Life Ain't So Beautiful
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
I just spent the last week and a half in paradise. St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix - then off to Pompano Beach. Sun, rum and relaxation.
Back for a couple of days, coming back to work after having my manicure and watching with dread the Flight for Life landing at my hospital. The fifth kid to arrive at Swedish Medical Center from the Columbine High School "Trenchcoat Mafia" shootings. The fifth kid to arrive at *my* hospital that is, a dozen others have been triaged to other trauma units across the city. At this time, there is no knowing how many victims are still at the school, where the Trenchcoat Mafia is or if there are any hostages. Hundreds of students have not reported in. Hundreds.
I sit here swallowing my own bile in an attempt to keep myself together. It's more than Pauly Shore and Tori Spelling and Monica Lewinsky. Men are being dragged behind trucks until they are decapitated simply because they are black, kids are going to schools and opening fire with AKAs, NATO is discovering more mass gravesites all the time.
Life just really ain't so fucking beautiful.
Over and out and heading back to paradise.
-Kristen
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
k...@TheCNI.org
Colorado Neurological Institute
Englewood, CO USA
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Sasha Stone
yeah, I just turned on the news. What was it, another shooting? What
happened? Holy cow. What is it with Denver?
All I can say is, how a person can stay sane in this world? How can we
walk around with this stuff in our heads and remain sane? How can a parent
send their kid off to school knowing that they could...be shot by some
twisted dumb fuck? Worse, no one is even considering the possibility that
violence in movies and film has anything whatsoever to do with it, for fear
of censorship, fear of losing status as artgeek. I mean, come on,
something has got to give here. Of course it has to do with violent
imagery. Of course it does. I've always believed it - people don't watch
out for kids. Of course they do when it comes to nudity. But violence?
Hell, violence, blood is everywhere. Anyone see Millennium last week?
Showing people with their heads chopped off? How can anyone dismiss it?
And you know what? A big ol' fat 'fuck you' to anyone who tries to tell me
that violent images have nothing to do with this kind of shit.
I think I'll go throw up now.
Sasha
me
tears. god, i can't bear to see my younger brother start high school next
year, much less imagine what things might be like if i ever decide to have
kids (isn't that the scariest part? that the shootings have been
happening anywhere and everywhere? or are we only hearing about
predominantly white school shootings?). they say school-shooting deaths
were actually declining. maybe no evening news is good news and i should
get rid of the pandora's idiot box.
i thought they already cancelled Millenium. not that anyone could tell
you whether or not you saw a re-run, Sasha.
thinking of clipping his WINGS OF DESIRE (OCC)
-myron
Sasha, you're in LA aren't you? i might actually be working there for a
couple of months this summer.
Peter Clinch
> And you know what? A big ol' fat 'fuck you' to anyone who tries to tell me
> that violent images have nothing to do with this kind of shit.
It isn't that they have nothing to do with it, it's that they don't have
a determinisitc effect, doing the same to everybody. The great majority
of people seeing violent images don't go out and total their classmates.
I've seen several movies blamed for horrific acts, yet I've had no urge
to commit them myself (quite the opposite). And you only have to look
back in time before the advent of newspapers and books to find that a
100% absence of violent images in no way prevents violence, so where are
you going to draw the line on what you censor? Are you going to censor
the news reports that have horrified us both? You probably should,
'cause *someone* is out there thinking it was really a cool thing to
do... :-(
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Dundee University & Teaching Hospitals
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Caro...@aol.com
> so where are
> you going to draw the line on what you censor? Are you going to censor
> the news reports that have horrified us both? You probably should,
> 'cause *someone* is out there thinking it was really a cool thing to
> do... :-(
>
The most recent case on this matter is the one involving the film BASKETBALL
DIARIES starring Leonardo DiCaprio. It is based on the TRUE story of Jim
Carroll, the writer, who became a heroin addict in NYCity. He grew up in a
single parent (mother) household and was on the poverty line. Carroll's life
was a nightmare and it is depicted as such. This is a step inbetween the
news broadcasts on the CO shootings and a totally fictious movie. Can you
draw the line at this movie? I doubt it. I doubt you can draw it at any of
the three levels. I saw BD and didn't think it was especially violent
compared to other films. Nevertheless, the movie was seen numerous times by
a man in KY who also went on a shooting spree and now there is a lawsuit
against the producers. I did find the movie very depressing and the only
thing a "normal" (nonpsychotic) person would take from this movie as
something to emulate is that JC turned to writing as a way out of his hellish
life. I'm more interested in finding out how a 17 year old and 18 year old
bought assault weapons, grenades and video equipment (somehow had thousands
of dollars for this) and wore ghoulish makeup to HS with bizarre outter wear
with their parents thinking apparently nothing of it! I can assure you, I
would have been sitting in some psychiatric ward if my parents had found me
doing these kinds of things and, believe me, they watched what I was doing!
They were also very liberal with spending money but I could never have kept
purchases of that magnitude a secret.
Carol
Sasha Stone
>a determinisitc effect, doing the same to everybody. The great majority
>of people seeing violent images don't go out and total their classmates.
>I've seen several movies blamed for horrific acts, yet I've had no urge
>to commit them myself (quite the opposite).
Well, I'm not talking about everyone. I'm talking about kids who are time
bombs for whatever reason. I know I make no sense with this. I know there
isn't anything anyone can do because it's *just the way things are* and
nothing is ever going to fix it. Just like nothing is going to fix
pedophilia or rape or the starving people in the Sudan. I know these
things yet I can't help but think these school shootings could have been
pevented.
And you only have to look
>back in time before the advent of newspapers and books to find that a
>100% absence of violent images in no way prevents violence, so where are
>you going to draw the line on what you censor?
I'm not talking about absence of violence. Were there kids taking machine
guns and mowing down their classmates before movies, television and news?
I don't think so. The availability of guns was there, as always. What's
different? Kids hear about other kids doing it. From where? television.
Kids zone out on acid and watch NATURAL BORN KILLERS a hundred times and
get the idea to kill people. So they do it because they saw it in the
movie. We can't blame the movie. We can't blame the news. So who do we
blame? The parents. But are we going to prosecute the parents? No.
Should we? Probably. Should we, as artists, elect not to put out negative
imagery that might influence/disturb children and teens? Sure, why not?
Because Oliver Stone's artistic (so-called) movie was more important? His
freedom to make it? Yeah, okay. I'll buy that. We don't want to inhibit
anyone from doing anything. But should they maybe think twice before they
do it? Yeah. I think so. Particularly since we do think twice about
showing other things, like a male erection. You want to tell me that it's
more damaging for a young person to see a hard-on than it is to see ten
people shot to death? We censor things plenty. We just don't censor
violence. We draw the line there. But why? That's my question.
Anyway, getting back to the kids. What would they have done had they never
heard of those other shootings? Or had they never sunk into a computer
game or violent movie? Rot in obscurity? Torture animals? Become serial
killers? Maybe they would have turned their hatred into a real kind of
geek-revenge and become Bill Gates.
Are you going to censor
>the news reports that have horrified us both? You probably should,
>'cause *someone* is out there thinking it was really a cool thing to
>do... :-(
>
I know. I know. I don't know what to do or what would be the thing to do.
All I know is that I have a daughter to raise. And I have to raise her
realizing that one day she could be shot while studying in library, while
getting her lunch, while filling out a college application. And I won't
even get the satisfaction of killing the perps because they'd have already
killed themselves.
It is a crazy world.
Sasha
barbrose
who are time
> bombs for whatever reason. I know I make no sense with this.
I know there
> isn't anything anyone can do because it's *just the way things
are* and
> nothing is ever going to fix it.
I think there is something that could assist in "fixing" it.
Instead of passing students from one grade to another just
because they make "grades", why not teach children in school,
from kindergarten onward, to accept others, not to ridicule and
ostracize, but rather to befriend and assist each other. Bring
kids together. Schools ignore and, I sometimes think, even
encourage the conflict between students.
I taught school many years ago and I was surprised, even then,
that more students didn't strike out against a system that made
them feel they were inferior, different, unacceptable.
We, as a society, laud the wrong things and our school systems
enforce stereotypes that drive people apart at an early age
instead of bringing them together.
Barbara
Sasha Stone
>Instead of passing students from one grade to another just
>because they make "grades", why not teach children in school,
>from kindergarten onward, to accept others, not to ridicule and
>ostracize, but rather to befriend and assist each other. Bring
>kids together. Schools ignore and, I sometimes think, even
>encourage the conflict between students.
>
was, how mean kids can be. Unfortunately, kids have/will always be mean.
It doesn't matter what gets taught or what we adults say is right or wrong.
They told us not to smoke pot, we did. They told us not to have sex
before marriage, we did. They told us to accept and love our fellow
classmates even though they were ... well, different than the "popular"
kids. Heck, John Hughes made a bunch of movies about it. And you know,
those movies probably helped outcasted kids feel more appreciated.
Did anyone happen to see that documentary GIRLS LIKE US on PBS not too long
ago? That was a great/sad movie.
>I taught school many years ago and I was surprised, even then,
>that more students didn't strike out against a system that made
>them feel they were inferior, different, unacceptable.
>
Striking out against a system is, again, one thing. Killing your fellow
classmates because they're black or play sports is another. Loving the
Nazis is not a quality that deserves my pity.
>We, as a society, laud the wrong things and our school systems
>enforce stereotypes that drive people apart at an early age
>instead of bringing them together.
That's true, but that wouldn't have stopped these kids.
Sasha
barbrose
systems
> >enforce stereotypes that drive people apart at an early age
> >instead of bringing them together.
> That's true, but that wouldn't have stopped these kids.
That's something that, sadly, neither you nor I will ever really
know.
Barbara
Sasha Stone
>know.
>
blame the school system for that?
Couldn't they have done the sensible thing and turned to drugs?
Sasha
barbrose
really
> >know.
> >
> That's true. But these kids worshipped Hitler and the Nazis.
How can you
> blame the school system for that?
Well, unless their parents trained them to worship Hitler, I
would lay it right at the doorstep of an educational system that
makes them outcasts. Have you ever read much about Hitler's
background?
Barbara
Shari L. Rosenblum
>Just stop the free availability of fire-arms in the US & I think that will
>solve much of the problem. Have regular checkups on Campus to see if anyone
>carries fire arms. Keep a watch on suspicious people.
That anyone might offer repression and surveillance as the means to
societal salvation is, to me, the true height of human horror. The damage
that they work does not splash with the same fireworks as that brought
on to the people of Colorado this week, but its destruction covers
far more territory, longer years, and victims numbered in the billions.
Shari
Ed Owens
> Kristen, what? I mean, you're back you're leaving again, wha? Anyway,
> yeah, I just turned on the news. What was it, another shooting? What
> happened? Holy cow. What is it with Denver?
>
> All I can say is, how a person can stay sane in this world? How can we
> walk around with this stuff in our heads and remain sane? How can a parent
> send their kid off to school knowing that they could...be shot by some
> twisted dumb fuck?
How can anyone get behind the wheel of a car? or fly in a plane? How can
anyone buy groceries knowing that some greedy businessman may have "recycled"
bad eggs or tainted meat? How can anyone go to work knowing that they could
be shot by some twisted dumb fuck who got fired last week or had his parental
rights revoked because of his drinking problem? How can anyone do anything
but stay in their homes and wait for the random burglar to break in and shoot
them where they sleep for a few dollars or a hockable CD player?
> Worse, no one is even considering the possibility that
> violence in movies and film has anything whatsoever to do with it, for fear
> of censorship, fear of losing status as artgeek.
No, everyone is considering the possibility. Next to the implementing of
school uniforms, media violence is the number one hot button issue right now.
I don't see it as the problem (a big fat "fuck you" to me), but rather the
symptom. I could say more but I fear the topic's probably been exhausted on
this list before--with no change on either side.
> I mean, come on, something has got to give here. Of course it has to do
> with violent imagery. Of course it does. I've always believed it - people
> don't watch out for kids. Of course they do when it comes to nudity. But
> violence? Hell, violence, blood is everywhere. Anyone see Millennium last
> week? Showing people with their heads chopped off? How can anyone dismiss
> it?
People not watching out for kids is not an argument for media censorship. In
fact, it is more directly the cause than media violence itself. Did you watch
Millennium? If so, why? If not, what's to stop others from doing what you
did? I don't dismiss it. I just don't see it as the problem (a second big
ol' fat "fuck you" to me).
Ed
Sasha Stone
>tears. god, i can't bear to see my younger brother start high school next
>year, much less imagine what things might be like if i ever decide to have
>kids (isn't that the scariest part? that the shootings have been
>happening anywhere and everywhere? or are we only hearing about
>predominantly white school shootings?). they say school-shooting deaths
>were actually declining. maybe no evening news is good news and i should
>get rid of the pandora's idiot box.
>
resolvd that will do
anything to get Emma into private school. That's seems to be the only solution.
Or actually, I
thought of another one. What if we all weren't in denial about it. What if
students were all
trained in what to do, like a fire alarm or something. I'd go so far as to
teach self-defense,
Karate or something. Because if it's a reality for these kids then there's no
surprise attack and
then maybe there wouldn't be shootings at all. Maybe the kids would be more
afraid if they knew
they were going to get some kind of a fight.
>i thought they already cancelled Millenium. not that anyone could tell
>you whether or not you saw a re-run, Sasha.
>
Yeah, I don't know. That show is so damned violent. But I always did like it.
I just wouldn't
want Emma seeing it until she's much much older. Who wants those pictures in
the head?
>thinking of clipping his WINGS OF DESIRE (OCC)
>
Well, that got me laughing, so thanks.
>-myron
>
>Sasha, you're in LA aren't you? i might actually be working there for a
>couple of months this summer.
Really? Well, you best me looking me up, M!
>
SrinivasG
solve much of the problem. Have regular checkups on Campus to see if anyone
carries fire arms. Keep a watch on suspicious people.
Most of all parents must reduce pocket money until they seem responsible
enough. Some may say that his would be an intrusion on indivijual privacy
but its worth it.
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:40:00 +0530 SrinivasG said:
>solve much of the problem. Have regular checkups on Campus to see if anyone
>carries fire arms. Keep a watch on suspicious people.
That anyone might offer repression and surveillance as the means to
societal salvation is, to me, the true height of human horror. The damage
that they work does not splash with the same fireworks as that brought
on to the people of Colorado this week, but its destruction covers
far more territory, longer years, and victims numbered in the billions.
Shari
Hunh? Shari, we are talking about kids here - give me a break.
Perhaps less freedom for children is key.
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, SrinivasG wrote:
> Just stop the free availability of fire-arms in the US & I think that will
> solve much of the problem. Have regular checkups on Campus to see if anyone
> carries fire arms. Keep a watch on suspicious people.
Was Jesse Ventura really serious when he said this incident demonstrated
that gun control laws are too strict?? He was quoted as saying if other
students were packing heat, this whole situation may have been averted
before it got out of hand. I know Charlton Heston and other members of
the NRA really do believe that, but did anyone see Ventura when he said
that? Is it possible it was meant ironically?
Of course, I'm not really sure why I give a rat's ass what Jesse Ventura
thinks...
Andy T.
I don't know what Jesse Ventura said, but I do know that one of the kids in the library said that he is a hunter and he wished he had had is rifle at school so he could have taken out the two boys and saved lives. That sounds war-ish to me - but then again, it was - except one side wasn't armed.
-K
barbrose
think that will
> solve much of the problem. Have regular checkups on Campus to
see if anyone
> carries fire arms. Keep a watch on suspicious people.
It strikes me that you do not live in the USA or, if you do, you
are unaware that our constitution guarantees its populace to the
right to have guns. So, though I, personally, am not against
gun control, I am a staunch believer in our constitution and
also know that taking guns out of the hands of the US citizenry
would be an extremely hard task to accomplish.
Barbara
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
That's something that, sadly, neither you nor I will ever
really know.
Then Sasha Said:
That's true. But these kids worshipped Hitler and the Nazis.
How can you lame the school system for that?
Then Barbara said:
Well, unless their parents trained them to worship Hitler, I
would lay it right at the doorstep of an educational system that
makes them outcasts. Have you ever read much about Hitler's
background?
I say:
It doesn't matter - Hitler was a crazy genius but crazy nonetheless - not in a crazy "Oh look at him go" way but in a crazy "Run for your life" way. If a child worships Hitler, there is much more going on. Maybe his parents are racists and bigots, maybe he is looking for attention. Maybe he is just plain different. Obviously Eric Harris or Dylan Khlebold (whoever planned this attack) was quite clever - oftentimes people who are very intelligent are not adept at being social. I believe it is not just the high school "class" system (popular, unpopular, stoners, freaks, whatever) that can create the lunacy that was experienced at Columbine High School. I believe it may have started with a loose screw, was perpetuated by either uncaring, driving or inattentive parents, not picked up through the system of teachers, counselors and schools, and aggravated by the ugliness of kids.
There is not one thing, shall never be one thing, that makes a situation like this occur.
But I will repeat, I child who is gathering firepower, making bombs, creating vindictive and threatening webpages, is giving off so many signals that *someone* and ***ESPECIALLY*** his parents should have known. And ultimately, his parents, who created him, who raised him, who sustained him, have responsibility for him - especially his actions as a minor. I believe the Harris and Klebold families have a lot to answer for.
Both sets of parents, by the way, released written statements (given to the media on their attorney's letterhead, of course). Harris' parents offered condolences. Klebold's parents offered condolences and apologies - and then asked everyone to leave them alone.
In my opinion, a written apology on an attorney's letterhead just ain't gonna do the trick.
-Kristen
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
Just stop the free availability of fire-arms in the US & I think that will
solve much of the problem. Have regular checkups on Campus to see if anyone
carries fire arms. Keep a watch on suspicious people.
Most of all parents must reduce pocket money until they seem responsible enough. Some may say that his would be an intrusion on indivijual privacy but its worth it.
I say:
What's an intrusion on individual privacy? Making sure kids aren't taking weapons to school or reducing pocket money?
I feel that minors aren't entitled to privacy in a familial or educational way. I don't think what they keep in their lockers is only their business. I don't think that a child's drawers in his room at home are his and his alone. I don't know where we got this idea.
Kids are kids - they are not mature, responsible adults - they shouldn't be treated that way. Giving them varying degrees of responsibility as they mature and making them responsible for their actions pertaining to the different degrees is a good way to help a child mature and teach him or her to become a productive, functional adult. But this should all be *allowed* - not taken for granted. That is why kids cannot drive or work until they are 16, drink until they are 21.
And a parent needs to take responsibility when they misread their child's level of maturity.
[warning - further tangent ahead]
It is all about responsibility - something we don't assume too much anymore. You put a cup of hot coffee between your legs in the car and head out in to traffic and it tips or you squeeze it or whatever and you burn your genitalia - how the fuck is that McDonald's fault? Coffee is hot for Christ's sake - don't put it anywhere *near* your genitalia! You get drunk and trip in the Pizza Hut parking lot and break your nose - how the fuck is that Pizza Hut's fault? You smoke five packs of cigarettes a week (and if you can read or watch tv, you *know* it causes cancer) for thirty years and you get lung cancer - how is that Phillip Morris' fault?
This is all so fucking ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous. People need to start taking responsibility - they should be forced to take it - or they should be punished.
ating
> Just stop the free availability of fire-arms in the US & I think that will
> solve much of the problem. Have regular checkups on Campus to see if anyone
> carries fire arms. Keep a watch on suspicious people.
Was Jesse Ventura really serious when he said this incident demonstrated
Ed Owens
> It is all about responsibility - something we don't assume too much
anymore...This is all so fucking ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous. People need
to start taking responsibility - they should be forced to take it - or they
should be punished.
I agree wholeheartedly. But then...
> There is not one thing, shall never be one thing, that makes a situation like
this occur.
>
> But I will repeat, I child who is gathering firepower, making bombs, creating
vindictive and threatening webpages, is giving off so many signals that
*someone* and ***ESPECIALLY*** his parents should have known. And ultimately,
his parents, who created him, who raised him, who sustained him, have
responsibility for him - especially his actions as a minor. I believe the
Harris and Klebold families have a lot to answer for.
Why? What do you know about how they raised their kids? What do you know about
raising kids at all? You've admitted you have none, so from whence do you
derive this wisdom? How can you espouse a return to responsibility and then
attack those who are not necessarily responsible?
> Both sets of parents, by the way, released written statements (given to the
media on their attorney's letterhead, of course). Harris' parents offered
condolences. Klebold's parents offered condolences and apologies - and then
asked everyone to leave them alone.
>
> In my opinion, a written apology on an attorney's letterhead just ain't gonna
do the trick.
What would you prefer? Do you think that their pain is any less because it was
their children who did the shooting? Would you prefer they open themselves up
to media questioning about their most intimate lives followed by widespread and
vicious attacks on how they raised their kids (see your own comments above), no
matter how unfounded such comments may be?
My mother raised three children as a single mother. One of them, my younger
brother, is in jail now because of a life of dope dealing and car theft. On
the other hand, my sister is a doctor and I am a programmer. Where does
responsibility for my brother's actions and decisions fall? On my mother? On
my sister and me? How about on the alcoholic and abusive father who left his
wife and kids when they were just starting school? How about on the media?
Too many late-night viewings of "New Jack City" or "Menace II Society" perhaps?
My brother holds sole responsibility, as do the shooters in Colorado...in
Paducah...in Jonesboro... I'm not saying there weren't influences. But when
you're standing over a cowering classmate with a loaded shotgun...you're all
alone. And at that point, you and you alone decide whether or not to pull the
trigger. Period. I don't care what you've read or what you've seen or what
you're parents taught you. We look for reasons because the truth scares us.
We blame the movies or music or video games or Hitler because it scares us to
think that there are people in the world who simply don't care. People for
whom life has no value.
Is society perfect? Not by even the longest stretch of the imagination. But
until people begin to rightfully take responsibility, like you said at the
beginning, none of that is going to change.
Ed
Jeff Miles
to the world:
I didn't hear him say that, but are you saying he's wrong if he
did? If you happened to be on the campus (in range) and had a gun, would
you have just stood there watching, or would you have shot back? How a gun
is used says a lot about the person. The gun itself is just a hunk of
metal that throws a smaller hunk of metal real fast. The gun wasn't the
instrument of destruction, the kids behind them were. If they didn't have
the guns, they just would have used something else. I'm thinking here of
fertilizer and diesel fuel, or whatever was used in the Japan subway system
a few years ago.
People with strong beliefs one way or the other will always use
incidents like these to try and rationalize their ideas, but the sad fact
of it is, the perpetrators and their reasons should be what's looked at,
not their tools for implementing their frustrations.
To keep this on a movie subject, I did hear these kids watched
NATURAL BORN KILLERS quite a few times. Should we start banning movies
that deal with murder? My thoughts on that movie aside (what a piece of
crap), can we say the movie help kill these kids? If you might be saying
that to yourself, it's one of two things. You either haven't thought it
through, or it's a cop out. Doing this leads you to ignore all the other
reasons that brought these kids to this point.
Jeff M
Helping to make your Mac a friendly place
<http://users.ewa.net/patter/Macs.html>
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
> Just stop the free availability of fire-arms in the US & I
think that will
> solve much of the problem. Have regular checkups on Campus to
see if anyone
> carries fire arms. Keep a watch on suspicious people.
It strikes me that you do not live in the USA or, if you do, you
are unaware that our constitution guarantees its populace to the
right to have guns. So, though I, personally, am not against
gun control, I am a staunch believer in our constitution and
also know that taking guns out of the hands of the US citizenry
would be an extremely hard task to accomplish.
Barbara
It would be a hard task but we must remember that the part of the Consititution you mention was written in the late 1700's, after the war for independence. We also have the right not to be forced to quarter soldiers in our homes. Who says quarter anymore? Rape used to be defined (and may still be in some places in the States) as forced sexual intercourse with a woman, not your wife.
There are outmoded laws and unnecessary laws and language. It is a hard task to keep up with but we should.
As for guns - people hunt, it is something I detest but I understand that others really get in to it. So hunting rifles, okay. Handguns, you'd have to sell me on that one - for your own protection? - against someone else that managed to get their hands on a handgun? A handgun that was probably stolen from someone who was shot by an intruder during a robbery and the bonus was a handgun! No one can convince me that there is any need for machine guns, or AKAs or whatever else is out there that is made for no other reason than war and to wreak havoc.
But off my seventh tangent of the day and on to your point. Just because a law is in the Constitution of the United States, does not make it sacred. It is up for interpretation or being repealed at any time depending on what the people want. Remember, the one of the Amendments to the Constitution was Prohibition? That wasn't such a good idea either.
And lastly, the Constitution may guaruntee the right to bear arms, but it does not guarantee that right to kids and they certainly are not allowed to take guns to schools and furthermore *no one* is allowed to gun down innocents.
-K
Jeff Miles
thoughts to the world:
>My brother holds sole responsibility, as do the shooters in Colorado...in
>Paducah...in Jonesboro... I'm not saying there weren't influences. But
>when you're standing over a cowering classmate with a loaded
>shotgun...you're all alone. And at that point, you and you alone decide
>whether or not to pull the trigger. Period. I don't care what you've
>read or what you've seen or what you're parents taught you. We look for
>reasons because the truth scares us. We blame the movies or music or
>video games or Hitler because it scares us to think that there are people
>in the world who simply don't care. People for whom life has no value.
>
>Is society perfect? Not by even the longest stretch of the imagination.
>But until people begin to rightfully take responsibility, like you said at
>the beginning, none of that is going to change.
>
>Ed
This is probably one of the most sensible posts I've read in a long
time. Asking questions and searching for reasons and answers is the human
thing to do, but we have to be careful to not shift blame from the actual
person who committed the crime. Until an autopsy shows they weren't on LSD
or something, these kids made a choice and it was the wrong one. They are
to blame. Everything else, all the conjecture and guessing, might show us
how they got to that point, but once there, the end choice and decisions
were theirs.
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw wrote:
> It is all about responsibility - something we don't assume too much anymore...This is all so fucking ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous. People need to start taking responsibility - they should be forced to take it - or they should be punished.
I agree wholeheartedly. But then...
I said:
> There is not one thing, shall never be one thing, that makes a situation like this occur.
>
> But I will repeat, I child who is gathering firepower, making bombs, creating vindictive and threatening webpages, is giving off so many signals that *someone* and ***ESPECIALLY*** his parents should have known. And ultimately, his parents, who created him, who raised him, who sustained him, have responsibility for him - especially his actions as a minor. I believe the Harris and Klebold families have a lot to answer for.
Then Ed asked:
Why? What do you know about how they raised their kids? What do you know about raising kids at all? You've admitted you have none, so from whence do you derive this wisdom? How can you espouse a return to responsibility and then attack those who are not necessarily responsible?
I say:
I have no children and this is one of the reasons. I have enough problems putting up with other people's misbehaved children when I'm in the food court of the mall, much less dealing with seriously damaged boys who open fire on a high school.
Are you saying a parent isn't responsible for what becomes of a child?
When you have a child you take responsibility for that child. Not seeing to it that they are clothed and fed and housed but also their education and emotional stability. You have 18 years to do it in and you better pay a whole bunch of attention in that 18 years.
But let's get to what I *really* said - I asked how they didn't know. How, through all of the preparation, and there was supposedly months of it, that their parents did not know. If they had snapped overnight - well, we'd be talking about something different, but their decline into insanity and revenge was researched, prepared for and actually trained for on video games and in paint ball places - so what happened? How could the parents not know and furthermore, if they did how could they not do something about it?
> Both sets of parents, by the way, released written statements (given to the media on their attorney's letterhead, of course). Harris' parents offered condolences. Klebold's parents offered condolences and apologies - and then asked everyone to leave them alone.
>
> In my opinion, a written apology on an attorney's letterhead just ain't gonna do the trick.
Ed said:
What would you prefer? Do you think that their pain is any less because it was their children who did the shooting?
I say:
No I don't - it is probably worse, especially if they are, as they espouse, good families, they have to be horrified. However, their sons, minors who they were responsible for, perpetrated a brutal, historical attack on a high school. There are questions to be answered, questions that I asked above, questions that a community, parents of dead kids, sons and daughters of dead teachers, the wounded, the damaged - want answers to. It would be nice if they could hide in their grief and say, "We just didn't know." but how didn't they know? Why didn't they know? As I said, this wasn't something you could hide under the bed or under your Hanes in the underwear drawer for Christ's sake.
Ed said:
Would you prefer they open themselves up to media questioning about their most intimate lives followed by widespread and vicious attacks on how they raised their kids (see your own comments above), no matter how unfounded such comments may be?
I say:
Was I vicious? I think not, Ed. I asked for answers. I may not be entitled to them but I know, personally, far too many people who are.
Ed wrote:
My mother raised three children as a single mother. One of them, my younger brother, is in jail now because of a life of dope dealing and car theft. On the other hand, my sister is a doctor and I am a programmer. Where does responsibility for my brother's actions and decisions fall? On my mother? On my sister and me? How about on the alcoholic and abusive father who left his wife and kids when they were just starting school? How about on the media? Too many late-night viewings of "New Jack City" or "Menace II Society" perhaps?
I say:
Ah, the personal aspect. I cannot begin to know what happened with your family or your brother. I can tell you another story - my young brother listens to German goth rock and used to do drugs and has been in and out of hospitals, arrested, medicated - when he was young he "accidentally" got ahold of my father's handgun and shot my little sister in the face (a blank and she survived with little damage).
But you see, my Dad is a bizarre man, hideously driven to perfection - not in himself but in those around him. He's terrible with it, awful, I could tell you stories that would curl your toes.
My brother is a good kid, he's good deep down inside, but he was threatening to burn the house down and he was throwing televisions sets at his mother. My brother was seperated from my father and in one year went from flunking and smoking and doing drugs to all A's, smoke free and drug free and crumpling in his sister's arms when they discuss their father "How do you love a man and hate him so much at one time?" - this from a 15 year old. Christ allmighty God. He was sent to a place where people listened to him, loved him, hugged him and took an interest in him and had no other expectation of him then for him to be himself. He flourished.
My brother is a good kid - my brother didn't know how to get out of a horrible situation when he was 6, 8, 14, 15. Hell, he was 6, 8, 14, 15 - he didn't have any power, any rights, any escape from something he should never have been subjected to.
Do I blame my father? You betcha. And if you say I'm wrong, well, then you would be.
Ed said:
My brother holds sole responsibility, as do the shooters in Colorado...in Paducah...in Jonesboro... I'm not saying there weren't influences. But when you're standing over a cowering classmate with a loaded shotgun...you're all alone. And at that point, you and you alone decide whether or not to pull the trigger. Period. I don't care what you've read or what you've seen or what you're parents taught you. We look for reasons because the truth scares us. We blame the movies or music or video games or Hitler because it scares us to think that there are people in the world who simply don't care. People for whom life has no value.
I say:
Why? Just because? Were both of these kids just the same just because that is how they were born? Was Hitler born that way? You'd have to do a lot of talking to convince me of that. However, you didn't note that I *did* mention that in these boys there had to be a screw loose somewhere, that it wasn't just the parents but the school, the kids, the teachers who let these boys' dangerous angst slip through their fingers. But the jocks are getting nailed (literally and figuratively) and the community is questionning the cops and counsellors/schools as to how the boys slipped through the system - so I am asking the parents.
Because we do need to take responsibility for ourselves - and our actions - and I think these boys acted alone, they pulled the trigger, but there was planning, something happened before this and I think it could have been stopped if someone was paying attention and I don't really think anyone was.
Ed said:
Is society perfect? Not by even the longest stretch of the imagination. But until people begin to rightfully take responsibility, like you said at the beginning, none of that is going to change.
I say:
None of it is ever going to change and it's gonna get worse. I'm a cynic, I'm living at the mouth of hell right now so I'm allowed to be.
-Kristen
ating
> >Was Jesse Ventura really serious when he said this incident demonstrated
> >that gun control laws are too strict??
> I didn't hear him say that, but are you saying he's wrong if he
> did? If you happened to be on the campus (in range) and had a gun, would
> you have just stood there watching, or would you have shot back?
Of course I think he's wrong! Yeah, a 9mm would've come in real handy on
that day in particular, but can you imagine the scene in your high school
cafeteria on any other day if everybody was allowed to carry a weapon? I
would've been booked on manslaughter charges before my American Chop Suey
had a chance to cool off!
Do you really think allowing high school students to carry firearms would
be a good thing, or are you just doing a for-the-sake-of-argument type of
act?
Andy T.
Jeff Miles
these thoughts to the world:
>As for guns - people hunt, it is something I detest but I understand that
>others really get in to it. So hunting rifles, okay. Handguns, you'd
>have to sell me on that one - for your own protection? - against someone
>else that managed to get their hands on a handgun? A handgun that was
>probably stolen from someone who was shot by an intruder during a robbery
>and the bonus was a handgun! No one can convince me that there is any
>need for machine guns, or AKAs or whatever else is out there that is made
>for no other reason than war and to wreak havoc.
Go to Isreal today and make this statement. They would probably
say, "find this girl an oven." And I don't think they'd be talking about
making dinner.
The right to guns wasn't intended for self protection against a
thief. While that is one of the benifits, its thought was more towards
keeping a government in the hands of the people. It also wasn't to insure
a persons right or ability to hunt. This was a given. Remember when and
why the constitution was drafted and signed. To put it in simple terms, a
group of people had finely had enough. Their thoughts and ideas weren't
being represented or even given consideration. After winning the fight for
independance, they set out to draft a documant that would keep the nation
they had begun from following the same path that created the reason for
fighting in the first place.
Believing we've outgrown this need shows a very narrow view on what
the world's all about and what our role is in it's future. Freedom isn't
something you just have because you're you.
Jeff M
Jeff Miles
to the world:
No, I'm not. I've been around guns most of my life. Half of my
expanded family (aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.) believe the way you do. But
the truth of the matter in my experience is that gun owners are among the
most sane and friendly people who don't seem to have a need to prove
anything. They are respectful and understand the power and limits of the
tool they have.
A gun is nothing more then a tool. Placing blame on the tool,
takes blame away from the actual perpetrators of the crime.
I do believe that firearms should be required in every household.
Growing up with them and learning what they are and what they can do builds
in a respect for their purpose. Sure there will always be a few
exceptions, but these exceptions would have found any tool to fulfill their
goals.
I never said high school students should always be "packing". But
the attitude wouldn't be the same if all these students were brought up
with a respect and knowledge of a guns use and power, rather then having it
a mystical thing seen in movies that gains respect and notoriety when used
against peers.
As an example, I'll use the car. How many high school students are
allowed to drive cars? How easy would it be for these disturbed students
to take that car and plow into a group standing in the courtyard of a high
school? It would be easy as hell, but does it happen? Not very often, so
why not? The car is just a tool, not a icon that represents fear and
respect. When every household is required to own a gun and learn it's use
and purpose, the gun becomes a tool like the car.
There are so many ways these students could have carried out their
assault, but they happened to choose guns. So guns are getting the blame
and not the students. My fear is that this will make guns that much harder
to get, and that much more desirable as a weapon of choice.
This leads me to question why the components of the 40+ bombs they
found aren't getting the same ridicule. Is it because the bombs didn't go
off and kill anyone? They still had the same destructive potential, if not
more. Why are they being ignored? I believe it's because the guns are an
easy (excuse the put) target, instead of blaming he students who used them.
Jeff M
Jeff Miles
to the world:
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Jeff Miles wrote:
>
>> >Was Jesse Ventura really serious when he said this incident demonstrated
>> >that gun control laws are too strict??
>
>> I didn't hear him say that, but are you saying he's wrong if he
>> did? If you happened to be on the campus (in range) and had a gun, would
>> you have just stood there watching, or would you have shot back?
>
>Of course I think he's wrong! Yeah, a 9mm would've come in real handy on
>that day in particular, but can you imagine the scene in your high school
>cafeteria on any other day if everybody was allowed to carry a weapon? I
>would've been booked on manslaughter charges before my American Chop Suey
>had a chance to cool off!
Sorry, but I think this is BS. You might have been booked on
manslaughter if you were the only one carrying that 9mm. But would you
have taken the same action knowing everyone around you also had one? I'm
sure a few would. What's that thing the media is focusing on now? I think
it's something about suicide by intimidating police. It's something about
drawing a gun on a group of cops and letting them blow you away. Your
cafateria senario would be about the same thing.
But this is rediculous. No one is saying all these students should
have been armed. Jessy Venture (I didn't hear him say this) mentioned that
gun control laws were to strick. I agree. Are you likely, (as a criminal)
to walk into a 7-11 with a gun and try and hold the place up if you know
everyone inside is also carrying one? If so, then you probably have a
suicide wish.
>Do you really think allowing high school students to carry firearms would
>be a good thing, or are you just doing a for-the-sake-of-argument type of
>act?
No, I don't think allowing students to carry guns to school is a
good thing, but I think the way we deal with the problem is ass backwards
wrong. Instead of allowing guns in the household and teaching the children
respect for the thing, we make them a mystic tool. Getting one, in itself,
becomes a symbol of status and power.
If a child, from day one, is taught that a gun is a tool, not a
wand of power reserved to those who can get one, they then loose their
mystique. How impressive is the gang member walking around with a hammer?
This doesn't mean guns wouldn't be replaced by something else. Of course
they would. Instead of debating guns, we might then be debating the
legality of lighter fluid and zippos.
These kids were wrong. They knew it and it's probably one of the
reasons for their actions. I believe it gained them the attention they
were seeking. They also might, in some disturbed way, believed it gained
them a certain level of respect. None of this has anything to do with guns.
BTW, didn't they use shotguns (a hunting type weapon) and not hand
guns or assualt type weapons?
Jeff M
Ian Moye
out in to traffic and it tips or you squeeze it or whatever and you burn
your genitalia - how the fuck is that McDonald's fault? Coffee is hot for
and trip in the Pizza Hut parking lot and break your nose - how the fuck is
that Pizza Hut's fault? You smoke five packs of cigarettes a week (and if
you can read or watch tv, you *know* it causes cancer) for thirty years and
you get lung cancer - how is that Phillip Morris' fault?
Well, i can agree with you as far as the pizza hut example.
As far as taking additives that will make a product addictive, and adding
them to an already addictive/unhealthy product..... i have a problem with
that.
And if McDonalds happens to serve me a cup of coffee that's boiling.....
i'll be ready to sue... there is no need for coffee to be served that hot
Now i don't recall how hot the coffee was in the case of the lawsuit, but
there's no need for coffee to be served as hot as i've described.
-Ian
>This is all so fucking ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous. People need to
start taking responsibility - they should be forced to take it - or they
should be punished.
>
Ian Moye
Consititution you mention was written in the late 1700's, after the war for
independence. We also have the right not to be forced to quarter soldiers
in our homes. Who says quarter anymore? Rape used to be defined (and may
still be in some places in the States) as forced sexual intercourse with a
woman, not your wife.
And if we aren't allowed to have firearms? What happens when we the people
as a whole want to overthrow our government because they've turned into
something that controls us and is acting injust towards it's governed?
Having nothing to fight back with would simply suck.
>There are outmoded laws and unnecessary laws and language. It is a hard
task to keep up with but we should.
>
>As for guns - people hunt, it is something I detest but I understand that
others really get in to it. So hunting rifles, okay. Handguns, you'd have
to sell me on that one - for your own protection? - against someone else
that managed to get their hands on a handgun? A handgun that was probably
stolen from someone who was shot by an intruder during a robbery and the
bonus was a handgun! No one can convince me that there is any need for
machine guns, or AKAs or whatever else is out there that is made for no
other reason than war and to wreak havoc.
>
>But off my seventh tangent of the day and on to your point. Just because a
law is in the Constitution of the United States, does not make it sacred.
It is up for interpretation or being repealed at any time depending on what
the people want. Remember, the one of the Amendments to the Constitution
was Prohibition? That wasn't such a good idea either.
>
>And lastly, the Constitution may guaruntee the right to bear arms, but it
does not guarantee that right to kids and they certainly are not allowed to
take guns to schools and furthermore *no one* is allowed to gun down
innocents.
Innocents? These kids that have driven these two teens to killing are not
completely innocent. But.. By NO MEANS should they have been killed.
Something should be done to protect our schools from future acts like
this... i just do not think this particular suggestion of taking away the
right to bear arms is the answer... i just wonder what is the answer
though....
~Ian
>-K
Dave Edsall - The Tauminator
>Kids are kids - they are not mature, responsible adults - they shouldn=27t =
>be treated that way. Giving them varying degrees of responsibility as =
>they mature and making them responsible for their actions pertaining to =
>the different degrees is a good way to help a child mature and teach him =
>or her to become a productive, functional adult. But this should all be =
>*allowed* - not taken for granted. That is why kids cannot drive or work =
>until they are 16, drink until they are 21. =20
[...]
>It is all about responsibility - something we don=27t assume too much =
>anymore.
[...]
>This is all so fucking ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous. People need to =
>start taking responsibility - they should be forced to take it - or they =
>should be punished.
>
And this is one of the main problems we may have as a society. You can make
as many laws as you wish but civilization will not flourish without respect
and responsibility. If we are not responsible for our actions AND preventing
ourselves from committing those actions we deem illegal, then what good are
laws? LAws themselves depend on people to obey them. We have only a limited
number of people to enforce them. Our jails are straining and our streets are
becoming unsafe because members of our society have chosen not to respect
these laws, and, worse still, they see the limits to which they can be
enforced and take advantage of these limits.
If those two killers planned ahead of time to kill themselves, why should
they fear legal actions? Why should they respect the law? There's no point in
doing so. They knew they were going to a place where they could not be held
accountable for their actions here.
Dave
Shari L. Rosenblum
>That anyone might offer repression and surveillance as the means to
>societal salvation is, to me, the true height of human horror. The damage
>that they work does not splash with the same fireworks as that brought
>on to the people of Colorado this week, but its destruction covers
>far more territory, longer years, and victims numbered in the billions.
Kristen responds:
>Hunh? Shari, we are talking about kids here - give me a break.
>Perhaps less freedom for children is key.
There are few things more misguided -- or more insidiously dangerous
-- than transferring to the state the rights and powers of parents.
And it is always and invariably tragic error to sacrifice the freedom of
the masses to compensate for the misdeeds of scattered individuals.
Repression and surveillance are the fallbacks of tyrants. Tyrants
and cowards.
Shari
Ed Owens
for some reason and then suddenly posted today...There's another one that may or
may not come.
Ed
Ed Owens wrote:
--
"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of
wood in your hand is often useful."
Sasha Stone
mind since I wrote the this post to which you respond. Nevertheless:
>People not watching out for kids is not an argument for media censorship. In
>fact, it is more directly the cause than media violence itself. Did you watch
>Millennium? If so, why? If not, what's to stop others from doing what you
>did? I don't dismiss it. I just don't see it as the problem (a second big
>ol' fat "fuck you" to me).
>
I'm being taken to task for something I apologized for already. Long
since. Will you forget the 'fuck yous' already? Fo' chrissakes.
Once I remembered the whole White Album/Charles Manson debacle, I changed
my mind about the media's influence. However, I do think we are taught
how to kill by watching TV and our self-pity is nurtured by self-pitying,
melodramatic rock operas. But what makes someone then decide to go out in
a blaze of glory? Yeah, I can see a lone tower-climber, I can even see
that sick fuck McVeigh's position, but these guys? I can't even imagine
them doing it. They look so young. Ditto on the Jonesboro kids. I
understand robbery, I understand accidental death, I live in fear of a
plane crash (no matter how many people tell me they don't really crash).
Life is precious to me, especially now. That I am now the only person
responsible for the life of a most precious wee one scares me more than I
could ever express in words (we're talking late night worry sessions that
last hours and hours). I need something more than this being "just one
more risk in life." I need to understand it on some level. I don't
understand it. If weird outcasted, Marilyn Manson-listening, video
game-playing adolescents are going to be taking a shotgun to schoolyards
from now on, I have to know why.
I watched MILLENNIUM because I'm an adult and it used to be one of my
favorite shows. But the violence has become more graphic. I assume so
that it can get some attention, so that it will be a high rated show.
Anyway--you're right, it's a pointless argument.
Sasha
barbrose
I've heard your argument before, as have most US citizens. It
does not impress us.
Barbara
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the the security
of a free
> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
not be
> infringed"
>
> I note that it states "arms". Not firearms, not guns. VX gas
delivery
> systems, fighter jets with napalm and MX missiles with
multiple nuclear
> warheads are "arms", so presumably you support the right of
John Q. Public
> to own and operate such things unfettered?
> Most people don't, because it's Very Silly, and unless you do
then
> you must appreciate that a line has to be drawn somewhere
between this
> wondrous "right" and intelligent behaviour. I'm not going to
say which
> side of that line that guns should fall on, but that doesn't
matter, since
> if a line exists *anywhere* then it shows that the much
vaunted 2nd
> Amendment isn't as sacred a cow as a lot of people like to
make out.
Roxy
>them outcasts.
Why, pray?
< unless their parents trained them to worship Hitler,>
IMHO it's not that parents do (or don't) train kids to worship
Hitler. It's that they don't teach them anything at all because they're
mostly not there.
Roxy
me
> I think you're right. It was going down, violence. But then this.
> I have resolvd that will do anything to get Emma into private school.
> That's seems to be the only solution. Or actually, I thought of
> another one. What if we all weren't in denial about it. What if
> students were all trained in what to do, like a fire alarm or
> something. I'd go so far as to teach self-defense, Karate or
> something. Because if it's a reality for these kids then there's no
> surprise attack and then maybe there wouldn't be shootings at all.
> Maybe the kids would be more afraid if they knew they were going to
> get some kind of a fight.
well, i was a second degree black belt in tae kwon do by the time i was 11
or 12, but while it did give me the respect of bullies, i don't think i
could have blocked the path of a psycho's bullet. (OCC - harrison ford
shooting the sword guy in INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM). in high
school i went to both a snotty private school and a shoddy public school.
while the element of violence is possibly lower at a private school
(though there was a knife attack while i was there. it helped the
attacker get into harvard, once he completed his therapy), the only other
meaningful lesson i gathered from private school is that money doesn't buy
happiness. i can't really say that lesson is worth the price of tuition.
but i've always been a firm believer in the intense suckiness of formal
education, private or public.
> >i thought they already cancelled Millenium. not that anyone could tell
> >you whether or not you saw a re-run, Sasha.
> >
> Yeah, I don't know. That show is so damned violent. But I always did
> like it.
myself, i always preferred frank black's earlier stuff with the Pixies.
(sorry Sasha, but you set me up on that one. let me know if you've heard
that one before)
> Really? Well, you best me looking me up, M!
tru dat, S! i'll find out for sure next week if i'll be in Calabasas (is
that a jewish community? you know, with the Cabbala and everything. all
right, i'll stop now.)
-myron
Sasha Stone
>another is wrong, and happiness is a key to balanced, functional
>individuals, I can't say how automatically assuming they're guilty of
>something requiring surveillance to catch is going to help.
>
Well said, Pete. But I don't think a temporary armed guard is totally out
of question. And I certainly don't think having the kids trained in
self-defense (instead of physical education, for example) isn't a bad idea
all the way around. It should be manditory. Now that I think about it, I
can't believe it *isn't*. Metal detectors, even in the "best" schools
isn't a bad idea, I don't think. It's true, if the kids really really
wanna, they will find a way. But why make it easy for them?
One really sad story emerged, and that was that one of the parents of one
of the victims believed in home schooling, but their eldest child wanted a
"real high school experience." How sad is that?
Sasha
Sasha Stone
news and enough to put off the fears of life for one day. It's true, for
all the ugliness, there is such beauty.
Nice post, too.
Sasha
OCC-Warren Beatty yelling "crawl" in BUGSY is the only cinematic reference
I can think up at the moment.
>My son learned to crawl today.
>
>I know that's small news compared to the shootings in Colorado or the war
>in Kosovo (let's face it...it's a war), but to my wife, it made her day.
>Our son is six months old, and for six months, he's made us very happy.
>I've wondered before about the day he would learn to crawl, his first day
>of school, his first sports team, his first day of high school, his first
>"crush", his first love, and his wedding. I've wondered about how I would
>raise him, about my own attitude towards things like dating, allowance,
>and, yes, violent movies. And on days like today, I
>wonder what I would do if it was my son in Columbine High, shot for no
>reason--or even worse, doing the shooting. Why worry about the future?
>The clear plastic bottles that my wife and I have used since our child was
>born are poisoning him, according to Consumer Reports. Besides there will
>always be always has been Kosovo's and Columbine's and Jocks and Crips and
>Salmonella and reruns of Millenium and SIDS...
>
>My son learned to crawl today.
>
>Ed
Ed J. Owens
sst...@PRIMENET.COM writes:
<< No fair, Ed. This was only the second post on the topic. I've changed my
mind since I wrote the this post to which you respond. >>
Sasha,
My apologies, but as I explained in another post, this message was written
and "sent"several days ago. For some reason, it wasn't actually delivered
until the 23rd. My points were current at the time, but have since become
extremely worn and dated. I have no explanation for the delay between the
time I sent the post and the time it was delivered, but I apologize for the
inconvenience.
Can we still be friends? ; )
Ed
Neil Tollfree
arguement....what's your problem with it ? Also, taking away all the
arguements about rights to own guns.....what kind of sicko would want to own
a gun ? There sole function is to inflict pain on someone else......I'll
never understand you cazy americans
barbrose
> meaningful lesson i gathered from private school is that money
doesn't buy
> happiness. i can't really say that lesson is worth the price
of tuition.
I'd say, if you 'really' learned (and truly understand) that,
then it was more than worth the price of tuition. It is a
lesson that most people (even very, very monetarily rich ones)
seldom understand, IMHO. Not that I am an advocate of private
schools. :-)
Barbara
ujjayini choudhury
U.S.A. is harmful? in U.K. we have the I.R.A., true, but the U.S. has
also many terrorist groups but the U.K. does not have as many
frequent mass killings as the U.S. because simply a gun allows you
from far away to aim at more people than say a knife, which would make
it difficult to go round stabbing lots of abled people in the same
space who are able to run away or defend themselves but it is hard to
escape a bullet. also the poorest, the blacks(minorities) in U.S. are
the ones to most suffer from this stupid law which gives people the
right to carry guns/whatever firearms, etc.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Sasha Stone
ironic it has been this past week to see the story of Littleton juxtaposed
with the bombing of Kosovo. We're saying that violence is wrong on the one
hand, but okay on the other. I could see how the issue could be confused,
particularly if some dumb ass thinks they're fighting a war in high school
("Nobody loves me, boo hoo, I think I'll go kill some kids. Then they'll
remember, yeah, then they'll think twice before they...be black, play
football, believe in God." )
Sasha
me
baby, which i definitely rank among the most disturbing movie
characters/images i've ever seen.
-myron
but congratulations, Ed!
Sasha Stone
>well, i was a second degree black belt in tae kwon do by the time i was 11
>or 12, but while it did give me the respect of bullies, i don't think i
>could have blocked the path of a psycho's bullet. (OCC - harrison ford
>shooting the sword guy in INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM).
Yeah, okay. But you never know. I do think any counter threat at all
would have been helpful.
in high
>school i went to both a snotty private school and a shoddy public school.
>while the element of violence is possibly lower at a private school
>(though there was a knife attack while i was there. it helped the
>attacker get into harvard, once he completed his therapy), the only other
>meaningful lesson i gathered from private school is that money doesn't buy
>happiness. i can't really say that lesson is worth the price of tuition.
>but i've always been a firm believer in the intense suckiness of formal
>education, private or public.
>
But there isn't this kind of weird psycho violence there. Don't take away
my last hope for Emma!
>myself, i always preferred frank black's earlier stuff with the Pixies.
>(sorry Sasha, but you set me up on that one. let me know if you've heard
>that one befo
Haven't heard it. Is that an eighties alterno reference?
>tru dat, S! i'll find out for sure next week if i'll be in Calabasas (is
>that a jewish community? you know, with the Cabbala and everything. all
>right, i'll stop now.)
There's a saying out here: if it's rich, it's Jewish (just kidding. As a
half-Jew, I can makes jokes...). Calabasas is pretty - sunk into the
mountains between the Valley (which everyone hates) and Malibu (where all
the movie stars live, OCC).
S.
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
Jeff M
No, they used shotguns *and* hand guns *and* assault weapons.
-Kristen
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
WHAT THE FUCK IS THE HOUSEHOLD USE FOR A GUN?
And btw, people talking about the bombs (which did a great deal of damage to the kids - although they may not have killed any of them, they wounded several).
-Kristen
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
k...@TheCNI.org
Colorado Neurological Institute
Englewood, CO USA
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>>> Jeff Miles <jmi...@EWA.NET> 04/22 3:36 PM >>>
At 1:05 PM -0700 4/22/99, ating Fired a few neurons to put these thoughts
to the world:
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Jeff Miles wrote:
>
>> >Was Jesse Ventura really serious when he said this incident demonstrated
>> >that gun control laws are too strict??
>
>> I didn't hear him say that, but are you saying he's wrong if he
>> did? If you happened to be on the campus (in range) and had a gun, would
>> you have just stood there watching, or would you have shot back?
>
>Of course I think he's wrong! Yeah, a 9mm would've come in real handy on
>that day in particular, but can you imagine the scene in your high school
>cafeteria on any other day if everybody was allowed to carry a weapon? I
>would've been booked on manslaughter charges before my American Chop Suey
>had a chance to cool off!
>
>Do you really think allowing high school students to carry firearms would
>be a good thing, or are you just doing a for-the-sake-of-argument type of
>act?
No, I'm not. I've been around guns most of my life. Half of my
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
I agree that we shouldn't disallow all postal workers their freedoms because some postal workers went postal. However, and I made this point before, we are talking about *kids*! How do we protect our kids?
I'm not being flippant, I'd really like to know.
-Kristen
PS: Not giving Dylan Klebold keys to the school so they couldn't (if they did) bring in their artillary after hours would have been a good idea.
PPS: OCC: Watched ET yesterday and cried like an idiot. How do kids get from being wide-eyed and accepting like that to being like the Columbine gunmen?
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
k...@TheCNI.org
Colorado Neurological Institute
Englewood, CO USA
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>>> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@DUNDEE.AC.UK> 04/23 2:09 AM >>>
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Kristen Mahan-Moutaw wrote:
> Hunh? Shari, we are talking about kids here - give me a break.
But if you're a "suspicious person" as a kid then what Shari is
complaining about means that "getting a break" is exactly what you won't
get.
And if people are using passing insults as a good reason to mow down
people at school, what sort of an excuse is institutionalised suspicion
and mistrust?
If you're trying to create an atmosphere where people thing killing one
another is wrong, and happiness is a key to balanced, functional
individuals, I can't say how automatically assuming they're guilty of
something requiring surveillance to catch is going to help.
Pete.
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
To my remark:
>That anyone might offer repression and surveillance as the means to
>societal salvation is, to me, the true height of human horror. The damage
>that they work does not splash with the same fireworks as that brought
>on to the people of Colorado this week, but its destruction covers
>far more territory, longer years, and victims numbered in the billions.
Kristen responds:
>Hunh? Shari, we are talking about kids here - give me a break.
>Perhaps less freedom for children is key.
There are few things more misguided -- or more insidiously dangerous
-- than transferring to the state the rights and powers of parents.
And it is always and invariably tragic error to sacrifice the freedom of
the masses to compensate for the misdeeds of scattered individuals.
Repression and surveillance are the fallbacks of tyrants. Tyrants
and cowards.
Shari
First you blather on in words that about 15% of the list can understand - then you resort to calling me names. You ever read about Conversational Terrorism? (Hey Mark...)
Tyrant and coward because I don't think minors should have the right to bear arms and make bombs in their garage and hide weed in their lockers? Jesus. Well, I guess I'll admit to being tyrannical and cowardly. Perhaps even with pride.
But when parents start taking responsibility for their kids - then I won't worry to much about "transferring to the state the rights and powers of parents". When a kid opens fire on a school, I figure parental rights and powers are suspended, hey Shari? Should we just hand those kids over to the parents and let them discipline them? They've obviously been doing such a fine job of raising these future "productive" citizens.
But to the majority of your post, I guess I have to say, "Hunh"?
-Kristen
Liquo...@aol.com
<< Speaking as a non-US type fellow, the strikes me as a fairly solid
arguement....what's your problem with it ? Also, taking away all the
arguements about rights to own guns.....what kind of sicko would want to own
a gun ? There sole function is to inflict pain on someone else......I'll
never understand you cazy americans >>
Listen here, Guy Fawkes, until you can use a toothbrush at least once a
month, don't call us crazy!
By the way, if I see one more episode of "Are You Being Served" I'm going to
go on a killing spree!
And without guns, we'd still be having those dang redcoats getting free board
in our homes!
Seriously...it's all so crazy. There's more than one answer to all of this.
Hundreds of symptoms to all the madness. I think Mick Jagger, (despite being
British), said it best, "I shouted out who killed the Kennedys, when after
all, it was you and me!"
Or perhaps the wise words of The Starland Vocal Band...no...wait, that was my
argument for shooting off skyrockets in the afternoon.
We need to each look in the mirror and wonder how we could be different.
What we can personally change in our own lives to stop these sorts of things
from happening, and quit looking for blame. Next time you make fun of
someone (unless of course, it's a soulless Brit), think about what effect it
may have on them, for example.
I love all people, and hope you all love all people, too. Because if
everyone loves everyone, then everyone is trouble free.
Can you dig it?
I knew you could.
Love always (just kidding about that British stuff, but I still hate Are You
Being Served)
-Robert
Shari L. Rosenblum
>So if it's so easy to kick into touch, do so properly. I'm a lot more
>impressed if arguments are demonstrated poor by reason, rather than
>dismissed as "does not impress us".
Hear, hear.
I found myself disturbed that anyone would give short shrift to the
explication of an argument essential to true freedom.
>Specificially, do you support the right of individuals to posess tactical
>nuclear missiles and nerve gas? If so, oh dear, if not, what is the
>difference in principal between them and assault rifles, and where (and
>how) do you draw the line between them.
Your frame is off, Pete. For one thing, one need not "support" a right
to acknowledge that it exists and cannot be infringed. The determination
to be made is not whether any individual approves or disapproves the
exercise of a right inherent to the individual, but whether (within
your perspective) the act in question (e.g., possessing tactical
nuclear missiles) actually constitutes an exercise of that right.
What is the right, then? Let us look to the text, which, in
paraphrase, says this: Because the essence of a free state requires that
the people be able to exercise their right to protect the security of that
state, the government is absolutely prohibited from infringing the
right by disarming the people, whatever pretense they devise to justify
their desire to do so. In other words, because the right to defend
one's freedom is inherent in the individual, the government is not
empowered, and may not usurp the power, to infringe that right.
You ask whether nuclear missiles and nerve gas should fall under the
rubric of "arms" as specified by the Second Amendment. The text allows
you two questions to reach that answer: (1) are they arms? and (2)
are they capable of being kept and borne?
That the exercise of a right poses potential danger is always the
first pretense of those who would infringe it. And the same may be
said (and is) of the rights protected by the First Amendment (free speech,
free press, free association) -- was it not Lenin who noted that
words are (in fact) more dangerous than bullets? And the Fourth
Amendment (security in one's person and property against search
and seizure). And the Fifth Amendment (the right not to incriminate
oneself, not to be placed in double jeopardy, etc.) And so on and
so forth.
In truth, however, this poses a false dilemma. Respecting a right does
not force us to accept its improper exercise (e.g., to commit a crime).
Though no law can be made that prevents or punishes the exercise of
a right per se, both federal and state legislatures are empowered to
impose criminal penalties for the commission of crimes (e.g., murder,
robbery, rape, blackmail, bribery, treason), even if such crimes
are facilitated by means otherwise protected as rights of the people.
Shari
Shari L. Rosenblum
>Speaking as a non-US type fellow, the strikes me as a fairly solid
>arguement....what's your problem with it ? Also, taking away all the
>arguements about rights to own guns.....what kind of sicko would want to own
>a gun ? There sole function is to inflict pain on someone else......I'll
>never understand you cazy americans
It strikes me as amusing that all these UK posts ignore a very essential
purpose to arms: they are the means by which the people may wage war
against injustice and tyranny in those who would govern them.
You may recall that once upon a time the people of America made
rather decent use of arms in establishing their independence from
the unjust and tyrannical rule of the British.
And shortly thereafter, the founders of this new nation
set out to do better for their people and their posterity than
the government they had known before. Yours. And so they wrote a
Constitution and made it binding. And among the first rights
enshrined in that document is one that enabled them to
fend off the tyrants and establish that better state.
I suppose it is not surprising that it's a right you still oppose.
Shari
Jeff Miles
these thoughts to the world:
>guns or assualt type weapons?
>
>Jeff M
>
>No, they used shotguns *and* hand guns *and* assault weapons.
Well, ok then. I was going off of early reports. I could use a
phrase from the BSA, but that would be to damn easy.
Jeff M
Jeff Miles
these thoughts to the world:
>opener has a use, a drill has a use.
>
>WHAT THE FUCK IS THE HOUSEHOLD USE FOR A GUN?
Ah, to protect the household? I'd say that puts it in the catagory
of a pretty useful household tool. Yeah, I know, you could do the same
with a hammer, but you're not going to have much luck with an intruder
using shotgun.
Wake up Kristen. If every Kosovo family had been required to be
armed, do you think we'd be there right now? I really believe none of this
crap would be going on in the first place.
Jeff M
Helping to make your Mac a friendly place
<http://users.ewa.net/patter/Macs.html>
Jeff Miles
these thoughts to the world:
>PPS: OCC: Watched ET yesterday and cried like an idiot. How do kids get
>from being wide-eyed and accepting like that to being like the Columbine
>gunmen?
Take another read about my statements of hypocricy in America. I'm
not saying this is the root cause, but it certainly could be one of the
main ones.
Think of it this way, it's like saying to your child;
"Stay home and do your school work, I'm going out for the evening
and will be back later. BTW, in the morning don't ask the guy/girl who
they are, just let them leave. Oh, and what grade are you in anyway?"
This may sound extreme, but is getting far to common. Maybe like
you, in some respects, I'm an idealist.
I'm not a "mom should be bare foot in the kitchen" type of person.
But I do believe that people should get a grip and take a bit of
responsablity for the offspring which they've caused. At the sametime, I
realize society doesn't allow for this with it's attitudes, cost of living,
etc.
There are no easy answers, except for maybe, kill all the
lawyers:o) My belief as to why we're to this point in the first place.
Jeff M
Sasha Stone
> Doesn't any of the Americans believe the private possession of guns in
> U.S.A. is harmful?
Of course we do! Are you kidding? We are constantly debating this point.
It's one of the most hotly debated issues during election years. No two
issues divide Americans more than gun control and abortion. I personally
am completely opposed to having guns in the home. It's so obvious that
we're using them for the wrong reasons so they should be taken away. I
mean, are they ever used for the right reason?
> escape a bullet. also the poorest, the blacks(minorities) in U.S. are
> the ones to most suffer from this stupid law which gives people the
> right to carry guns/whatever firearms, etc.
You said it. You said it. You said it. That's one thing they could do
right off the top - battle gang violence with more ground to stand on:
illegal weapon possession.
Sasha
me
> But there isn't this kind of weird psycho violence there. Don't take away
> my last hope for Emma!
whispering in Sasha's ear: "home schooling, home schooling...."
> >myself, i always preferred frank black's earlier stuff with the Pixies.
> >(sorry Sasha, but you set me up on that one. let me know if you've heard
> >that one befo
> Haven't heard it. Is that an eighties alterno reference?
yep, sorry about that one. frank black (not the guy from millennium) was
the frontman for the pixies, a group whose sound kurt cobain is quoted as
saying he basically ripped off for nirvana's album Nevermind, the
soundtrack of this past (passing) decade.
-myron
Mark Ashley
> From: Discussions on all forms of Cinema
> [mailto:CINE...@AMERICAN.EDU]On Behalf Of Liquo...@AOL.COM
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 07:20
> To: CINE...@AMERICAN.EDU
> Subject: Re: Life Ain't So Beautiful
>
>
>
> arguement....what's your problem with it ? Also, taking away all the
> arguements about rights to own guns.....what kind of sicko would
> want to own
> a gun ? There sole function is to inflict pain on someone else......I'll
> never understand you cazy americans >>
>
> month, don't call us crazy!
hang on to your horses there Davey Crocket, less of the "once a month" stuff
(by the way what's a tooth brush?).
>
> By the way, if I see one more episode of "Are You Being Served"
> I'm going to
> go on a killing spree!
and no one from this side of the Atlantic would blame you, we've been trying
to get rid of that junk for ages (by the way, how did you like London
Bridge?).
>
> And without guns, we'd still be having those dang redcoats
> getting free board
> in our homes!
red coats? do you mean Chelsea pensioners???
> We need to each look in the mirror and wonder how we could be different.
> What we can personally change in our own lives to stop these
> sorts of things
> from happening, and quit looking for blame. Next time you make fun of
> someone (unless of course, it's a soulless Brit), think about
> what effect it
> may have on them, for example.
soulless are we? just 'cause we hate guns??? Actually that's not so funny at
the moment, I don't know if you've heard but a well known BBC TV presenter
was shot in the head at point blank range yesterday with a 9mm
semi-automatic handgun in what appears to have been an execution. It seems
our shores are not free of firearms as we so much like to think.
> Love always (just kidding about that British stuff, but I still
> hate Are You
> Being Served)
We've got plenty more dross where that came from, have you seen KEEPING UP
APPEARANCES yet or BIRDS OF A FEATHER?
Mark
CariAnnV
>After winning the fight for
>independance, they set out to draft a documant that would keep the nation
>they had begun from following the same path that created the reason for
>fighting in the first place.
Umm - Jeff it doesn't seem to have worked.
Carolyne
CariAnnV
<barb...@BELLSOUTH.NET> writes:
>So, though I, personally, am not against
>gun control, I am a staunch believer in our constitution and
>also know that taking guns out of the hands of the US citizenry
>would be an extremely hard task to accomplish.
>
>Barbara
Hi again.
Our Second Amendment was created at a time when the only means of Mass
Destruction was the muskett gun... It was perfect for home protection as it
could only cover about 20 feet in front and 10 feet on side of it. It was a
horrible war instrument, it couldn't even be aimed - most of the revolutionary
soldiers died from disease.
American constitution writers did not foresee this incredible climb in
technology. The Second Amendment is outdated. Guns are in the hands of our
police, and military and do not need to be in anyone homes.
All of even the rural parts of America have supermarkets; hunting is also
antiquated. I can't listen to one more warm-squishy "my daddy and I always
hunted, and now my son and I are going hunting" argument. We don't need guns
for hunting or any other "entertainment/ hobby" reason. We can teach our
children to play chess or tennis.
Carolyne
CariAnnV
<barb...@BELLSOUTH.NET> writes:
>Well, unless their parents trained them to worship Hitler, I
>would lay it right at the doorstep of an educational system that
>makes them outcasts. Have you ever read much about Hitler's
>background?
>
>Barbara
Hi Barbara - parents don't need to train their kids "to worship Hitler" for
their kids to grow up emulating him. All that is needed if for them not to
educate their kids against him, not discussing racism, and violence, and hate
crimes at home can be the same thing as condoning them.
And I haven't read anything about Hitler per se but I understand he was brought
up Christian, respectful and charming. But possibly his parents never sat down
with him and discussed antisemitism. Quite possibly.
Carolyne
Neil Tollfree
shoot another American (or the occasional tourist) because America beat
England in a war many years ago.....blimey you saw right through me
there....I'm just a tyrannical old Brit who longs for the good old days of
the empire.
I believe killing other people is wrong. I believe the right to not be shot
is more worthy of my defence than the right to shoot someone.
So in answer to my original question, you want a gun so when someone takes
power that you don't like, you can shoot them. Scary.
-----Original Message-----
From: Shari L. Rosenblum [mailto:SL...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU]
Sent: 27 April 1999 08:39
To: CINE...@AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: Life Ain't So Beautiful
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:09:48 +0100 Neil Tollfree said:
>Speaking as a non-US type fellow, the strikes me as a fairly solid
>arguement....what's your problem with it ? Also, taking away all the
>arguements about rights to own guns.....what kind of sicko would want to
own
>a gun ? There sole function is to inflict pain on someone else......I'll
>never understand you cazy americans
It strikes me as amusing that all these UK posts ignore a very essential
ujjayini choudhury
U.S.A allowed them to get rid of the tyranny of the invaders but the
presence of the gun have also allowed the u.s.a. to tyrannise over
others, taking away land by force from the native americans, slavery,
etc. so sorry, i don't agree at all that guns are in any sense
useful. the war against iraq and the present sanctions are what
humanitarean groups like amnesty are fighting against, the u.s. cannot
get on its high horse and say it is right and iraq is wrong in terms
of the war because the whole thing was to do with oil, or something
like that, guns/greater arms allow the u.s. to do this, it always has
to win. i agree with peter clinch, Mo Mowlam has done wonders for the
Northern Ireland situation by talking to them, which after all is
humane, intelligent and the only way
Liquo...@aol.com
<< Shari wrote a very 'moving' piece on how the presence of guns in
U.S.A allowed them to get rid of the tyranny of the invaders but the
presence of the gun have also allowed the u.s.a. to tyrannise over
others, taking away land by force from the native americans, slavery,
etc. so sorry, i don't agree at all that guns are in any sense
useful. the war against iraq and the present sanctions are what
humanitarean groups like amnesty are fighting against, the u.s. cannot
get on its high horse and say it is right and iraq is wrong in terms
of the war because the whole thing was to do with oil, or something
like that, guns/greater arms allow the u.s. to do this, it always has
to win. i agree with peter clinch, Mo Mowlam has done wonders for the
Northern Ireland situation by talking to them, which after all is
humane, intelligent and the only way
>>
But what about all those evil Thugees? Without guns, Dr. Jones wouldn't have
had a chance. Bullwhip alone is not effective.
-robert
ujjayini choudhury
Ed Owens
Cap'n Crunch box we had leaned against one of the refuse piles at our
local landfill (God bless 'em...every one). So there is a use for
guns--hours of pointless entertainment in the hands of juveniles for whom
mere possession was a crime (albeit a misdemeanor). God, how I miss
those lazy days of summer...
Ed
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
k...@TheCNI.org
Colorado Neurological Institute
Englewood, CO USA
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>>> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@DUNDEE.AC.UK> 04/27 4:32 AM >>>
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Kristen Mahan-Moutaw wrote:
> First you blather on in words that about 15% of the list can understand
>go over it more slowly, it makes perfect sense.
Duh - I'll try, Pete. Thanks for the advice.
> Tyrant and coward because I don't think minors should have the right to
> bear arms and make bombs in their garage and hide weed in their lockers?
> Jesus. Well, I guess I'll admit to being tyrannical and cowardly.
> Perhaps even with pride.
>Kristen, this is, at best, misrepresentational.
Oh? Misrepresentational - an exercise that you blithely and consistently participate in throughout your post - read on.
So Shari wasn't okaying the use of bombs and guns - I didn't say she was - I disagreed with the idea that video surveillance, in these instances I described above, would be a bad idea. And these instances are happening, with gathering frequency. I don't think kids are entitled to do what they wish at school, there are too many other kids and adults involved.
>I read Shari's post,
So did I over and over again, quickly and slowly, and finally I got it.
>and don't recall her either saying or implying that she thought minors should have the right to bear arms or make bombs.
But that is, unfortunately, what we are talking about, at least what I was talking about. We can't get away from it. If we were talking about firecrackers, well then, I wouldn't be so gung ho for surveillance cameras. Perhaps you need a little perspective - it's weird as I'm living in perspective these days, a perspective that might (just might) have been different seven days ago but now is irrevocably changed.
>She might actually think that,
I can't speak for her, but I didn't read anything like that in her post.
I read it as saying that the state should not be in the business of
invading the privacy of its citizens, whether or not they're juvenile, and assuming that they'll be guilty unless proven innocent (a clear
implication of state surveillance).
Puhlease. Welcome to the real world, Pete - it is already happening. How about surveillance cameras and metal detectors in airports - cameras in restaurants, at gas stations, in department stores, surveillance in fitting rooms - at banks? We can trust the majority of people and they don't have anything to worry about because the surveillance may catch them picking their nose but not committing a felony.
> But when parents start taking responsibility for their kids - then I
> won't worry to much about "transferring to the state the rights and powers of parents". When a kid opens fire on a school, I figure parental rights and powers are suspended, hey Shari? Should we just hand those kids over to the parents and let them discipline them?
>At this point they've broken laws designed to protect the public, so the state, in its duty of care to its citizens, must take on the job. But if we say, "the state should look after its citizens proactively and in any case prevention is better than cure", then one must remember we're applying thoughts of surveillance and routine intrusion not just on these nutters, but on *every child in the country*.
Routine intrusion? Routine intrusion? On a kid's locker? That kid doesn't own that locker - I, in part, do, and I don't want him selling drugs to my school age brother and sister or my neices and I don't want him hiding bombs and guns in there. That kid doesn't own that locker Pete, it is given to him and her for their use at school *for* school.
>Do you really think your local police department should've had a say in how you were brought up?
Oh come now, now you are misrepresenting me. Dearest Pete, I'm saying I want to protect our kids - and if video surveillance, metal detectors and guards at schools (btw, Columbine had a guard and he and Harris exchanged fire and he was outgunned - and Harris may have been wearing a flack jacket) keep our kids safe, well, I'm all for it. Unfortunately, in this instance, it didn't.
I *never* said such as I thought that homes should be searched and I *never* said, "Hey, let's do random, invasive drug and psychological testing on kids to see if they are on drugs or crazy." I never said each parent should be handed a handbook upon inception and told how they are to raise their children, what morals to instill, what discipline to use, what school to send them to. I said, let's protect our kids.
You see, you and Shari may see it as black and white - video surveillance is wrong (no kidding - would that no one had a reason to even come up with the idea, but someone did, for a reason and that reason was not just to watch ladies try on clothes in fitting rooms, it's because ladies were stuffing sweaters in their bags in the fitting rooms), one thing will logically lead to another, video surveillance will lead to 1984. But I don't think we are a bunch of crazies who need to be monitored and if you don't intend to do anything illegal, who gives a fuck if you are monitored. Big brother is already watching me and most the time I don't know it and all the time I don't care. Sure, it makes me uncomfortable thinking I can get caught speeding by the cameras that are stationed around the city now - but then again, I was speeding now, wasn't I? So, my right to "get away with it" was taken away. Can I bitch about that?
>Should the values your parents teach you be censored by other voters?
When they have to do with kids making bombs in the garage, buying guns and sawing off the barrels in their rooms and selling drugs to kid, you better fucking believe it. That is my point, always was my point. You, my friend, are taking it the step further.
Now, do you think they shouldn't?
I made specific examples about what I thought was appropriate, searching lockers, videos in schools, etc. Logical people, which are the majority regardless of how the illogical get so much more attention, are not going to allow anything more than necessary and that is the only uncynical thing I have to say about this whole mess. For example, Clinton spoke yesterday about gun control - not about banning guns on the whole but making it illegal to buy more than one handgun a month. The Republicans say that is kneejerk but I personally don't think it is kneejerk enough - but it is a good idea if not the solution.
>In some cases it wouldn't hurt, but... The point here is that in order to wipe out the wasp nest in your attic, razing the entire house with a flamethrower is *not* a very good solution.
You accuse *me* of misrepresentation.- you are reading far too much into what I said and actually perhaps putting words in to my mouth but definitely being extremist.
> They've obviously been doing such a fine job of raising these future "productive" citizens.
>I'd sooner you licensed childbearing than just assume that every child must be watched in a paranoid manner, assuming they're a shooting incident waiting to happen.
Misrepresentation again.
And it is happening far too often to ignore - not that every kid is a bad kid but it is *happening far to often to *IGNORE**.
You are very busy shooting down my opinions however not providing any solutions of your own. In fact, if I remember correctly Pete, you admitted to not having any.
Nothing now is going to seem kosher to those of us worried about our freedoms (to bear arms, to our privacy, to raise our children as we see fit). But what is the solution? Drugs, gangs, bombs, guns - all in our schools, all too often to ignore.
Video surveillance all over the place is already happening - Columbine High School fortunately or unfortunately probably has the whole shooting rampage on tape. Metal detectors - searching lockers - again already happening and should be in my opinion. Kids informing on kids, sounds very Nazi however it already saved one school from an attack such as this and could have saved this one as they are finding more kids that they are now describing as "co-conspirators".
It is all hardly palatable but unfortunately necessary. If we lived in a perfect world, we wouldn't need speeding cameras or videos cameras in banks - but we don't live in a perfect world.
I may be paranoid but perhaps a little paranoia isn't a bad thing. It's even attractive (Fox Mulder).
-K
Srinivas Balakrishna
American.Edu as well as the names of the Listservers please. I do not have Net
access at my present workplace.
Thanks & Regards
Srinivas G
Jeff Miles
thoughts to the world:
>So in answer to my original question, you want a gun so when someone takes
>power that you don't like, you can shoot them. Scary.
This is a perfect example of completely sidestepping the whole
argument, throwing it out of perspective and making rash statements. How I
read Sharri's statement was that if someone I didn't like came to power,
then came to my door, then demanded my children, cash, home and women, I
would then shoot them. However, if they came to power in a situation where
I could vote them out of power with the next election, I wouldn't shoot
them. Why would I cause myself a bunch of problems where none really exist?
Jeff M
Jeff Miles
these thoughts to the world:
>U.S.A allowed them to get rid of the tyranny of the invaders but the
>presence of the gun have also allowed the u.s.a. to tyrannise over
>others, taking away land by force from the native americans, slavery,
>etc. so sorry, i don't agree at all that guns are in any sense
>useful. the war against iraq and the present sanctions are what
>humanitarean groups like amnesty are fighting against, the u.s. cannot
>get on its high horse and say it is right and iraq is wrong in terms
>of the war because the whole thing was to do with oil, or something
>like that, guns/greater arms allow the u.s. to do this, it always has
>to win. i agree with peter clinch, Mo Mowlam has done wonders for the
>Northern Ireland situation by talking to them, which after all is
>humane, intelligent and the only way
I'll always agree that talking is the best solution and answer to
problems rather then violence and the use of guns. But criticizing the US
for Iraq is insane. The entire world, through the UN, decided it was
necessary to go in with a military force. Did the US decide one day to
just go over and start shooting at Iraqies(sp)? Hell no. It was a
response to an action already taken by Iraq. As has been said a few times
in the past on this list, people (and that includes countries) should be
responsible for their actions. And this includes getting their ass kicked
when they go and invade a neighboring little country.
Many people have criticized the US and its policies around the
world, but what is the last country the US invaded, just because and
unprovoked? In fact, I don't the US has ever invaded a country just
because they wanted it, other then itself of course.
Jeff
Jeff Miles
thoughts to the world:
Thanks Ed for reminding me of my own pleasure with the few guns
I've owned. I wont argue the point that most guns are made for the purpose
of killing something. Not all guns, but most are made with this in mind.
I also remember my lazy days of summers gone by when a few of us
would go to the gravel pit and us my AK-47 (folding stock model) to shoot
at bowling pins and water heaters that had been abandoned there. I loved
that gun. It even made my 45 seem like a toy pop gun. On the otherhand
neither of those stood up to the muzzle loader. It fired a 72mm
ball/shot/berring/bullit,round whatever the hell you want to call it. Of
course it would take at least 2 minutes between rounds to get it ready to
fire again. But you needed that time for the smoke to clear;o)
To once again try and put this on a cinimatic thread, I'll admit
that I've never had a hunting liscense, have never hunted, but have watched
many (countless really) movies on hunting, killing, laced with violiance,
and out right slaughter. I've never felt the need to do the same after
watching any of these. With my background of guns, I've only been turned
off (totaly thought they shouldn't have been made) by two of them. One, of
course, was NATURAL BORN KILLERS, the other was made about 10-15 years ago
and was called MANIAC. With my job I get to see most all movies for free
and have for about 20 years. These two movies are the only ones that I've
actually discouraged people from seeing. I realize everyone has different
tastes, that's why I don't discourage the seeing of more movies. Rather, I
just add my comments. But these two deserved the label of "DON'T SEE!" In
my mind they confirmed the idea that trash can be
made in the guise of some sort of "art" but yet shouldn't be seen by the
general public.
I haven't yet seen BASKETBALL DIARIES, so I can't comment on this
one, but from what I've heard, and the short clips I've seen, it isn't a
film to cause a breakdown and rampage.
In my opinion (I refuse to use that "opine" word) none of these
should or would cause a normal person to run out and slaughter people. If
you ask about those who aren't normal? Those shouldn't be a film makers
concern.
Jeff
Jeff Miles
thoughts to the world:
;o))) Well it did for awhile. Those damn lawyers! Just joking,
sort of.
Jeff
CariAnnV
<SL...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
> And among the first rights
>enshrined in that document is one that enabled them to
>fend off the tyrants and establish that better state.
>
>I suppose it is not surprising that it's a right you still oppose.
Hi Shari - our military and our police force are presently fending off tyrants
and supposedly bettering our state with no private help from me or my
neighbors.
The horrible case of Diaglo (spelling?) in New York City is that he was shot
precisely (an of course wrongly) because they thought he was exercising his
right to pull out a gun and protect himself and family. So that didn't get him
very far.
I oppose the right to private ownership of guns - it's unnecessary, outdated
and dangerous to our society. We can not handle such a luxury.
Carolyne
CariAnnV
>Ah, to protect the household? I'd say that puts it in the catagory
>of a pretty useful household tool. Yeah, I know, you could do the same
>with a hammer, but you're not going to have much luck with an intruder
>using shotgun.
Just as our society has outgrown the need for hunting, we have outgrown the
need to protect ourselves in our home. 911 will get someone to you probably
quicker than you can unlock your gun door (providing you can even get to it
with such a dangerous intruder in your presence) - and load up your rifle
(providing the big intruder doesn't pull it out of your hands or now decide to
shoot you back with their own). We have an armed military, and an armed police
force. We are protected in our own home.
And any good criminologist can tell you who the vast percentage of home
attackers are - the people who already live there, shooting their spouse and
their children with their own guns. If a stranger is showing up in your home
to hunt you down and kill you that's usually called a contract killing, and
only witness protection is going to help you..
And for all those who say "all the criminals have guns so I need one", did you
ever consider why we aren't worried about someone entering our home with
landmines or bazookas, and therefore we need landmines and bazookas to protect
ourselves from them? - BECAUSE CRIMINALS CAN'T BUY LANDMINES AND BAZOOKAS!
I am 100% for getting ALL means of mass destruction out of the hands of the
populace. Put the guns in a musuem, and bring your kids and tell them how you
used to have warm squishy memories about you and your Daddy killing animals and
cereal boxes. And make sure they read the sign which will be next to it
describing how guns were completely banned after children started killing each
other with them.
And then hug your kids to let them know you love them.
Carolyne
CariAnnV
Stone <sst...@PRIMENET.COM> writes:
>> Doesn't any of the Americans believe the private possession of guns in
>> U.S.A. is harmful?
>
Big time yes - but you will find a demographic leaning on the side of females.
I personally would give up my right to defend myself if it meant saving one of
those children lives.
Possibly with men it might be as easy to understand as they LIKE having
something to aim/shoot at - ever see a 2 year old male learning to potty train
- or 6 drunken collegiants trying to pee their name in the snow? From that
natural instinct probably came the idea that shooting is entertaining.
Carolyne
CariAnnV
>So there is a use for
>guns--hours of pointless entertainment in the hands of juveniles for whom
>mere possession was a crime (albeit a misdemeanor). God, how I miss
>those lazy days of summer...
Hi Ed - I'm pretty sure you were attempting to be provocative here so I won't
waste too many muscles typing back....
There are many millions of ways to receive pointless entertainment without
having to shoot and aim at something. I for one hope your own children grow up
without the same memories you did.
Carolyne
Shari L. Rosenblum
>Fair point in principal, but for me this is a very good case of pragmatism
>over theory. Couple of examples: alongside the American example of armed
>struggle is the more recent and in many ways more spectacular example of
>*unarmed* struggle in India.
But this sidesteps the issue. The point is not which way the people
choose to fight to maintain their freedoms and integrity, but rather
that the choice remain theirs, to be exercised at their option, to
the extent called for -- not the limit permitted.
>And in the current media-soaked world, the
>pen, or at least the satellite telephone, is indeed getting mightier than
>the sword, at least in the case of nations that don't wish to be isolated
>internationally.
Quite. And there are those who wish to infringe such rights, too,
in the name of peace, love, and paternalism -- censorship, wiretapping,
and hidden surveillance.
No one opposes peaceful means of protecting freedoms and keeping order. But
the power to determine the means necessary to meet and push back the
oppressor or the tyrant or unjust rule must remain with those whose
freedoms are threatened.
No one argues that one should always choose violence over conciliation,
but the fact that certain circumstances allow more peaceful means of
conducting a struggle is not reason to allow the government to limit
the people to those means.
*examples of S.Africa and Northern Ireland snipped*
>> And shortly thereafter, the founders of this new nation
>> set out to do better for their people and their posterity than
>> the government they had known before. Yours. And so they wrote a
>> Constitution and made it binding. And among the first rights
>> enshrined in that document is one that enabled them to
>> fend off the tyrants and establish that better state.
>>
>> I suppose it is not surprising that it's a right you still oppose.
>
>Do I really? Bit of a generalisation, isn't it?
But not an inaccurate one.
>I don't question the
>right, but do question whether "bearing arms" is a sensible way of going
>about it.
But if you recognize the right you say you do, you cannot legitimately
question the exercise of that right. That's the whole point of rights:
no one gets to impose their pragmatism or preferences upon you.
>I note from the earlier paragraph the phrase, "once upon a
>time", which puts into perspective the extent to which the context of
>the current world has overtaken the original intent. Also, calling George
>III's government "yours" in this context is effectively name-calling.
>They were nothing to do with me, I didn't vote then.
The problem, of course, was that nobody did.
And it isn't name-calling, it's mere observation. Much of what the
founders set out to "correct" remains "uncorrected" in the land that
George once ruled. As you note below, for example, that land is still
without a written constitution. (And its citizens are still telling
us how to run our country. ;-) )
>I'm a Charter 88 Signatory, a group campaigning for (amongst other
>things), a formal written constitution and Bill of Rights for the UK.
>Don't think because we're deprived of them at present we all accept the
>current situation. But I don't think you'll find many signatories who
>want the right to bear arms, or even consider it relevant to our current
>society here.
It doesn't matter whether you want it; you have it. It's not an American
right; it's a right of (wo)man. That you choose not to exercise it is fine;
but it can never be a good idea to actively relinquish your rights, and
the rights of your compatriots, to fight oppression or defend freedom.
Some day, you might be sorry.
Shari
Shari L. Rosenblum
>Think my problem boils down to the *right* being to protect oneself from
>tyranny, but this not being the actual text. Instead, it gets sidetracked
>into how that should be achieved, which is of course based on a very
>different set of circumstances than opearte today.
That is precisely the text. Congress (in Article I) is empowered to
organize and govern the armed populace for certain purposes; from
that power is excepted the right to disarm the people -- why? because
a populace armed and ready to do battle in its defense is necessary
to the security of a *free* state. Precisely the text.
And not at all different from the circumstances that operate today.
History, even recent history, shows the impetus of tyrants to disarm
the citizens, and how the citizens suffer for it. As just one
example, I refer you to the Warsaw Ghetto.
>There are, of course, other means to protect oneself from tyranny than
>using guns. Check out the Eastern European revolutions that marked the
>end of the Communist governments of Hungary, DDR and Czechosolvakia, for
>example. Thus, though I respect the right, I feel the requirement that
>people be allowed to bear arms doesn't really in the same clause as a
>specific requirement.
Again, that there are potentially alternative means is not reason to
allow the government that may seek to oppress determine which means
the people may use to fend off its attempts.
Shari
Neil Tollfree
this pretty outlandish situation...I guess I'd rather have no guns and run
the risk of tony blair turning up at my flat and trying to chat up my bird
and nick my overdraft.
I'm sorry, I really want to understand this gun-rights thing...I can usually
so both sides to most arguements....but this escapes me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Miles [mailto:jmi...@EWA.NET]
Sent: 28 April 1999 21:05
To: CINE...@AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: Life Ain't So Beautiful
At 5:51 AM -0700 4/28/99, Neil Tollfree Fired a few neurons to put these
thoughts to the world:
>So in answer to my original question, you want a gun so when someone takes
Shari L. Rosenblum
>It is, Shari, you've got me there.....so I oppose an American's right to
>shoot another American (or the occasional tourist)
See, there's the problem. You don't get it. Americans don't have the
right to shoot each other: murder and assault are crimes punishable by
law here as elsewhere. We, as you, have the right to defend our
freedom against tyranny and oppression, by like force, if necessary.
And so the included right to keep and bear arms. That you choose
not to preserve the right for yourself, so be it. But you have
no power to relinquish such right in anyone else's name. And it's
the arrogance of that latter impulse, the impulse to disarm *me* because
you see no purpose in *your* having a gun, and have no respect for
what I choose, that reminds me of the sort of oppression the American
War of Independence was fought to overthrow.
>I believe killing other people is wrong. I believe the right to not be shot
>is more worthy of my defence than the right to shoot someone.
Criminal law prohibits murder, assault, etc., whether such crimes are
committed by means of knives, pens, belts, chains, rocks, wire, fire
rope, fists, open hands around the neck, or an AIDS carrier's unprotected
sexual activity. We do not, however, outlaw knives, pens, chains, rock,
wire, fire, rope, hands, or penises.
Moreover, it is precisely because they recognized our right not to be
shot that our founders made certain to protect our right to prevent
it and/or to fight back.
>So in answer to my original question, you want a gun so when someone takes
>power that you don't like, you can shoot them. Scary.
The disarming of the people is an infringement of a human right, and it
paves the way for further and greater infringements of such rights.
An unarmed populace is far easier to oppress, to shove into cattle cars,
to suck the life and energy from, as history has repeatedly shown us.
So, yes. I will forever insist on the protection of the people's right
to oppose such oppression. It is not in my nature to ignore the lessons
of time and the nature of man's rule.
Shari
Shari L. Rosenblum
>of guns in U.S.A allowed them to get rid of the tyranny
>of the invaders but the presence of the gun have also
>allowed the u.s.a. to tyrannise over others, taking away
>land by force from the native americans, slavery,
>etc. so sorry, i don't agree at all that guns are in
>any sense useful.
This response seems rather confused.
First, you argue that guns are not useful in any sense because
they can be used in all senses: both offense and defense.
That hardly follows.
Second, you argue that citizens should not be armed to protect
themselves against tyrannical forces because tyrannical forces
use arms. That, too, lacks fundamental logic.
Third, you cite the effectiveness of armed forces against
unarmed (or less well-armed) populations as justification
for further disarming such populations. There's no sense in
that at all.
In fact, you seem to be making the arguments for the side you
wish to oppose.
>the war against iraq and the present sanctions are what
>humanitarean groups like amnesty are fighting against, the
>u.s. cannot get on its high horse and say it is right and
>iraq is wrong in terms of the war because the whole thing
>was to do with oil, or something like that, guns/greater
>arms allow the u.s. to do this, it always has to win.
Now you seem really confused. Your disaffinity for American
policy aside, what is the relevance to this discussion of your
position on Iraqui conflicts or American intervention?
The right to keep and bear arms is a right
of individuals -- you are talking about the government-directed
armed forces. Do you truly mean to be advocating not only
that we disarm the people, but that we disarm the army as well?
And if so, I ask you, who is "we"?
Shari
Neil Tollfree
the arrogance of that latter impulse, the impulse to disarm *me* because
you see no purpose in *your* having a gun, and have no respect for
what I choose, that reminds me of the sort of oppression the American
War of Independence was fought to overthrow.
But it's fine for you to tell me what my rights are because an american
wrote down his ideals after a war. Here's a scary thought, your founding
fathers could have been full of shit.....you yourself say further down this
post "It is not in my nature to ignore the lessons of time and the nature of
man's rule."....yet you will trust the people who drew up your
constitution....why ? What gives a bunch of people who lived 200 years ago
the insight into human beings to determine my rights ?
>I believe killing other people is wrong. I believe the right to not be shot
>is more worthy of my defence than the right to shoot someone.
Criminal law prohibits murder, assault, etc., whether such crimes are
committed by means of knives, pens, belts, chains, rocks, wire, fire
rope, fists, open hands around the neck, or an AIDS carrier's unprotected
sexual activity. We do not, however, outlaw knives, pens, chains, rock,
wire, fire, rope, hands, or penises.
Because we need them for other reasons...a guns sole reason for being is to
hurt someone else....incidently England banned a whole load of combat knives
not so long ago cos we were fed up with people getting stabbed...no, it
probably won't stop all stabbings...but if one less person gets knived, I'm
happy
Moreover, it is precisely because they recognized our right not to be
shot that our founders made certain to protect our right to prevent
it and/or to fight back.
So two people facing each other off with two guns is better than two people
facing each other off without guns ?
>So in answer to my original question, you want a gun so when someone takes
>power that you don't like, you can shoot them. Scary.
The disarming of the people is an infringement of a human right, and it
paves the way for further and greater infringements of such rights.
An unarmed populace is far easier to oppress, to shove into cattle cars,
to suck the life and energy from, as history has repeatedly shown us.
So, yes. I will forever insist on the protection of the people's right
to oppose such oppression. It is not in my nature to ignore the lessons
of time and the nature of man's rule.
Shari
I will continue to oppose oppresion by anyway within my ethical boundries,
it will include discussion, marching, protesting, writing and all manner of
other things...I cannot condone killing anyone though.
Anyhoo, I've probably taken enough of your time up, you'll be wanting to get
your arsenal out to Serbia to help fight that oppression.
tommy
ujjayini choudhury
don't see anything confusing in what i wrote, i never ever made any
arguments to support the right to own a gun, i never said the way
white people tyrannised over the natives in america was good, it was
effective for colonisation but it was forceful, uncivilised, inhumane
and anyway the natives did not give the whites to come over and settle
in their country.
>>the war against iraq and the present sanctions are what
>>humanitarean groups like amnesty are fighting against, the
>>u.s. cannot get on its high horse and say it is right and
>>iraq is wrong in terms of the war because the whole thing
>>was to do with oil, or something like that, guns/greater
>>arms allow the u.s. to do this, it always has to win.
>
>Now you seem really confused. Your disaffinity for American
>policy aside, what is the relevance to this discussion of your
>position on Iraqui conflicts or American intervention?
bullying. south africa had the apartheid regime for years and yet
nobody in the west could be bothered to go and fight because as they
saw it it didn't concern them. you're the one that's confused Shari
>The right to keep and bear arms is a right
>of individuals -- you are talking about the government-directed
>armed forces. Do you truly mean to be advocating not only
>that we disarm the people, but that we disarm the army as well?
>
>And if so, I ask you, who is "we"?
>
>Shari
Ashley, Mark
nicking your overdraft:-
"So, darlin', what you doing with this tosser? fancy a pint? maybe a curry
later?"
and
"Listen mate, owe money? let me take care of that for you, and maybe you can
do a favour for me one day?"
and you saying something like "go ahead sucker, make my day!"
Mark Ashley
-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Tollfree [mailto:Neil.T...@PHOENIXDB.CO.UK]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 1999 9:19 AM
To: CINE...@AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: Life Ain't So Beautiful
Okay, grotesque over-simplification on my part....but don't you think that
this pretty outlandish situation...I guess I'd rather have no guns and run
the risk of tony blair turning up at my flat and trying to chat up my bird
and nick my overdraft.
I'm sorry, I really want to understand this gun-rights thing...I can usually
so both sides to most arguements....but this escapes me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Miles [mailto:jmi...@EWA.NET]
Sent: 28 April 1999 21:05
To: CINE...@AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: Life Ain't So Beautiful
At 5:51 AM -0700 4/28/99, Neil Tollfree Fired a few neurons to put these
thoughts to the world:
>So in answer to my original question, you want a gun so when someone takes
>power that you don't like, you can shoot them. Scary.
This is a perfect example of completely sidestepping the whole
Ed Owens
> So two people facing each other off with two guns is better than two people
> facing each other off without guns ?
Just a comment...
Last year a local eigth grader beat a sixth grader to death with a tree branch
over a candy bar.
Now back to the show...
Ed
Sasha Stone
We do not, however, outlaw knives, pens, chains, rock,
>wire, fire, rope, hands, or penises.
>
Well, I, for one, am in favor of the outlawing of penises. Or at least
'Penis Control." Let's face it, if we could do that...we wouldn't need
gun control. After all, we "fix" dogs and horses. Why not men?
(Snicker snicker)
Sasha
Liquo...@aol.com
<< Well, I, for one, am in favor of the outlawing of penises. Or at least
'Penis Control." Let's face it, if we could do that...we wouldn't need
gun control. After all, we "fix" dogs and horses. Why not men?
(Snicker snicker) >>
But where would woman's inspiration in life be without a fully loaded male
penis? You'd be doomed to a life listening to Jewel and watching "The View".
The male penis is the pole that keeps the flag of our great country waving.
Every time I wake up in the morning with a piss-boner, I just have to smile,
salute it, and say, "God Bless America!" God bless him indeed.
The penis is the great equalizer among men. A troll-like shlub like Ron
Jeremy can be worshipped like a god because of it.
By the way, I'm very satisfied with the size of my penis, so please don't
take this as a plea of inadequacy.
And I'm sensitive, too. I even watch Voyager with my wife. (BTW, that 7 of
9 is a hottie, aint she?)
Well, if anything needs control, it's vixens roaming the world. You know the
type...white fur hanging over their shoulder, long black cigarette holder in
their hand, black and white streaked hear with crimson lipstick. They're the
problem!
barbrose
>
> We do not, however, outlaw knives, pens, chains, rock,
> >wire, fire, rope, hands, or penises.
> Well, I, for one, am in favor of the outlawing of penises. Or
at least
> 'Penis Control." Let's face it, if we could do that...we
wouldn't need
> gun control. After all, we "fix" dogs and horses. Why not
men?
>
> (Snicker snicker)
>
>
> Sasha
Interestingly enough, though I am going to assume that you are
saying the above in jest, all this excessive going off the 'deep
end' killings just may have something to do with 'testosterone'.
I mean we rarely, if ever, hear of some young girl shooting up
her school. Here's a theory, maybe some preservative that is
put in food is increasing the levels of testosterone in males,
causing those with a propensity for violence, to be even more
active in this vein.
Barbara
Sasha Stone
>saying the above in jest, all this excessive going off the 'deep
>end' killings just may have something to do with 'testosterone'.
> I mean we rarely, if ever, hear of some young girl shooting up
>her school. Here's a theory, maybe some preservative that is
>put in food is increasing the levels of testosterone in males,
>causing those with a propensity for violence, to be even more
>active in this vein.
That's not a bad theory. I mean, isn't there all of this research coming
out about hormones in milk? Causing testicular and breast cancer? What if
it was also causing increases in testosterone.
Also, I'm worried about the over-medication of children. Prozac and all
that. Wasn't one of these kids on a type of medication? They have the
potential to remove that impulse in our brain that makes us feel guilt.
Sasha
Shari L. Rosenblum
>Dear Shari, your email about your confusion is going over my head, i
>don't see anything confusing in what i wrote,
Nonetheless, I pointed the confusions out. You tried to make a point
with rhetorical bombast, but your anger made its flaws too apparent.
>arguments to support the right to own a gun, i never said the way
>white people tyrannised over the natives in america was good, it was
>effective for colonisation but it was forceful, uncivilised, inhumane
>and anyway the natives did not give the whites to come over and settle
>in their country.
First, this is not a question of race, and I highly resent your
insertion of the race question. For one thing, the Indians on
the American continent had a high time of fighting each other and
usurping the loser's land and space, and they were of the same
general race (at least by the standards you use in lumping them
together under the false term "native American").
Second, as you missed it, my point was that if the Indians had
been armed as well as the European arrivals, they might well
have fared better. Disarming the people and keeping them
ignorant in the uses of arms is the surest way to ensure
they will be powerless against armed invaders, tyrants,
and oppressors.
Shari
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
Sasha
Eric Harris was reportedly supposed to be taking a psychiatric medication - however, no drugs or alcohol were found in either boys' system at the time of their death. Perhaps he suspended the taking of his own medecine and this, along with the failed attempt to gain a prom date and the marine's turning him down, exacerbated the situation. However, his diary would put those supositions to rest as it reads that they had been planning this attack for a year.
-K
OCC: Greatest drug movie - WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY
Shari L. Rosenblum
>I mean we rarely, if ever, hear of some young girl shooting up
>her school.
Or of being treated like a guy who'd done the same if she does.
There was of course that lovely girl of 16 who shot into the
schoolyard from her home across the street because she didn't
like Mondays and thought it would cheer up the day. Where is
she today?
And the darling imp from the Badlands team may shortly
be up for parole, while her testosterone-filled bad-boyfriend
is long interred.
Shari
Jeff Miles
thoughts to the world:
>In article <v04003a01b...@ewa.net>, Jeff Miles <jmi...@EWA.NET>
>writes:
>
>>Ah, to protect the household? I'd say that puts it in the catagory
>>of a pretty useful household tool. Yeah, I know, you could do the same
>>with a hammer, but you're not going to have much luck with an intruder
>>using shotgun.
>
>Just as our society has outgrown the need for hunting, we have outgrown the
>need to protect ourselves in our home. 911 will get someone to you probably
>quicker than you can unlock your gun door (providing you can even get to it
>with such a dangerous intruder in your presence) - and load up your rifle
>(providing the big intruder doesn't pull it out of your hands or now decide to
>shoot you back with their own). We have an armed military, and an armed
>police
>force. We are protected in our own home.
Are you living on the same planet as the rest of us? No wait, I
have some prime realaste in northern China I'd like to sell you. It was
priviously inhabited by some lunitic named after an animal, but the all
protective government/military and police ridded the area of that problem.
>And any good criminologist can tell you who the vast percentage of home
>attackers are - the people who already live there, shooting their spouse and
>their children with their own guns. If a stranger is showing up in your home
>to hunt you down and kill you that's usually called a contract killing, and
>only witness protection is going to help you..
Ok, now I know you're living on a different planet, or at least in
a different reality. Or that must have been my brother who did the drive
by shooting, or the carjacking, or the etc.
Really, contract killings are pretty rare compared to the everyday
random killing.
>And for all those who say "all the criminals have guns so I need one", did you
>ever consider why we aren't worried about someone entering our home with
>landmines or bazookas, and therefore we need landmines and bazookas to protect
>ourselves from them? - BECAUSE CRIMINALS CAN'T BUY LANDMINES AND BAZOOKAS!
Oh get serious. What are you going to do with a land mine, throw
it as someone? And I can see it now, a quick draw compitition with
bazookas. Also I can see the warning label on the side of the thing, "Be
careful not to fire within an inclosed area!" Think practicality for even
a second and you'll see the absurdity of your examples.
>I am 100% for getting ALL means of mass destruction out of the hands of the
>populace. Put the guns in a musuem, and bring your kids and tell them how you
>used to have warm squishy memories about you and your Daddy killing
>animals and
>cereal boxes. And make sure they read the sign which will be next to it
>describing how guns were completely banned after children started killing each
>other with them.
>And then hug your kids to let them know you love them.
If and when it ever comes to the point of a conflict, I want you on
the otherside. At least I'll know you won't be that much of a threat.
Your comments make me think of you as that deer with its eyes fixed on the
headlights of the oncomming car.
Jeff M
barbrose
> schoolyard from her home across the street because she didn't
> like Mondays and thought it would cheer up the day. Where is
> she today?
I don't know (actually never heard of this case) but I certainly
hope she's in a place where there are no calendars. :-)
Barbara
barbrose
and all that. Wasn't one of these kids on a type of medication?
They have the potential to remove that impulse in our brain
that makes us feel guilt.
Sasha
Eric Harris was reportedly supposed to be taking a psychiatric
medication - however, no drugs or alcohol were found in either
boys' system at the time of their death.
His blood was not tested for prescription drugs.
Barbara
Jeff Miles
thoughts to the world:
I'm going to bring up a thought I made awhile back on another list
when a subject similar to this came up. I believe that (at least the male
of the species, if not both) have a built in targeting instinct. I don't
hunt. When I was about 10 I killed a bird with a sling shot, I still feel
guilty today. I'm not going to tell you how long ago that was, but it was
quite awhile ago. However, I've noticed in myself, when I see anything,
I'll use a bird as an example, I think about the aim or trajectory needed
to hit it. I only do this for a fraction of a second, but the thought is
still there. I believe this is a built in instinct. It might be for self
protection, or maybe a hold over from the need to hunt to survive (I'm
talking species here, not personal).
So, I believe a targeting instinct is part of us and a gun helps to
satisify this instinct for some.
Jeff M
Helping to make your Mac a friendly place
<http://users.ewa.net/patter/Macs.html>
Jeff Miles
Wow, I should have read this before posting my last response.
Only, in my perspective, your reasoning from that understanding is a bit
skewed.
Jeff M