BS: It was the guns (Columbine HS)

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 May 00 - 07:39 PM

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.

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 11 May 00 - 07:57 PM

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.

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: Midchuck
Date: 11 May 00 - 08:05 PM

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.

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 May 00 - 10:19 PM

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

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: GUEST,flattop
Date: 11 May 00 - 11:31 PM

I fail to see what your link has to do with music Spaw.

click here.

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: GUEST,flattop
Date: 11 May 00 - 11:33 PM

I blew my bluey.

http://www.tw-zone.com/cosmo/photoshop/pix/oswald.jpg

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 12 May 00 - 01:56 AM

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

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: Metchosin
Date: 12 May 00 - 02:25 AM

oooh flattop, ya must be a Canajun eh?

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 12 May 00 - 08:50 AM

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.

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: GUEST,flattop
Date: 12 May 00 - 09:33 AM

What gave me away Metchosin? The Bluey bumbling?

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: Scabby Douglas
Date: 12 May 00 - 09:49 AM

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

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: Peg
Date: 12 May 00 - 11:47 AM

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...

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 May 00 - 04:10 PM

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

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: Metchosin
Date: 12 May 00 - 04:35 PM

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?

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: Kelida
Date: 12 May 00 - 04:59 PM

Sixty-nine percent of those convicted in 1996 were sentenced to
incarceration.

Almost two-thirds of defendants charged with a felony in the 75
most populated counties in May 1996 were released from jail
pending disposition of their case.

Thirty-one percent of those who were released were rearrested for
a new offense or did not show up for a court date or violated some
other condition of their pretrial release.

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

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: JPRameau
Date: 12 May 00 - 05:41 PM

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".

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: GUEST,flattop
Date: 12 May 00 - 07:48 PM

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.

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: Hardiman the Fiddler
Date: 13 May 00 - 10:25 AM

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."

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: GUEST,Shep
Date: 13 May 00 - 11:23 AM

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

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: Metchosin
Date: 13 May 00 - 12:39 PM

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

Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS-
From: BlueJay
Date: 13 May 00 - 01:32 PM

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