 sj |
||
|
||
BS: It was the guns (Columbine HS)
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: It was the guns (Columbine HS) |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: wysiwyg Date: 10 May 00 - 03:29 PM 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~ |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Whistle Stop Date: 10 May 00 - 03:27 PM 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...) |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Whistle Stop Date: 10 May 00 - 03:17 PM 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. |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Whistle Stop Date: 10 May 00 - 03:16 PM 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. |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST,James Date: 10 May 00 - 02:50 PM Susan; I didn't understand a word you said. |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: wysiwyg Date: 10 May 00 - 02:44 PM 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~ |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST,Aldus Date: 10 May 00 - 02:38 PM 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. |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST,Common Sense Date: 10 May 00 - 01:43 PM 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.
|
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 May 00 - 01:36 PM Gun debate IN SONG |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Metchosin Date: 10 May 00 - 01:36 PM couldn't agree more Willie-O. |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Willie-O Date: 10 May 00 - 12:46 PM >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
|
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST Date: 10 May 00 - 12:04 PM 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. |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Whistle Stop Date: 10 May 00 - 11:09 AM 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? |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Amos Date: 10 May 00 - 09:11 AM 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. |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Grab Date: 10 May 00 - 08:45 AM 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. |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Dharmabum Date: 10 May 00 - 08:37 AM 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. |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: kendall Date: 10 May 00 - 07:29 AM 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. |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: catspaw49 Date: 10 May 00 - 06:18 AM Yeah Joe............Let's just go to "Page Two"......... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: Joe Offer Date: 10 May 00 - 06:10 AM 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!- |
|
Subject: RE: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 00 - 04:34 AM Thanks Paul. This may be of interest also Gun Debate IN SONG |
|
Subject: IT WAS THE GUNS- From: GUEST,BensSon Date: 10 May 00 - 02:42 AM 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 |
