrying NRA member AND I'm politically involved, sending e-mails and letters to my politicians to voice my opinion, so I'm not just wasting my breath here and not backing it up. Can you say the same?

Then again, I now think I am wasting my breath, since I've had this argument a thousand times over on other websites and with people I run into, so its pretty boring. Its always the exact same arguement from you people.

Yes, because we all know that criminals buy Vulcan M61 cannons because Gramma Betty has that M60 hidden beneath her bed, just in case.

This is a baseless statement. One that's been proven wrong here in America. Again, look at Maha's example; criminals know that the town is armed, so they don't mess with it, even if it does have money.

Criminals aren't looking to buy the greatest and best. You said it yourself- they generally don't have much money. But in the same breath, you claim they want to have the best and most powerful weapons out there? Well, which is it?

Criminals don't subscribe to the "if that guy has a bigger gun than me, I MUST have a bigger one!" mentality. For one, its not cost effective. Two, the "big gun" advantage is considerably lessened when an ambush is involved, which would indicate that the owner of the bigger, better weapon was flashing it around foolishly, and thus deserves what's coming to him. Three, there's too much risk involved for the average criminal who weilds a high profile illegal weapon, when a ball bat or knife will do. However, I'd rather be shot to death than beaten to death with a bat, or stabbed until I bleed.

There's not so much a game of one-upsmanship as there is a good market for this shit. A criminal isn't going to give a fuck what kind of gun I'm carrying- if his intent is there to do me bodily harm, he'll attempt. He'll attempt, and he'll get shot in the dick.

Thanks to the black market, it costs a hell of a lot less for criminals to buy the more dangerous weapons that aren't even available to honest citizens. My CZ 75B cost me 600 dollars new, not including taxes, fees, and time spent waiting to properly register it (since I had to take time off work to do so). Meanwhile, some thug could buy a comparible gun of equal quality for far less than that. He can buy a full-auto, Soviet-built AK-47 for around $500.

Criminals don't buy these guns to outgun everyday civilians. Fact is, most everyday gun-owners don't have any of these so-called "high powered weapons", but they're still an option. I don't know anybdoy that actually owns an AK of any kind, be it illegal full auto or legal semi-auto Criminals buy these things to intimidate, or attempt to outgun the police. Look up the Hollywood Hills Shootout as proof; this was during our Assault Weapon Ban.

Incidentally, there was no direct connection between the Assault Weapons Ban and falling crime rates, a fact that the democrats aceeded to when they opted not to try and renew it after ten years. You just claimed that politicians would figure out a plan, and their plan is contrary to what you've been saying, even AFTER they tried it! Where's your answer to that?

The Assault Weapons Ban was, figuratively, more realistic a plan than a total ban of semi-auto weapons. It halted new sales of "black rifles", like the AR-15 and AK 47, and limited magazine capacity of all new weapons to 10. In places that maintained the Assault Weapons Ban after it's expiration, like Washington DC, crime was still far too out of hand, even when citizens weren't allowed to own ANY handguns or weapons of any kind within city limits. All that did was empower the criminals, who kept shooting as these civilians could do nothing but take it and hope the cops arrived in time, which they couldn't because they were so goddamned busy.

"I carry a gun because cops are too heavy."

Maybe that's why the Supreme Court deemed such a ban ILLEGAL last year in the famous Heller case. Again, the politicians and government you'd have faith in (if you were here) apparently don't agree with you.

Let's talk about the cost of such a ban, too. There's the economic costs involved, as mentioned, but there's also the question of how you'd fund it. We're in a trillion dollar deficit now- Canada's own fucked up attempt to control these weapons has cost them over a billion dollars in tax money over the past decade, and it's not even functional. Fact is, you'd need to hire ALOT more local cops, FBI, and ATF agents to enforce this ban, and nobody has the money for it.

And if we did have the money for it, why wouldn't we spend the money on going after the root of the problem, instead of the superficial problem? Why not spend money enforcing the laws that are already on he books? Afterall, hardcore anti-gun guy, Attorney General Eric Holder, who's in charge of all of this shit, has now decided to do just that. Instead of persuing the unpopular Assault Weapons Ban, which was never conclusively proven to work, he wants to enforce the existing laws and crack down on the illegal gun trade. Now THAT makes sense. Never thought I'd say that about Holder.

The real problem is that parents aren't raising their kids properly these days, and the fact that there's rampant poverty. Why not solve these problems first and foremost? I'd consider them to be far worse problems than blaming the problem on tools and making petty ascertations based on designs and what you see in the movies.

All you'd be doing is taking away their tools, but not their intent. And human will and malice is far more dangerous than any collection of guns.

But people blame the guns and the people who hold them, rather than their reasons. Its such a gloss-over, such a poor excuse. People don't seem capable of thinking these things over to their fullest, and only screaming out knee-jerk reactions. They fail to comprehend the full extent of their decisions.

In places like Austrailia and Japan, a gun ban works, simply because its culture was already passive enough. The same isn't true of America, or Britain. Incidentally, its not as though all of Britain's stabbings are happening on the street or in pubs- you neglected to consider the home invasion aspect of it, which accounts for a large percentile of those violent crimes. The banning of knives and glasses is a sign that the British government is getting feverish about trying to stop the problem that they exacerbated, and it'll be like that for a very long time to come.

If the same ban were to happen here in America, you'd end up with even more tragedies like Ft Hood, Columbine, or the Orlando incident. These cowards could find their weapons very easily, and knowing that they'd have no opposition within their target locales, they'd be god-like for a short while, which is what they want.

Why didn't anybody take a harder look at Hasan? The signs were there. Why didn't the Columbine kids' parents notice anything? If you looked hard enough, those signs were there as well. When the cops pulled over the two men who would later be responsible for the Hollywood Hills Shootout, they found them with a trunk full of illegally modified and acquired weapons, but they were released and given back these guns. Why? What the fuck? How can anybody justify shit like that?

The truth is, its just an excuse for people to skirt the harder questions, and pass the buck. They don't want to put too much thought into the real issues at hand, or work to solve the most serious problems, because those are difficult. Passing blame is alot easier to do, especially when its easy to prey on public perception and villify inanimate objects.

In any case, I've ,again, wasted too much time arguing this old subject, only to get nothing out of it.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091109/worl..._crime_military

Bringing this back to the topic for a moment, evidently the guy is pout of the coma and in for questioning and answers are still murky. You'd think he'd have a quick anser for the "why did you mass murder a bunch of people" question, but nadda.

Evidently, the Muslim extremists call him a hero. And his family is (rightfully) mortified by it all.

I like how they refer to him as "the suspected shooter," as though 42 wounded victims could possibly goof up IDing the sonuvabitch who shot them. You know, the only person on base who was waving around an illegal hand-cannon.

I never said roll over and die, you’re arguing against things that were never said. What I said was don’t jump in front of a bullet that was never heading for you in the first place. You hold no value in a military coup, standing up and putting up a weak defense would only justify further killing and give the military a way to justify their stupid coup. Besides, should your military take the country the economy would collapse and sanctions would be imposed by every major trading partner (the UN loves sanctions) resulting in the slow and twitching death of your country. So who would win in that situation? There is nothing to gain in a coup it will not happen let’s let it go before this gets even sillier.
]
The Appalachian Mountain folks do not deter the military, the military doesn’t care because it has no reason to act. Last I checked the FBI and the ATF don’t drive around in tanks and use bombers so the people up there may actually stand a chance against the FBI and the ATF, the military though, they’d stomp through and swat them like mosquitoes which might take time but they could do it. The only reason they appear to deter military action is because the military has not been told to walk in, if they were they would not deter the military, it’s all about orders and any action there would be a PR nightmare they could ill afford. The Hutu power ideologists didn’t kill each other because they all thought the same, just because likeminded individuals get along doesn’t mean they are a model for society or an example to be followed. You can’t have people governing themselves everyone needs to be held accountable under the law, that way things are stopped from getting out of hand.

I’m not afraid of my government, I’m not complacent to let them handle the hard choices, if I have something relevant to say I do let myself be heard. That being said if your argument for keeping guns is partly because you want to keep them in line, isn’t that a sign of paranoia and fear? I don’t fear my government, I have no reason to and I do not need weapons to protect myself against them, there is no fear here.

You’re going to compare this to Nazi Germany? Germany back then was unstable, they were paying huge money to foreign nations and had many sanctions placed on them, they were kind of being oppressed and their country was failing. The US is nothing like that, your economy is relatively stable by comparison, your country isn’t paying reparations to other nations and other nations aren’t ordering you guys around. So comparing taking away some of the guns from your people with the stripping of the rites of Jews is a stretch to say the least, no one is disarming you.

Like I said, I’m not an economist, balancing budgets and working out how to afford things is the government’s job. I said I cannot write up a proposal on how you could afford it because I don’t know how but since it’s the governments job to balance the budget it’s their job to work it out, handle our tax dollars and such.

2 rounds could make the difference between one more victim, might not but still we’re talking about minimizing potential no matter how slight the difference is it’s still better than what it would be before. If you were shooting a revolver, which as you said would be more powerful, at the same rate as a semiautomatic pistol reduce accuracy more than it would in a semi? To me all that does is suggest that revolvers are, although slightly, still less deadly than a semiautomatic pistol. The line is drawn at allowing you weapons that you need but not ones you just want, since Revolvers do just as well at defense but are less effective in a mass shooting they are where the line should be drawn.

Yep, our dependence on foreign nations is a problem, and we have only ourselves to blame, that doesn’t mean you guys can’t make decisions without thinking about the butterfly effect it has on other nations. This of course is off topic and we both agree, Australia should be less dependent on you guys and more of us should buy local, I do buy local and it is truly a pity more people don’t. People like to talk, if you raise a discussion on the net of course people will discuss every aspect, you discuss a shooting gun control pops up, it’s to be expected.

Dude, the discussion was opened I decided to talk, it’s not like my only use of that freedom is to talk on the internet. I’ve signed petitions, written letters, handed out flyers for politicians I support and even done a protest so yeah I use my freedom as best I can and I have considered talking to my uncle about getting into politics. So yeah, I use my voice off the net and on the net, which I think it’s a great use of it.

I may not have a voice in the USA but when a discussion is opened on the net it only stands to reason it will attract international attention.

You misunderstand, what I said was criminals will not spend money on something they don’t think they need, so if citizens are not as heavily armed then the crims will not feel the need to purchase heavier weapons because they do not want to spend money they do not need to. Its logic we all use in everyday situations and logic you have used to defend your point.

Yeah not all citizens have automatic guns or whatever, but some do so the crims don’t want to be caught off guard, I wouldn’t so I’d come prepared and that is what most criminals would think.

Ok this is my response about the assault rifle ban. Gun murder rates dropped by 11% between 94 and 95 so it’s possible it influenced that, while not concrete evidence it worked it is evidence it was a step in the right direction. The ban was also so short that any statistical evidence in later reports was simply inconclusive, from what I’ve read this is the general feel of all the reports. These problems were further compounded by the fact most banned weapons were released later with slight modifications that made them legal. Besides when you intend to ban weapons to reduce crime you don’t ban the weapons that make up the minority of crimes, that’s just foolish. The reason no evidence shows the drop in crime rates was linked to the ban is because there wasn’t enough time to fully measure it.

The Heller case says that his pistol was allowed to be kept in his home for self defense, my point is that revolvers do this job just fine so there is no need to keep semi automatic weapons. This in no ways cancels out my argument that YES it could be legal and that revolvers do the job just as well so it’s in no way is taking away your right to bear arms just determining how far you are allowed to take that right, something you government is already doing. If it’s not illegal to ban machine guns and assault rifles why is the line drawn at Semi Automatic and Fully Automatic weapons? All those weapons are not necessary for defense and their jobs can be filled by other weapons so why is the line drawn at Semi Automatics?

Your point about the cost can be kept to a minimum easily through amnesty months and bounties on the guns where people could turn in the weapons without repercussions, the costs would be minimal and could be offset through other things.

You’re right, we are only just taking away the tools and not looking for the reason but there is a good reason for that. The reason you take the tool away is to minimize the casualties while you search and act on all the root causes. It’s not a knee jerk it’s slowing the damage, giving you time to solve the real issues at hand.

It’s obvious that the banning of weapons in Britain is in no way responsible for its soaring crime rates, if that were the case similar nations would have the same problem and the US would be the most peaceful place on earth. Ownership of weapons does not act as a deterrent, if it did your home invasion rates would be miniscule and places like Australia would be up there with Britain. Fact is the, reason for Britain being out of control is separate from the banning of guns and the banning of glass is to stop soaring glassing incidents and make bashings in pubs a little less dangerous, they know it won’t stop it but they hope to control the severity.

Look there are many causes but taking away unnecessary weapons is about controlling severity, nobody is saying it will stop it and it in no way takes away your rites, it only restricts them based on reason which is deemed legal by your system. I’ve said it heaps in this post in others and you said it once, people cannot own tanks its stupid, so clearly it’s not illegal to restrict the forms of weapons owned for defense.

That being said I’m glad you decided to bow out, personally I was about to do the same because I also feel I wasted too much time discussing the same things fact is you think one thing, I think something different and I don’t think either will change their minds here. You can respond if you want since you do have the right to reply, since that is the only reason I responded, but I won’t post another comment on the subject of gun control after this.

Oh and regulus, I find it funny as well how they call him the suspected shooter even though we all know he did it. Oh well, probably just something they have to do these days to avoid legal repercussions i guess, dunno.

Political douchery aside, and getting back on topic, there's a new twist in this case.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts980

Apparently, Sgt Munley didn't fire the dehabilitating shots on Hasan, but she still played an important and heroic role in his fall. A fellow officer, Sgt Mark Todd, was the one who took advantage of Hasan's moment of weakness while reloading. He opted to stay out of the spotlight, but now his name has been surfacing.

Hasan has come out of his coma and has now been formally charged. He has remained silent on his motives. He'll be eligible for the death penalty if convicted, which I believe is appropriate in this case, as his crimes are inconceivably horrific.

He's also apparently crippled in some way, so I hope he'll suffer like that for the remainder of his life. Hopefully, he'll never walk again. People like him deserve to be quadapalegic and punched in the face on a daily basis.

Personally, I hope he doesn't get the death penalty. He thinks fighting in Iraq would be bad? Let him live with his crippling injury in jail for the rest of a long, long life.

Your tax dollars won't be supporting him in prison, though.

In cases like this, I'm glad the judge can take into consideration the voices of his victims and their families while considering sentancing.

It does me no good knowing a guy like this is going to live a long life in prison, as he won't have any remorse for what he did. He'll just be wasting everyone's time and money by sitting around and accomplishing nothing. Patholgocally insane types like him just won't ever admit to wrong doing, and won't understand the consequences of his actions.

The guy was a psychologist who was supposed to stop shit like this from happening. Instead, he decided to be selfish and take lives instead of commiting himself to his job. He just doesn't have any respect for human life, so he'll never amount to anything but some crippled piece of shit who sits around all day, feeling only sorry for himself. Fuck him and his self-pity.

Killing him won't undo his actions or make his victims or their families feel better, but neither will acting as his sponsor. Afterall, prison is supposed to be about reformation, which it mostly fails to do, so what sort of reformation would anybody expect out of a guy like this? What possible good could he do that would have any sort of balancing effect for his crimes?

The answer is "none", so I say fuck that philosophical bullshit and just get it over with. We're running out of space in our prisons, anyways.

Prison isn't exactly a 5-star resort. And being disabled in prison? Even worse. I can easily see death as being the easy way out for this guy. He wanted to die in his shoot-up.

Since it's what he wanted I'd rather see him suffer worse.

No, he wanted to die in the shoot-out; not in some federal prison. If he's formally executed, it takes away the majority of the profoundness from his message. He'd die a number, not a martyr.

Either way, he was robbed of his honor. Again, we may as well get it all over with instead of making due with the symbolism involved with keeping a ghost like that alive.

Besides, he'll have plenty of time to sweat about it on death row. We just recently killed off the DC Sniper, who was caught way back in 2002. Guy had 7 years to "reflect", and until the very end he never showed any sign of regret for his actions. This Hasan asshole is the same type of guy, so time to reflect is wasted time.

Besides, since he's now a cripple, as well as a high profile subject, he'll be kept seperate from general population. He'll just sit in his little cell all day, doodling with crayons and watching the TV that the ACLU insists is his right. The American dream, baby.

It'd be differnet if he were just thrown into some crazy-ass State Penn, where he'd get his ass kicked for cigarettes until they got bored with and shanked his ass to death. He deserves that, but he won't get it. Instead, crayons and TV. Then death, cause I garuantee you that since this in Texas they're not gonna put up with this shit.

He would die a martyr, with honor, in the eyes of the extremists who are calling him a hero. And in his own eyes as well.

This guy wants to die. Ergo, the worser punishment is life. It's not about making him feel remose. It's about making him suffer.

You're sounding even more inhumane and vindictive than me! Glad to see I'm rubbing off on you.

Why should we give a flying fuck what his terrorist buddies have to say? They're going to twist whatever happens to their advantage no matter what. If the guy ends up sitting in prison forever, they'll still claim he's being a living martyr by sacrificing his life for their cause. We can't win on that front.

But nobody takes those douchebags' message seriously except themselves. How can you? They fly planes into buildings and cut people's heads off while presenting a warped version of the Muslim faith. Nobody's listening to their words at this point.

And I still don't give a shit what Hasan wants at this point. His opinion and wishes became null and void the second he pulled the trigger. They're a non-factor to me. I really don't care what light he views his inevitible doom in.

But, even considering that, he's still not dying on his own terms. He's gonna die on the US's terms. In a terrorist POV, that may even be worse than sitting around watching Oprah.

Dying on his own terms is irrelevant. Dying is dying. In his eyes he will have died for Islam. In the eyes of other Muslims he will have died for Islam. It doesn't matter if it was at the time or afterwards.

And you don't become a martyr by living. They can call him a hero, but not a martyr.

For this guy, his family does not approve. And, unlike suicide bombers, he would have to live with his injuries. In prison, which is worse.

You should care about what he thinks. That is what should determine his punishment. Whatever will make him the least comfortable. That's justice. If that was death, then I'd support death. In this case life would make him squirm more, therefore it should be life. It's whatever the maximum punishment, in his case, would be.

You would be wise to. This guy did and before now he was not a threat. And where there's one potential extremist, there'll be others. It'd be best if he was shown to be very unheroic and unIslamic. Ideally.

Hm, it's possible that you didn't understand how I think before ... ô_o

He was a threat before this. The FBI investigated him and somehow came to the conclusion that he was harmless, even though the signs said differently. But that's a whole 'nother arguement.

If what the terrorists were ranting about appealed to him, them's the breaks. The guy's obviously unstable and too receptive of their influence, so there was little we could do to stop that aspect of it.

Bottom line is that the terrorists are going to recruit psychopaths based on them being, y'know, psychopaths. Their message doesn't have much weight to normal people. If one finds themselves nodding in agreement with what they say, there's not much hope of stopping that person, because that person would already be WAY too far gone to begin with. Most of the time, by the time anyone noticed it'd be too late. Those people have and always will exist, except these days we have our convenient terrorist label to use. There is no way we can control that.

Again, though, if the terrorists words have weight with you, then it won't matter what the outcome of Hasan's sentancing will be. They'll find a way to twist it to their advantage, no matter what. Hell, they even attempted to twist Obama's presidential victory in their favor- doesn't matter that it made no sense for them to do so, they did it any ways. Its what they do.

If our system worked like that, there's little from stopping criminals from using reverse psychology to manipulate the sentance. Hence, if you give their opinion too much weight, the system's cracks become even bigger faults.

Hasan IS a psychologist, so he could easily manipulate such a system to his advantage to get the result he wants. That is why we shouldn't take his wishes too seriously, and just do what makes sense. Killing him makes sense to me. Afterall, it'd be pretty twisted to make the families of his victims pay for his stay in prison via taxes, but that's up to their opinions.

I just don't think you're correct on this. You're working only from your own perspective.

We'll have to agree to disagree or it'll go on forever.

Justice isn't about making the offender suffer, that's vengeance. It's about protecting innocents and promoting moral responsibility. What positive effect does keeping him alive have on the victims? On Anyone? There is none. He'll just be another hopeless case of unchanging hate in our society that good people are now footing the bill for, and if the only argument is that death is the easy way out for him, then good for him. Happy we could oblige.

Justics is about giving eaqual measure to the offence.

His actions have made the victim's families suffer. Therefore he should suffer.

But it's been a few days and I've thought about it and, like Guantanamo, keeping him alive just might be more trouble than it's worth so a death sentence may be more appropriate. I mean, what I said is applicaple to all these poeople and they can't all be made to rot away in prison.