|
10 May 00 - 02:42 AM (#225664) Subject: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST,BensSon For the life of me, I can't understand what could have gone wrong in Littleton, Colorado. If only the parents had kept their children away from the guns, we wouldn't have had such a tragedy.
Yeah, it must have been the guns.
It couldn't have been because half of our children are
It couldn't have been because we treat our children
It couldn't have been because we allow our children
It couldn't have been because we allow our children to
It couldn't have been because we have sterilized and
It couldn't have been because our children, who
It couldn't have been because we give two-year prison
It couldn't have been because we teach our children |
|
10 May 00 - 04:34 AM (#225691) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: The Shambles Thanks Paul. This may be of interest also Gun Debate IN SONG |
|
10 May 00 - 06:10 AM (#225698) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Joe Offer Paul Harvey has been broadcasting his view of the news since 1944. When I was a kid, I used to like listening to him. Now that I'm a little older, I find he tends to beg the question. Many of the things he cites may well have been factors that contributed to the killings, but I'll betcha the bullets came from guns. I don't think banning firearms is the solution to all our social problems, but I do think Paul Harvey is a bit short in the logic department. -Joe Offer, Good DAY!- |
|
10 May 00 - 06:18 AM (#225699) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: catspaw49 Yeah Joe............Let's just go to "Page Two"......... Spaw |
|
10 May 00 - 07:29 AM (#225718) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: kendall I get really tired of that "broken home" crap. I and many others I know grew up in broken homes and we didnt kill anyone. Why? In my case it was simply Fear of punishment. |
|
10 May 00 - 08:37 AM (#225736) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Dharmabum I wrote this song on April 20th 1999 while watching the story unfold on tv. SWEET COLUMBINE April 20 just another day, Oh columbine, Except for those who got in the way, Oh sweet columbine, The class of 19hundred ninety nine, With the smell of smoke& columbine, Fifteen gone before their time, In sweet columbine. Some are injured some are dead, Oh columbine, It could've been our kids instead, Oh sweet columbine, It might have been you or me, No one knows what their fate will be, It could've been our destiny, To be in sweet columbine. The experts sit and anylize, Oh columbine, Won't stop the tears falling from our eyes, Oh sweet columbine, They'll never find the reason to be, Anything but stupidity, The answers up to you and me, In sweet columbine. What kind of boys could cause this pain, Oh columbine, Something snapped & they went insane, Oh sweet columbine, What could we do what could we say, That might have changed that fatefull day, This will never fade away, In sweet columbine. There is a flower that grows in spring, Oh columbine, Upon the graves of children gone, Oh sweet columbine, Where they will lie for the rest of time, In a bed of columbine, Their memory burning in our minds, In sweet columbine. April 20 just another day, Oh columbine, Except for those who got in the way, Oh sweet columbine, No matter what the reasons be, It'll never make sense to me, Cause it could never happen here you see, In sweet columbine.
For all the people who have lost children to voilent crime. Ron. |
|
10 May 00 - 08:45 AM (#225740) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Grab Read Neal Stephenson's "Interface" - a very good commentary on society. A good summary would be that if parents just don't give a shit about raising their kids with values, then they get kids without values. And that's the problem. A disruptive bully isn't "expressing himself", he's a spoiled brat taking advantage, and needs an adult to step in and discipline him. Basically, if you learn you can get away with stuff, what's to stop you doing it again? Let's face it, some kids are naturally good, and some plain aren't, and most are in between somewhere. Best example was a kid across the road from us - a nice kid, but prone to being disruptive simply cos he could get away with it. His mum would do the "if you do that again, ...." bit, but would never actually do anything. My mum 'babysat' him fairly often, and the first time over he played up. She told him to stop or she'd give him a smack, he carried on, so she slapped his leg. The effect was a total shock for him, the first time anyone actually did what they said, and basically he didn't give her any more trouble. Make of that what you will. Grab. |
|
10 May 00 - 09:11 AM (#225751) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Amos Nothing says it better than a firm bump against Reality; it's a great cure for head-noise and the kind of psychotic lack of orientation that many kids suffer from. It is easy to forget how MUCH orientation someone needs to be able to relate to most things in our highly derivative, abstract and insulated culture. But, as regards the Columbine kids, the parents have taken an awful beating on both sides of the killing zone. The two shooters had some really bizarre stuff going on inside them, of that we can be sure. But it is a little too easy to attribute that to the things Paul Harvey rants about. Even calling it "bizarre", an easy thing to do, makes it a little harder to see, doesn't it. Has anyone ever gathered any real data about the boys and what their real lives (in contrast to their media profiles or their school counselor profiles) were like? Each of them had some kind of screaming emergency or major conflict or some thing of that nature locked up behind the acceptable social interface they showed the world up untiltheir last morning. Guns firing bullets were a solution, but I have not heard that anyone has really tracked down the problem. |
|
10 May 00 - 11:09 AM (#225821) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Whistle Stop There were lots of problems there, I'm sure. I'd love to think that we could solve all these problems today, or this week, or this year, and end up with nothing but happy, well-adjusted kids from now on. I'm not optimistic, though. For the time being, I'd like to see if we could do something to keep guns away from people who might have these undiagnosed and unsolved problems. Restricting access to guns is not a perfect solution to the many problems facing our society, but it's a little more pragmatic than just saying we should solve ALL those other problems first. As for parental discipline, I agree that it's needed, but let's recognize its limits. Remember, the Columbine shooters shot themselves when they were done shooting the other kids -- does anyone really think that fear of a spanking would have deterred them? |
|
10 May 00 - 12:04 PM (#225859) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST I have worked in schools for many years and I bet that any teacher could tell you that a child is who he is going to become by grade three. These kids live in homes where there is no parental supervision, little parental involvment in the school and a a lack of understanding as to what it means to be a member of a community. A student I taught has recently been convicted of murder...it came as no surpise to anyone who has know this child since he was about eight. He grew up in a culture that saw guns as toys, saw others as victimes and had no regard "values". The right to be a parent often mitigates against these poor children as they are forced to live in that environment simply because some misguided social idea says that the parents have the right to ignore , abuse and set atrocious examples for them. When will we ever learn ? As for broken homes causing violence....Not all single parent families are "broken"....the things I related above are the cause of many a child turning into some monstrous replica of a human being. |
|
10 May 00 - 12:46 PM (#225889) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Willie-O >It couldn't have been because we teach our children that there is no God, there are no laws of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and that actions don't have consequences. This kind of bullshit--Harvey's whole spiel, not just the snippet above-- really gets to me, it is an attempt to promote religious intolerance by attributing several negative characteristics at once to those who don't share your theological viewpoint. I don't believe in God, my kids know this; I don't "teach them that there is no God"; that's a theocratic approach. I damn sure don't tell them that everything is relative and that there's no such thing as morality. This is a well-worn sham debate tactic. Last month on the anniversary of the Columbine thing, (to the minute) an alienated 15-year-old in a high school near where I grew up pulled a knife in computer lab and used it on several people, including himself. Five injured counting the perpetrator, none seriously. It was upsetting, traumatic, became a media circus for awhile, and is still the subject of heated debate, accusations and counter-accusations But nobody died. Because he didn't have a gun. (Handgun permits are very hard to obtain in Canada, therefore few houses have easily-concealed weapons lying around.) People that use a tragedy like Columbine to promote their own theocratic, narrow-minded agenda AND DEFEND the widespread availability of extremely lethal weaponry, they're the ones that need their values examined. Willie-O
|
|
10 May 00 - 01:36 PM (#225911) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Metchosin couldn't agree more Willie-O. |
|
10 May 00 - 01:36 PM (#225912) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: McGrath of Harlow Gun debate IN SONG |
|
10 May 00 - 01:43 PM (#225919) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST,Common Sense When you strike your thumb with the hammer, don't blame the hammer. Like a hammer, firearms are tools. It is a tool of precision and of destruction. Restricting access to someone with an 'undiagnosed' condition is not possible without restricting or infringing upon the rights of others to keep and bear arms. That right is the key to our freedom. Scottish games are a holdover from when large rocks and heavy poles were used to train for war by the Scots. The Scots did this because thier ability to keep and bear arms was denied by the King of England. That King's successor wanted to do the same in the Colonies. He sent troops to sieze the colonial's arms at Concord Mass. En Route at Lexington, a shot was fired that was hear 'round the world. We do have restrictions on those already diagnosed. We have controls on youths carrying firearms. We do not enforce those existing laws yet. Let's keep pressure on the politicians to enforce those laws now. It will work. If it doesn't, then we can worry about new laws. In reality, it is the population who enforces any compliance with gun control laws now. The honest citizen complies, the criminals do not. Common sense.
|
|
10 May 00 - 02:38 PM (#225956) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST,Aldus Dear Common sense, I hate to be blunt, By you ought to change your name......guns are made for one reason...to kill things....they are not toys...they are weapons and nothing they destroy requires destruction by private citizens. As for the Bloody king of England nonsense..it is time to get into the 20th century...many countries have won and maintained freedom without resorting to the foolishness of the "right to bear arms". I think there are many of us who find that arguement specious and worn out. Guns ought to be banned, plain and simple,,,over four thosand American children were killed by guns last year...that alone should make it clear that a ban is essential..in all countries. And don"t resort to that overworked but illogical statement that guns don"t kill people..people do. As for the discussion about blaming the hammer..it is absurd..however, if the hammer was designed to hit my thumb I would blame it..guns are designed to kill..we should blame them for it. |
|
10 May 00 - 02:44 PM (#225960) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: wysiwyg I'm sorry, I am spending the day helping to clean up other people's messes, and I am damn crabby about it. Even here among 'Catpals. The question isn't, WAS IT THIS, THAT, OR THE OTHER? It's, WHAT IS IT NOW? Because yes, it WAS all of the things mentioned, and more. Not which ones-- ALL of them. But what it IS? NOW?? Easy. You. Me. See a problem the world needs to solve? Go ahead, solve it, today, as you see fit, in your own backyard, powerfully and with all your passion for it. Now. Today. Or as soon as you see what to do. Start with what you can see, pick anything, and ACT. Because that is what it really is. ACTION. Taken. Or not. By you. And me. ~Susan~ |
|
10 May 00 - 02:50 PM (#225962) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST,James Susan; I didn't understand a word you said. |
|
10 May 00 - 03:16 PM (#225971) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Whistle Stop Susan, I understood it, but have a hard time relating it to the discussion at hand. I have solved this problem in "my own back yard" by refusing to own a gun, or allow one in my house. That doesn't solve the problem, which still may encroach upon my backyard at any time. Given the mobility of society and commerce in the modern world, the only way to solve this problem in my back yard is to enact and enforce laws that would severely restrict the availability of guns in our society. I'm really not enthusiastic about getting into the gun control debate again in this forum -- it simply is not what I come to the Mudcat for. But I have to agree with Aldus; the argument that we need unrestricted access to as much firepower as we can get our hands on so that the King of England will stay away is absurd, and the Second Amendment argument is only seriously advanced by people with little understanding of the Constitution. As for the argument that we need to be able to match firepower with our own government in order to guarantee our freedom, that is madness. My government possesses "arms" in abundance, including heavy conventional weapons, nuclear bombs, nerve gas, biological weapons, etc. I can't hope to match that, nor would I want to. The threat that concerns me now, in the year 2000, is not from my own government -- it is from a society that is growing increasingly violent and irrational at the level of the individual. THAT is what is directly threatening my freedom today; the Redcoats don't even come into it. |
|
10 May 00 - 03:17 PM (#225972) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Whistle Stop Susan, I understood it, but have a hard time relating it to the discussion at hand. I have solved this problem in "my own back yard" by refusing to own a gun, or allow one in my house. That doesn't solve the problem, which still may encroach upon my backyard at any time. Given the mobility of society and commerce in the modern world, the only way to solve this problem in my back yard is to enact and enforce laws that would severely restrict the availability of guns in our society. I'm really not enthusiastic about getting into the gun control debate again in this forum -- it simply is not what I come to the Mudcat for. But I have to agree with Aldus; the argument that we need unrestricted access to as much firepower as we can get our hands on so that the King of England will stay away is absurd, and the Second Amendment argument is only seriously advanced by people with little understanding of the Constitution. As for the argument that we need to be able to match firepower with our own government in order to guarantee our freedom, that is madness. My government possesses "arms" in abundance, including heavy conventional weapons, nuclear bombs, nerve gas, biological weapons, etc. I can't hope to match that, nor would I want to. The threat that concerns me now, in the year 2000, is not from my own government -- it is from a society that is growing increasingly violent and irrational at the level of the individual. THAT is what is directly threatening my freedom today; the Redcoats don't even come into it. |
|
10 May 00 - 03:27 PM (#225975) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Whistle Stop Gee, it was so good I had to say it twice. Sorry about that; it's a computer thing. (There I go, blaming the tool again...) |
|
10 May 00 - 03:29 PM (#225978) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: wysiwyg Whistle Stop, this is not to argue, but to encourage you to the additional action you name as necessary above. You said, "Given the mobility of society and commerce in the modern world, the only way to solve this problem in my back yard is to enact and enforce laws that would severely restrict the availability of guns in our society. " OK, what would be the first thing you could do to move in that direction? What would be the possibly-small step that you could take that could have a powerful result? What is the passion that would move you to take it? A wise person once told me, "It takes longer if you don't start." I'm not here to say who has started and who hasn't, or how far anyone has gotten. But some have not started or need to re-start. And it must also be true that "It takes longer if you don't keep going." I guess my passion on this topic is ACTION, because although I can imagine loving each arguer enough to discuss all possible sides, I can't justify the time that would be wasted doing it. It would delay my own action. We are called to action, every day. I know I don't answer it as fully or promptly as is justified, and I guess being as crabby as I am today my opinion probably came out like I have it all solved, tra la di dah. I just would rather see a thread that has all brags in it-- what I did today to stop killing, what I dream of doing tomorrow, what I see others doing.... But then, to follow my own principle, I guess I would need to start that thread myself. See how this approach works? ~S~ |
|
10 May 00 - 03:37 PM (#225982) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Whistle Stop Praise, I agree with you. The first thing most of us in a democracy should do to bring about change is vote; I do that. The second thing is to advocate particular positions, in the hopes of being persuasive enough to convince others to vote the same way we do. I do that too. Doesn't sound like "action" in quite the same way that manning the barricades does, but it's kind of how democracy works, and I believe in it. Perhaps this isn't the ideal forum in which to apply my powers of persuasion to this issue, but who knows? In my more confident moments, I like to think that I can win some hearts and minds with my eloquence. Dare to dream. |
|
10 May 00 - 03:39 PM (#225985) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: McGrath of Harlow "Scottish games are a holdover from when large rocks and heavy poles were used to train for war by the Scots. The Scots did this because their ability to keep and bear arms was denied by the King of England."
Now that's a brilliant idea. The right to bear arms really means the right to toss the caber and so forth...
|
|
10 May 00 - 03:41 PM (#225987) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: wysiwyg Whistle Stop, I like talking with you. See the new Simple Heroes' thread I just began as a result of our short encounter in this thread. Hope to see you there. Personal message me anytime! ~S~ |
|
10 May 00 - 03:47 PM (#225991) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Lonesome EJ This "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is such unmitigated horseshit, that it's difficult to believe that some otherwise intelligent individuals resort to it. With that logic, rocket launchers, handgrenades and Sherman tanks are basically harmless unless they fall into the hands of the criminal element: therefore they should be legal? It is a matter of degree. Klebold and Harris could not have wrought the kind of wholesale slaughter they achieved at Columbine with knives, slingshots or even bolt action carbines. To flatly state that a criminal will use a rock to kill someone if he can't find an AK47 is a bogus point that has no relevance to the gun control argument. |
|
10 May 00 - 04:48 PM (#226031) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: McGrath of Harlow In 1996 a member of a gun club went into an infants' school at Dunblane in Scotland, and killed 15 children and a teacher, and wounded another 10 children and three teachers, using guns which he legally possessed.
Prince Philip commented that it was silly to talk about banningb handguns because oif this - he said that it would be possible to take a cricket bat into a school and beat children to death with it. So should cricket bat be banned?
The consensus was that Prince Philip was talking out of the back of his trousers, not uncharacteristically for him. Under heavy popular pressure - since one school massacre was seen as one too many by most people - the Tory government brought in significant further restrictions on handguns. And the new Labour government kept a promise made during the elections, and banned private possession of handguns.
Clearly Prince Philip's logic has more resonance in the United States. So it's odd that people opposed to gun control seem so fierce about "the King of England" - since the husband of the Queen of England is so clearly on their wavelength. |
|
10 May 00 - 05:18 PM (#226041) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Amergin ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ............ |
|
11 May 00 - 10:01 AM (#226382) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Grab Prince Philip was quite right. The guy involved in Dunblane was found by a doctor to be mentally unstable and unfit to own a gun. But bcos this doctor wasn't the same doctor who issued the licence, there wasn't anything he could do about it. In other words, a completely daft condition of the UK gun laws, which contributed to it. As a result, a section of the population practicing the perfectly OK sport of shooting have been shut down. And for anyone who says that shooting isn't a sport, I'd ask them just what fencing, javelin, discus, archery and darts started off as - all of these were designed as weapons of war, and could still be used to injure or kill people today. Or on the unarmed side, there's all the various martial arts too - judo is an Olympic sport, but the techniques were originally used in battle to pin down a man in armour so that your mate could slice his head off! But carrying guns on the street, and distributing them to just anyone "for self-defence" - that's just daft. Grab. |
|
11 May 00 - 10:43 AM (#226403) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Whistle Stop I'm happy that people like sports. But we're weighing sporting interests on the one hand against dead kids on the other -- an easy choice for me. Take up golf; I'm sure nobody would have an issue with that. |
|
11 May 00 - 11:03 AM (#226414) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Peg thanks Aldus, Whistle Stop, EJ and the other voices of reason...If I hear one more person say guns are merely tools and we have so many mindless gun deaths only because of people and their horrible godlessness and sad upbringings, I'm gonna go shoot someone with an easily-obtainable weapon of mass destruction...I mean, I could use a knife or a big rock or some poison to express my rage but a gun is just so much faster and more lethal!!! Why I barely even have to blink or expend any effort, just pull the trigger and BLAM! instant gratification... |
|
11 May 00 - 11:38 AM (#226438) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Amergin Guns are merely tools and the reason we have so many tragedies like Columbine are because of the lack of god in schools and the lack of two parent homes. |
|
11 May 00 - 12:11 PM (#226462) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST,Aldus Tools for what ? |
|
11 May 00 - 12:30 PM (#226476) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Lonesome EJ Personally, I find it easier to drive nails with a hammer than with the butt of a 44 Mag. |
|
11 May 00 - 01:19 PM (#226511) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: McGrath of Harlow As I said, "Clearly Prince Philip's logic has more resonance in the United States."
|
|
11 May 00 - 02:53 PM (#226569) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: JPRameau I am not going to take sides in this, because I am just a piano player (and please, no comments about "Shoot the Piano Player"!) and so somebody else generally does the talking and books the gigs. The thing that I don't understand is why you all keep dredging this issue up again and again. Everyone justs gets mad and then gets madder, and says the same things. There are a few people who have walked away from this discussion group in disgust and even fear from the bad feelings that have poured out here. What is the point? I would honestly be afraid to be in a room with people talking the way that you are talking here. Maybe some of you would have guns, but even the ones that are against guns sound like you wouldn't hestitate to draw blood with anything handy. Maybe you don't have to read this thread if you don't want to, and maybe some people don't, but take it from me, a longtime lurker, a lot of people read this and don't say anything. Anyway, I don't see how you can just cut over to a thread about some old song without carrying the bad feelings with you, and without remembering that someone came close to threatening to shoot you in another thread. I had music theory question, and I hate music theory, but there are a couple of people here who know their stuff and have patience with those of us that don't, so I sent a private post to one of them, only to be told that he was out and for good, because of some of this sort of stuff. If I want to hear all the gun talk, I just turn on the TV or radio, or open the paper. But if I want to hear about music, there is only this one place, and it seems like pretty soon everybody worth talking to will be chased away. JP |
|
11 May 00 - 03:00 PM (#226572) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Peg JPRameau; If you are referring to my post... I wasn't actually threatening to shoot anyone; that was meant with complete and utter tongue-in-cheek sarcasm and I am not sure why you didn't get that...I hope no one else is as literal-minded as you are. yes, gun-toting morons screaming about their Second Amendment rights make me crazy, but I am not about to hurt anyone over it, get real!!!!!! Peg, total pacifist |
|
11 May 00 - 03:06 PM (#226575) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Amergin BTW, had my tongue in my cheek so hard it was drilling through to the outside, when I posted the above comment. It was in response to Peg's post. Sorry, I should have put TIC afterwards. Just figured that you all would have seen it. Amergin |
|
11 May 00 - 03:20 PM (#226591) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Midchuck If you find it necessary to characterize people who disagree with you as "morons," just by virtue of the fact that they disagree with you, then there may be some element of reasonableness in your hoplophobia. A person who can't argue a societal issue without getting into the use of insulting terms for people who take the opposite position may not have his/her behavior under primarily intellectual, rather than emotional, control, and may, therefore, have no business owning or possessing firearms, or anything sharp, or baseball bats, for that matter. But why generalize to people in general? (I realize it's wrong to get personal in a negative way on this list, but hey, I'm a moron, I can't be blamed.) Peter. |
|
11 May 00 - 03:27 PM (#226600) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Whistle Stop Peter/Midchuck -- What's "hoplophobia"? No criticism intended here, just curious. |
|
11 May 00 - 03:31 PM (#226604) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Midchuck Uncontrollable fear of weapons... From the Greek hoplon, a tool, weapon... Same root as hoplite, a heavily armed foot soldier in classical times. (I know that, not because of my classical education, but because I had to look it up myself, first time I saw it.) Peter. |
|
11 May 00 - 03:34 PM (#226609) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Whistle Stop I tried looking it up before posting that message, but couldn't find it. Thanks for filling me in; word origins fascinate me. |
|
11 May 00 - 03:41 PM (#226618) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Amergin Here while we're at it let's discuss something like abortion, prayer in schools, gays in the military, or any other sensitive subject we can think of. Amergin |
|
11 May 00 - 04:18 PM (#226638) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Peg re: my use of the word "morons" I did not mean to imply that I think EVERY peron who is pro-gun is a moron, I was characterizing those who maniacally defend their right to tote such deadly things about while citing an arcane, archaic, old document which does not relate in any way to the way our current society functions...THOSE folk are, I think, morons... just my opinion, and you may disagree...and there is, BTW, nothing "uncontrollable" about my "fear", I have spent plenty of time around guns and safe gun users...and my views on the subject are carefully considered and thought out after many years... If the laws aren't being enforced, and there is nothing to show that is changing anytime soon, people are gonna die. Best solution; take the goddam things away. Find something else to play with, Learn to bow hunt and fish for your food. It is that simple. |
|
11 May 00 - 05:31 PM (#226680) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: JPRameau There is nothing left to say here. If you can't see how one insult leads to another, perhaps it is no wonder that you are surprised when people start shooting at each other. |
|
11 May 00 - 05:31 PM (#226681) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: JPRameau There is nothing left to say here. If you can't see how one insult leads to another, perhaps it is no wonder that you are surprised when people start shooting at each other. |
|
11 May 00 - 05:37 PM (#226685) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST,Cara I think this thread has been very civil and reasonable for the most part and I hope it stays that way. Obviously this is a discussion that some don't tire of, and so they should be able to discuss it. Although it's been said over and over, if you don't want to read about guns, hey--don't click on the threads with GUN in the title. It truly is that easy. |
|
11 May 00 - 05:41 PM (#226688) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: McGrath of Harlow "Morons", and other words like that, have been the subject of a couple of threads just recently.
Here's a dictionary definition of the word: "A term used by American psychologists and criminologists of children and of adult persons of feeble, undeveloped or degenerate mind or character."
Which in my view is a disgusting definition and makes this a disgusting word to use in any context. For a couple of stories about people whom the aforesaid "American psychologists and criminologists" would no doubt have called "morons", click here.
And I suppose that's thread drift, if you like, but I think this thread could do with a bit of thread drift. As JPRameau says, we really aren't going to get anywhere with this.
But as for why it keeps on coming up, it seems to come up up every time there's another gun massacre in a school in America, which seems to happen pretty frequently. Wouldn't it be great if that stopped happening? |
|
11 May 00 - 06:34 PM (#226714) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Lonesome EJ I characterized the "guns don't kill people , people do" as a horseshit argument used by erstwhile intelligent people. I certainly didn't call them morons. It just strikes me as a gross oversimplification, a way of not having to consider the real aspects of the problem. I'm not mad at anybody, other than maybe McGrath of Harlow, and he's agreeing with me. PS. I am not afraid of Hoplites, although centurions do put me on edge. |
|
11 May 00 - 06:44 PM (#226723) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Midchuck How does calling it horseshit make it less valid? Guns (without people to use them) don't kill people. People do kill people. Many of them use guns. Many use other things. A great many use cars, but no one even mentions restricting access to cars. There are a lot of people on this list who think they can use as nasty language to others as they wish because their motives are good. Since I'm one of the horseshit morons who likes guns, I have to be civil. Doesn't seem fair, somehow... Peter. |
|
11 May 00 - 07:26 PM (#226748) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: JPRameau For me, the issue is not really guns. but the "Make my day" sort of thinking that allows people to move easily into verbal and then physical violence when they don't care for what they see or hear. Pardon me for bluntness here, but it seems that Americans, whether for or against gun control, often seem ready and willing to make this jump.
|
|
11 May 00 - 07:39 PM (#226758) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: McGrath of Harlow Now I have always thought that horsehit is a lot less offensive than bullshit. Of course for the really offensive stuff, it's hard to beat what humans put out.
"No one even mentions restricting access to cars." Well there's quite a tough test you've got to pass to be allowed to drive a car - at least, like most people in my part of the world, I failed it a couple of times. And you can lose your licence quite easily.
Mind I think it would be good if they brought in a set of checks on whether people were stable enough to be trusted with a car, and there are a lot of skilful drivers who should no more be trusted with a car than with a gun.
And Lonesome EJ: "I'm not mad at anybody, other than maybe McGrath of Harlow" - tell me more. I certainly never accused you of calling anyone "a moron". As I pointed out, that is a word with a foul history that should be quietly buried. |
|
11 May 00 - 07:57 PM (#226773) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Lonesome EJ Midchuck, I already explained the fallacy of the argument in a previous post, so I am not just calling it horseshit, I am attempting to explain why it is. I wont reiterate that argument. McGrath, I was kidding, I'm not mad at you. I do find some of your opinions quite, um, provocative. But that's a good thing, y'know. |
|
11 May 00 - 08:05 PM (#226774) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Midchuck You've explained it to your satisfaction. But none of my guns has yet sat up, pointed itself at someone, and gone off on its own. Until one does, you haven't explained it to mine. And needing to use terms like "horseshit" and "moron" amount to an admission that you can't support your feelings on a logical basis. P. |
|
11 May 00 - 10:19 PM (#226843) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: catspaw49 Logic? Well, everyone uses logic to their own ends and on this argument I don't see minds being changed in either direction. Perhaps some black humor is in order. However you view it.....click here. Spaw |
|
11 May 00 - 11:31 PM (#226889) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST,flattop I fail to see what your link has to do with music Spaw. |
|
11 May 00 - 11:33 PM (#226890) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST,flattop I blew my bluey. http://www.tw-zone.com/cosmo/photoshop/pix/oswald.jpg |
|
12 May 00 - 01:56 AM (#226930) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Lonesome EJ Midchuck, read my first post, substituting "hogwash" for "horseshit". Feel better now? There. Now dispute the point I made in a logical manner, and I will respond in kind. "Guns (without people to use them) don't kill people. People do kill people. Many of them use guns. Many use other things. A great many use cars, but no one even mentions restricting access to cars." If this country instituted the kind of licensing and registration for guns that it does for automobiles, it would be a lot better off. The main reason it doesn't is that there is nothing in the Constitution about the "right of a well-organized militia to keep and drive cars." Therefore, the American Automobile Association hasn't felt it necessary to spend millions of dollars strongarming the American Public and the Congress into fighting such repressive measures as titles, licenses,and speed limits that threaten to impinge on the sacred "right to drive cars." Instead we have looked at sensible restrictions and responsibilities that, if not ensuring public safety, are at least recognized by most people as being for the common benefit. Some might suggest that a firearm differs from an automobile in the nature of its intended usage: That an automobile is intended primarily as transportation, and that a gun is intended primarily to put holes in objects at a distance. As such, a Tec 9 machine pistol probably has some distinct tactical advantages over a Ford Taurus, especially if one's objective is the efficient annihilation of large groups of people in short periods of time. You may argue for the Taurus if you like, but I do not find it coincidental that our chain of American school shootings were carried out by disturbed individuals using assault weapons instead of Fords. Personally, I feel that restrictions placed on Tec 9 assault pistols and their users should be greater than those placed on Fords and their drivers. Now, Midchuck, it may surprise you to discover that I am a gun owner, and that I support some of the NRA's positions on stronger prosecution of gun-related crime. However, I also believe that greater control and restriction is necessary in many areas, including the sale and use of handguns and assault weapons, the widespread lack of responsibility among those who buy and sell firearms at gunshows, and the need for a nation-wide licensing and registration of guns and gunowners. The answer for you and me is not going to come through bumper-sticker line-drawers like "guns don't kill people, people do", "cars kill more people than guns- outlaw cars!", or "an armed taxpayer is called a citizen...an unarmed taxpayer is called a subject." The answer, I think, must come through debate, discussion, and uncomfortable compromises. That's what the democratic process is all about. LEJ |
|
12 May 00 - 02:25 AM (#226936) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Metchosin oooh flattop, ya must be a Canajun eh? |
|
12 May 00 - 08:50 AM (#227017) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Whistle Stop LEJ, I congratulate you for a well-articulated statement that does not lapse into insults or posturing. I don't know if anyone is changing any minds in this thread, but the best way one can hope to do that is with reason and courtesy, as you displayed. This is a topic about which people feel passionately, so I understand why we all might lapse into less-than-polite forms of communication. But your post rises above that, and I appreciate it. |
|
12 May 00 - 09:33 AM (#227028) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST,flattop What gave me away Metchosin? The Bluey bumbling? |
|
12 May 00 - 09:49 AM (#227034) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Scabby Douglas This thread seems to rework some stuff that went on in an earlier gun thread... I'd like to cite two commentators on this debate: Eddie Izzard (UK standup comedian): "the NRA says Guns don't kill people, people kill people... yeah but you got to admit, the gun helps..." Dogbert ( in the Dilbert comic):" I believe that everybody should have the right to own guns.... all for automatic weapons....Citizens should have bazookas and rocket launchers too..However, I also believe that only I should have ammunition. Because frankly, I wouldn't trust the rest of you goobers with anything more dangerous than a piece of string." Dilbert asks: "What about Charlton Heston?" Dogbert: "I'd keep the string away from him." Cheers M'Dears
|
|
12 May 00 - 11:47 AM (#227103) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Peg I used the word moron. I use it frequently, in fact. It is descriptive. I do not think there is anything illogical in my use of this word, nor do I use it because I am too simple-minded to think of another one. Nor did I hurl at at anyone specific, and all the finger-pointing indicating I did so is manipulative. "Moron" is but one of many words in the English language I use to refer to stupidity. There is a lot of stupidity in the world. I think stupidity is one of the primary reasons for so many accidental gun deaths. The other primary reason is uncontrolled anger and the need for instant gratification of one's emotions. I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is a moron. I never said that, and the person who keeps pointing to me as an unstable, potentially violent person looking to harm others because of an ironic remark I made is trying really hard to, again, manipulate words to suit his/her purpose. This is pitiable, this need to be a victim. Sounds like a lot of trigger-happy NRA-mongers I know (note I said "a lot", not ALL--I respect responsible gun owners, I simply haven't met very many of 'em). All the more offensive, this victim mentality, considering the subject matter... If someone is insulted by the use of the word moron, well, I am insulted by someone using circular, outmoded arguments to justify owning weapons that schoolkids are more and more frequently using to blow each other away. Such arguments are insulting to anyone's intelligence. Same goes for the inscrutable and inexplicable "logic" one uses to assume that a person's words typed into an online forum make them somehow likely to use weapons on another person...especially when a "threat" is made in total sarcasm and jest to make a point about the typical mindsets of many who enjoy being around guns...and that "threat" is made by someone who is clearly anti-gun...the lack of irony and humor in some of these gun discussions is mind-boggling. I am the first to admit it also an emotional issue. Until you know someone who has been a victim of moronic violence, this can be difficult to comprehend. But I submit that my emotional response to this issue as one who has seen senseless gun violence in my own life, alongside responsible gun ownership, is somehow more complex and possibly more significant than someone's emotional response who is merely paranoid the government is taking away their right to own lethal weapons and as many of them as they can fit in their gun cabinet. Is that a morally superior attitude? Sure, I guess so. I am weary and heartsick of these threads...why do they keep coming up? Honestly, I think on on abortion rights would probably be easier to comprehand; at least there, the two sides are pretty clear-cut...but when we are dealing with issues as complex as this one, the need to state everything in black and white just doesn't serve very well...
|
|
12 May 00 - 04:10 PM (#227243) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: catspaw49 I too grow weary of the "debate' because it isn't. The gun lobby has a boatload of great things that defy logic, ie, the fact that cars kill more than guns. So those of us, like Leej above, are forced to try to explain it is like comparing light poles to geraniums. Even if we can do it, the gun lobby ignores it as Leej's post will be ignored, by simply saying that it is a true statement and we need to enforce the controls we have. Complete Crap. One of the many reasons we can't enforce what we already have is the because there are so damn many guns and so many laws that are loopholed to death, that enforcement becomes a joke. Want a real simple law? Each citizen may own one non automatic or semi automatic firearm with a barrel length of not less than 26 inches. You must register this firearm and if it is used in the commission of any crime, it will be destroyed and you will no longer have the ability to register another for any reason. You must renew the registration yearly and your license as a "gun owning citizen" every three years. Failure to do so will cause you to forfeit the firearm and any further rights to gun ownership. Something like that anyway........ Spaw |
|
12 May 00 - 04:35 PM (#227254) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Metchosin No flattop, not the bungled bluey, your jpeg just said a thousand words to me about sacred cows, but I may just have weird neuron paths in my brain. Are you really Canadian? |
|
12 May 00 - 04:59 PM (#227264) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Kelida Sixty-nine percent of those convicted in 1996 were sentenced to incarceration.
Almost two-thirds of defendants charged with a felony in the 75
Thirty-one percent of those who were released were rearrested for These are statistics from the Bureau of Justice that can be found here. Maybe the problem isn't the weapons at all, no matter what they are. Maybe the problem is that the System keeps putting criminals back out on the streets to commit more crime. I personally feel (despite being an ardent pacifist) that murderers and rapists should just be put to sleep like the dangerous beasts they are. That would solve the problem with overcrowded prisons. . . However, I also think that there should be some serious changes in American society. I haven't always been a good kid, and there are a very few things that I've gotten away with behind my parents' backs, but for the most part my parents have always been reasonably well-informed of my whereabouts and actions. I think that my parents would notice if I began hoarding weapons or building homemade bombs in the garage. I think there are a lot of kids who are simply victims of benign neglect. I honestly believe that most parents love there kids and that most parents also like to think that they do right by their children, but I think that parents have become very lax in their supervision of their children. People seem to be complaining all the time about what their kids see on television or on the internet, but what kind of parent allows their children to look at pornography or to constantly see gratuitous violence in film? I think the answer is a LAZY parent. The excuse that children are sneaky and devious and that they purposefully go out of their way to look at smut secretly is a myth. If "behind a parent's back" means while the parents are leaving a 9-year-old at home unsupervised, then I suppose that is behind their back. But again, do people do this? Who are they and where do they live? I had a baby-sitter before and after school until I was out of 6th grade, and I was mature for my age. It seems like people don't want to take action until their kid does something bad. Then they want the government to step in and take over their job as parent. The government shouldn't have to raise children--parents should. The simple fact is that parents don't do their job. This, I think, is the single biggest problem with my generation--many of us were never supervised. Where are parents when their children are looking at porn and playing violent computer games and watching R-rated films? Peace--Keli |
|
12 May 00 - 05:41 PM (#227286) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: JPRameau I think that you Americans should stop blaming someone evil other, like the NRA for your problems with guns and shootings, and start to look at yourselves, as well. Those of us who find ourselves so often in the shadow of Americans know only to well the "Dirty Harry" cowboy sort of attitude that comes out in so many of your interactions. This is not limited to the avowed "Right to Bear Arms" people, and even comes out here, where you insist that you are entitled to use any sort of insult or offensive language against anyone, presumably because you are "right". Perhaps attitude is what sets the mental disposition for young people who think nothing of firing a gun to settle a disagreement. Perhaps it is not, as well, but it would be worth "taking a closer look". |
|
12 May 00 - 07:48 PM (#227324) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST,flattop Yes, Metchosin, living 10 minutes out of Orillia but the picture was from George E. Mahlberg, an American photoshop artist. It was published in Wired Magazine, 1997, maybe. He has strange pictures at: http://www.tw-zone.com/cosmo/photoshop/photoshop.html The pictures come slowly. I believe they also came slowly over a high speed T1 line in Toronto - so the sending web site is probably slow. You might want to check them out when most folks in North America, except for BC, are tossing and turning in troubled slumber. The line in the Dances With Stamps picture, "Lick me like a 14-cent stamp and stick me to the bedpost!" gives you a further idea of Mahlberg's wicked sense of humour and damn it, he's an American. Other pictures, like Heart of the Matter and Rough Day?, I find disturbing. They may say more about America's unfortunate heritage as big boy on the block and as leader in speedy media madness than all the gun threads. |
|
13 May 00 - 10:25 AM (#227512) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Hardiman the Fiddler This thread reminds me of my favorite, currently policically incorrect blues tune, but then aren't most blues tunes politically incorrect? "I was born in Chicago, 1941 I was born in Chicago, 1941 My daddy told me, Son better get yourself a gun." |
|
13 May 00 - 11:23 AM (#227518) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST,Shep I read many differing views on gun law from the Americans at the Mudcat. Your constitution is a very important document to you all but hey listen, it was written a long time ago and its man made. Which means that you have the power to do something about it. Its not written in stone. I'm sure that if your founding fathers who wrote it could have forseen the mess that one phrase "the right to bear arms" has caused your country then they would not have included it. If those who carry guns dont like it, tough, they'll get over it. My country has no written constitution. The crown is the constitution. We aint perfect by any means but if children are dying DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, like we did after the Dunblane school massacre. When a child cries or is in pain, isnt our duty to protect it? Sorry but I had to say something. Shep |
|
13 May 00 - 12:39 PM (#227540) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Metchosin Thanks flattop! will check out the site. I printed a couple of the above, my husband was ROTFLHAO and supplied the captions: Delbert McClinton Meets the Blues Brothers, Delbert McClinton's Worst Day or Hey Joe |
|
13 May 00 - 01:32 PM (#227556) Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: BlueJay Keep an eye on tomorrow's Million Mother March. Angry moms have done much before, e.g. MADD. Keep an eye on it. Nothing will be solved on this forum and I really hate even joining it. But I did want to thank LEJ for his reasoned argument. And Spaw for the hilarious link! Maybe THAT'S the best part of this thread. And Shep, I agree with your thoughts. If our forefathers had forseen this mess, they surely would have done something different. Especially since their idea of "arms" was muzzle-loaders and tomahawks. Even semi-automatic weapons must have been a dream. Spaw- while I like your "Law" for the most part, I feel it is indeed too restrictive, although I could live with it. Without getting into the morality of hunting, it is legal here in the US. Some folks hunt both ducks and deer, each requiring a different type of firearm. So I would revise your numbers upward, and keep the rest intact. BlueJay |