shooting in Oregon
YoYo
So, they were saying on NPR this morning that we have to all be very
scrupulous about kids who talk about guns and bombs and so forth because
Kip Kinkel talked a lot about that kind of thing before he went on his
rampage.
This left me scratching my head a bit. When I was in Junior High and High
School, I knew at least 3 or 4 kids who talked about this kind of stuff
constantly. I knew kids who wore camoflage to school, were constantly
experimenting with explosives, and who had access to guns. These kids
frequently talked about going postal (although that term wasn't around
then).
If these kids had been overheard today, they'd probably be thrown in the
booby hatch for psychiatric evaluation, but I don't think there was
anything wrong with any of them. There's a certain kind of kid who is
fascinated with the mechanics of destruction. It may be a little
disturbing from the standpoint of someone who isn't, but it's natural.
None of these kids actually ever did anything. One of them eventually
joined the Army, but as far as I know, that's the farthest extent to which
any of these kids ever took their intrest in guns.
In Kinkel's case, there were certainly a lot of warning signs, and I don't
think he should have been running around loose after he'd been caught
bringing a gun to school, but I'm a little disturbed that now any kid who
talks about guns or bombs is going to be under a cloud of suspicion.
--
----YoYo------...@tezcat.com------------and stuff------
"We don't want to be associated with a randy penguin.
Well, we do, but it's not politic." -Linus Torvalds
Josh Brandt
In article <6kee6e$i...@xochi.tezcat.com>, YoYo <yo...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
>This left me scratching my head a bit. When I was in Junior High and High
>School, I knew at least 3 or 4 kids who talked about this kind of stuff
[...]
>If these kids had been overheard today, they'd probably be thrown in the
>booby hatch for psychiatric evaluation, but I don't think there was
[...]
Erm, okay, but wouldn't you rather have people take a close look at them? I
went to school in Oregon, and there were a couple of students in sixth and
seventh grade who were pretty scary. One of them came back to school after
7th grade summer covered with scar tissue and new raw skin where some black
powder or something had exploded in his face. He also would get in fights
and was generally a scary guy. There was also the usual tortures-
animals-and-blows-stuff-up-guy. He also was pretty scary. They needed help.
(The first one I think is dead. The second I'm not sure about.)
>In Kinkel's case, there were certainly a lot of warning signs, and I don't
>think he should have been running around loose after he'd been caught
>bringing a gun to school, but I'm a little disturbed that now any kid who
>talks about guns or bombs is going to be under a cloud of suspicion.
Good. It's not really all that healthy to be obsessed with killing people,
regardless of what our society says.
Josh
--
...said it was heaven just to breathe your air Severed Heads
J. Brandt - mu...@sidehack.gweep.net
Russ Allbery
Josh Brandt <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> writes:
> YoYo <yo...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
>> In Kinkel's case, there were certainly a lot of warning signs, and I
>> don't think he should have been running around loose after he'd been
>> caught bringing a gun to school, but I'm a little disturbed that now
>> any kid who talks about guns or bombs is going to be under a cloud of
>> suspicion.
> Good. It's not really all that healthy to be obsessed with killing
> people, regardless of what our society says.
Depends on who's defining obsessed. Tom Clancy seems to be a relatively
healthy person to me. :)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
YoYo
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Josh Brandt <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> writes:
>> YoYo <yo...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
>
>>> In Kinkel's case, there were certainly a lot of warning signs, and I
>>> don't think he should have been running around loose after he'd been
>>> caught bringing a gun to school, but I'm a little disturbed that now
>>> any kid who talks about guns or bombs is going to be under a cloud of
>>> suspicion.
>
>> Good. It's not really all that healthy to be obsessed with killing
>> people, regardless of what our society says.
>
>Depends on who's defining obsessed. Tom Clancy seems to be a relatively
>healthy person to me. :)
Yeah. It just seems like another avenue to enforce conformity to me.
--
----YoYo------...@tezcat.com------------and stuff------
"I'm not getting any saner, here..."
Josh Brandt
In article <6kfod4$9...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>,
YoYo <yo...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
>Yeah. It just seems like another avenue to enforce conformity to me.
Uh, if you're going to argue that shooting people is a valid expression of
one's First Amendment rights, I'm going to have to argue that your head must
be lodged in your butt.
Are you honestly saying that, if some 16-year-old kid has a load of guns
and talks about killing people, teachers or counsellors _shouldn't_ keep an
eye on him?
Protecting him from himself isn't the problem here. Keeping him from talking
about shooting people isn't the aim. The aim is to keep him from actually
going ahead and shooting people. I don't think there's really much way to
spin shooting people in such a way as to make it look like a _good_ idea.
Kate Wrightson
In article <6kh494$gue$1...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>,
Josh Brandt <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
>Are you honestly saying that, if some 16-year-old kid has a load of guns
>and talks about killing people, teachers or counsellors _shouldn't_ keep an
>eye on him?
Um, Josh, you're misreading YoYo's post. He's talking about kids who are
interested in guns. You're talking about homicidal maniacs. No matter
how you slice it, there are going to be kids interested in guns and kids
not interested in guns. Some kids interested in guns are going to be
dangerous with them, but the majority aren't. Because a few kids are,
does that mean that all kids must be put under a microscope for exhibiting
curiosity?
I was interested in a lot of stuff as a kid. Most of it I grew out of.
Making laws to guard against the aberration is a bad idea.
Let's not even get started on the national handwringing over middle-class
white kids shooting middle-class white kids, when urban school violence
doesn't even make the front pages any more.
--
___________________________________________________________________________
ka...@eyrie.org Kate Wrightson www.eyrie.org/~kate
YoYo
Josh Brandt <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
>Uh, if you're going to argue that shooting people is a valid expression of
>one's First Amendment rights, I'm going to have to argue that your head must
>be lodged in your butt.
How did you get that out of what I said?
>Are you honestly saying that, if some 16-year-old kid has a load of guns
>and talks about killing people, teachers or counsellors _shouldn't_ keep an
>eye on him?
No, I'm saying that if every 16 year old kid who says something that a
(most likely very anti-second amendment) teacher who's been whipped into a
frenzy by memos from the board of ed gets shunted off to the school
counselor and put under a microscope, this would be a bad thing. This
would be a crackdown on fringe personalities. This wouldn't make schools
any safer, but it would make them more soul-killing than they already are.
>Protecting him from himself isn't the problem here. Keeping him from talking
>about shooting people isn't the aim. The aim is to keep him from actually
>going ahead and shooting people. I don't think there's really much way to
>spin shooting people in such a way as to make it look like a _good_ idea.
Again, please tell me how what I've said leads you to belive that I think
shooting people is a good idea?
Kate Wrightson
In article <6khbq7$l6m$1...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>,
Josh Brandt <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
>dubious about this, personally. Being from Oregon, I know how easy it is to
>go acquire quite a lot of weaponry, should you so desire. Heck, you can go
>to gun shows and pick up pretty much anything you want.
FWIW, I'm from Oregon too. I used to live about a mile from Thurston HS.
It doesn't confer any sort of extraordinary information about gun control,
except maybe to folks from more restrictive states. Certainly, here in
Georgia it's even easier to get guns than in Oregon. It is also MUCH
easier to get a concealed-carry permit here.
>scrutiny. Would more scrutiny have made a difference, and perhaps saved some
>lives? I think so. Do you?
Neither you nor I can know that, as we are not the Kinkel family. From
what I understand, they *were* trying to get help for him.
>>Let's not even get started on the national handwringing over middle-class
>>white kids shooting middle-class white kids, when urban school violence
>>doesn't even make the front pages any more.
>
>Yep. How much of this could be stopped if it was more difficult to acquire
>guns?
Given that the last couple of school shooting were done with guns that
wouldn't be covered under currently proposed gun control laws, possibly
not much. In the case of urban school violence, possibly not much, since
many of the guns used in those cases are stolen.
That wasn't my point, anyway. My point is that it's inconsistent to fill
the airwaves with intrusive and voyeuristic coverage of deaths caused by
white kids, when black kids who kill their teachers in class don't even
make the national news, and the president most certainly doesn't send
elegies to the teacher's funeral. (This happened in Atlanta last fall.)
>Oh geez, I'm about to start the eternal gun-control flamewar, aren't I?
Yes, and for that reason I'm going to say this and then back out, since
gun control is one of those things that should stay in talk.* where it
belongs.
I believe that the Second Amendment extends to my right to arm myself.
Although I do not currently own a firearm, I am considering the purchase
of one merely to exercise the right. An unexercised right may wither and
no longer be there when one goes to exercise it later.
With that right goes responsibility: the resopnsibility to educate myself
on appropriate and accurate use of the weapon, the responsibility to
contain it in a secure place accessible only by others trained in its use,
and the responsibility to speak out in support of the rights which permit
me to own and use it.
Josh Brandt
In article <6kfod4$9...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>,
YoYo <yo...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
>Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>Josh Brandt <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> writes:
>>> YoYo <yo...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>> caught bringing a gun to school, but I'm a little disturbed that now
>>>> any kid who talks about guns or bombs is going to be under a cloud of
>>>> suspicion.
>>> Good. It's not really all that healthy to be obsessed with killing
>>> people, regardless of what our society says.
>>Depends on who's defining obsessed. Tom Clancy seems to be a relatively
>>healthy person to me. :)
>Yeah. It just seems like another avenue to enforce conformity to me.
This is the bit that makes me wonder. You seem to be implying that enforcing
conformity by trying to nip young psychotics in the bud is bad. Am I wrong
about this?
Neil Crellin
mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net (Josh Brandt) writes:
> In article <6kfod4$9...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>,
> YoYo <yo...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
> >Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> >>Josh Brandt <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> writes:
> >>> YoYo <yo...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >>>> caught bringing a gun to school, but I'm a little disturbed that now
> >>>> any kid who talks about guns or bombs is going to be under a cloud of
> >>>> suspicion.
> >>> Good. It's not really all that healthy to be obsessed with killing
> >>> people, regardless of what our society says.
> >>Depends on who's defining obsessed. Tom Clancy seems to be a relatively
> >>healthy person to me. :)
>
> >Yeah. It just seems like another avenue to enforce conformity to me.
>
> This is the bit that makes me wonder. You seem to be implying that enforcing
> conformity by trying to nip young psychotics in the bud is bad. Am I wrong
> about this?
This is the bit that makes me unsure how much of a killjoy fascist
you're proposing to be. You seem to be implying that trying to nip
young psychotics in the bud by subjecting any child who expresses the
least bit of curiousity in "officially unsanctioned" topics to intense
psychological scrutiny and harassment by bureaucrats is good. Am I
wrong about this?
-Neil Crellin <ne...@stanford.edu>
Mark Atwood
mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net (Josh Brandt) writes:
> Yep. How much of this could be stopped if it was more difficult to acquire
> guns?
Almost none of it.
>
> Oh geez, I'm about to start the eternal gun-control flamewar, aren't I?
Yes you are.
--
Mark Atwood | Thank you gentlemen, you are everything we have come to
m...@pobox.com | expect from years of government training. -- MIB Zed
Mark Atwood
mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net (Josh Brandt) writes:
>
> This is the bit that makes me wonder. You seem to be implying that enforcing
> conformity by trying to nip young psychotics in the bud is bad. Am I wrong
> about this?
Trying to nip young psychotics? Good.
Doing it by building an environment where catching an authority's
attention subjects you and yours to negative scruteny, notes in the
"permanent record", and "preventive sanctions"[1]? Bad.[2]
[1] Like the man in NJ who just had his entire legal and secured gun
collection confiscated because his son drew a picture of a disliked
teacher in a set of crosshairs.
[2] A "cure" worse[3] than the disease.
[3] Do *you* want to live in the world of "Escape from NY/LA"?
YoYo
Josh Brandt <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote:
>>Yeah. It just seems like another avenue to enforce conformity to me.
>
>This is the bit that makes me wonder. You seem to be implying that enforcing
>conformity by trying to nip young psychotics in the bud is bad. Am I wrong
>about this?
Yes. What I'm saying is that there are a lot of kids out there who, to a
bunch of teachers and school administrators and politicians who are hyped
up on politics-of-the-moment, might *look* like Young Psychotics (Good
name for a band, BTW). I object to the idea that these kids need to be
turned into Chads and Buffys.
And, being that most of my family works in education, I know how these
things work. Someone at the state house says something. The local board of
education makes a policy, and memos go out to teachers and principals.
Since no one wants to run the risk of actually letting people use their
discretion, the policy becomes that any mention of firearms or explosives
earns a kid a trip to the couselor's office.
Mark Atwood
yo...@huitzilo.tezcat.com (YoYo) writes:
> I object to the idea that these kids need to be
> turned into Chads and Buffys.
Heh.
After watching a season or two of BtVS, "Buffy" is not longer a name I
associate with conformists.
Just one of the fun ironys in the show, I guess...
YoYo
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>yo...@huitzilo.tezcat.com (YoYo) writes:
>> I object to the idea that these kids need to be
>> turned into Chads and Buffys.
>
>Heh.
>
>After watching a season or two of BtVS, "Buffy" is not longer a name I
>associate with conformists.
>
>Just one of the fun ironys in the show, I guess...
And it occurred to me after I posted that that since Abby relocated, I
can't use "Chad" either. I guess I need some new ones. How about "Biffs
and Heathers"?
Russ Allbery
Josh Brandt <mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> writes:
> Are you honestly saying that, if some 16-year-old kid has a load of guns
> and talks about killing people, teachers or counsellors _shouldn't_ keep
> an eye on him?
No. I'm saying that we shouldn't state as An Official Policy About How
The World Works that kids who have guns and talk about killing people Need
To Be Watched For Their Own Good By The Benevolent Guardians Of Society.
There's a big difference here. (It's also very ambiguous what "talking
about killing people" means. For example, I think murderers should be
executed. That's talking about killing people. That's not in the same
class at all as making death threats to people, which certainly *does*
warrant concern and possibly law enforcement intervention.)
I've known how to shoot since I was about eight. I liked guns. I enjoyed
target shooting. I still enjoy target shooting with a .22 or something
else that doesn't make too much noise. I'm very glad that I was raised
around guns because that means that I (a) know what a gun can and can't
do, (b) know how to handle a gun and treat it with the proper respect, (c)
know what *not* to do with a gun, and (d) don't have this insane fear of
weapons that I've observed in a lot of people who have never been in the
same room with a real gun. (I'm *not* putting you in that category, BTW.)
It's a dangerous weapon. Developing a healthy respect for it is a good
thing. It's rather hard to do that unless you've actually seen, held, and
shot a gun. And they *are* cool and fun to do things like target shoot
with.
I don't currently have a gun. I don't see any particular need to have one
right now. I don't think, however, that being interested in guns and how
they work is a particularly abnormal or noteworthy pursuit in teenagers.
Hell, look at how popular the G.I. Joe toy line was.
I get very uncomfortable when people look at things like this school
shooting and immediately go "well, he was interested in guns, Something
Was Obviously Wrong."
Ian Dobbie
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> writes:
> mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net (Josh Brandt) writes:
> > Yep. How much of this could be stopped if it was more difficult to acquire
> > guns?
>
> Almost none of it.
Yeah? Where is your evidence? I suggest that you look at Europe (where
obtaining guns is much more difficult). I cant remeber a single case where a
teenager has gone into their own school and shot up pupils (I'm sure
someone will point out a few to me though). The one case we have had
recently in this country (the UK) is an adult going and shooting children,
but I think that is a whole different kettle of fish.
> > Oh geez, I'm about to start the eternal gun-control flamewar, aren't I?
>
> Yes you are.
Oh god lets get those flames flying!
Ian
Peter da Silva
In article <sa44sya...@barbie.rai.kcl.ac.uk>,
Ian Dobbie <i...@muscle.rai.kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
>Yeah? Where is your evidence? I suggest that you look at Europe (where
>obtaining guns is much more difficult).
Including Switzerland?
America is a very different society than Europe, even though it's largely
derived from the same population. All too many of the people and social
groups who came here were severely disfunctional, from the Pilgrims on down.
It's amazing it works as well as it does. And it does work pretty well,
despite its "abusive childhood". Other places in the world where there are
so many mutually hostile groups living and working together are a lot less
well off. Even the relatively homogenous societies of the Balkan states (and
they're virtual monocultures compared to the USA) have erupted into outright
shooting war given the slightest opportunity.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
| "Settle down, boys. There's pain enough for everyone in net.*." |
| -- Kate Wrightson |
Kai Henningsen
ka...@eyrie.org (Kate Wrightson) wrote on 27.05.98 in <6khcqc$k...@eyrie.org>:
> Yes, and for that reason I'm going to say this and then back out, since
> gun control is one of those things that should stay in talk.* where it
> belongs.
Me too.
> I believe that the Second Amendment extends to my right to arm myself.
I don't believe that a civilized society should have this. I won't
speculate over the US being one such or not. All I'll say is if I ever
feel I need a gun as a normal citizen, then something has quite seriously
broken over here.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
YoYo
Kai Henningsen <kaih=6uiTj...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
>> I believe that the Second Amendment extends to my right to arm myself.
>
>I don't believe that a civilized society should have this. I won't
>speculate over the US being one such or not. All I'll say is if I ever
>feel I need a gun as a normal citizen, then something has quite seriously
>broken over here.
Well, I believe that the necessity for such a right lies in the
possibility that things might become broken to the point where citizens
might need to defend themselves. "Civilization" only exists to the exent
that we can maintain it. That ability may well be contingent on our
ability to use force to defend it.
Mark Atwood
kaih=6uiTj...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> I don't believe that a civilized society should have this. I won't
> speculate over the US being one such or not. All I'll say is if I ever
> feel I need a gun as a normal citizen, then something has quite seriously
> broken over here.
You don't need a gun when you deal with civilized people.
However, even in a "civilized society" there are "uncivilized people",
who if they they can get an advantage over you will KILL you.
Those kind of people exist in the US, and Kai, they also exist in DE.
Are you willing to kill to save you and yours? I don't know what your
answer is, but I know mine.
Yes.
Kai Henningsen
I wanted to stay out, but I still have to ask ...
r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote on 27.05.98 in <m3k9775...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>:
> know what *not* to do with a gun, and (d) don't have this insane fear of
> weapons that I've observed in a lot of people who have never been in the
> same room with a real gun. (I'm *not* putting you in that category, BTW.)
What about those people who do know how to handle a gun, but still feel a
lot better when there's none in the vicinity? (That's me. Learned it in my
time with the military, of course.)
> shot a gun. And they *are* cool and fun to do things like target shoot
> with.
BT, DT, found it awful.
> I get very uncomfortable when people look at things like this school
> shooting and immediately go "well, he was interested in guns, Something
> Was Obviously Wrong."
I'd rather people start looking hard at school violence in any form, not
just shooting. Kids ought to learn that violence isn't how you solve
problems.
True, that's not so easy to do. But it's probably worthwile.
YoYo
Kai Henningsen <kaih=6uiyq...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
>> shot a gun. And they *are* cool and fun to do things like target shoot
>> with.
>
>BT, DT, found it awful.
*shrug* Fine. *You* don't have to use a gun.
>I'd rather people start looking hard at school violence in any form, not
>just shooting. Kids ought to learn that violence isn't how you solve
>problems.
Um. This is a shibboleth that's bothered me for a while. The reason we
have laws against various forms of violence is precisely because *violence
is the single most effective problem solver there is.* Without laws,
people resort to it because it's so amazingly effective.
What kids need to be taught is effective ways to solve problems without
resording to violence.
Mark Atwood
yo...@huitzilo.tezcat.com (YoYo) writes:
>
> What kids need to be taught is effective ways to solve problems without
> resording to violence.
One problem is, that many of these kids have problems THEY CANNOT
SOLVE. Not the middle-class shooters, I think, but the poor urban
ones that don't make the papers do.
What can we do? Hell if I know.
Lurking Girl
In article <6uiyq...@khms.westfalen.de>,
Kai Henningsen <kaih=6uiyq...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
>
>r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote on 27.05.98 in <m3k9775...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>:
>
>> with.
>
>BT, DT, found it awful.
(Ahem. Personal taste issue.)
>I'd rather people start looking hard at school violence in any form, not
>just shooting. Kids ought to learn that violence isn't how you solve
>problems.
>
>True, that's not so easy to do. But it's probably worthwile.
Pardon me while I grab this thread and drag it sideways...
Violence is not the way to solve problems in the adult world, but it's
frequently the only way to deal with problems in the shape of other
kids pestering one.
Ignoring bullies does not make them go away, contrary to what my
parents claimed. Teachers do not make them stop. The only way _I_
found (after quite a lot of painful experience) was turning on the
biggest jerk and clawing his face open.
Fortunately, this discovery didn't do any harm to my sunny and
cheerful (hah) disposition. But for a less-stable individual...
--
Victoria C. Fike | Sunrise, wrong side of another day
Imperatrix Ludorum | Sky-high and six thousand miles away
to...@cugc.org | Don't know how long I've been awake...
http://www.cugc.org | --Hawkwind, "Motorhead"
Russ Allbery
Kai Henningsen <kaih> writes:
> What about those people who do know how to handle a gun, but still feel
> a lot better when there's none in the vicinity? (That's me. Learned it
> in my time with the military, of course.)
I certainly think that people should be able to make whatever rules they
care to about weapons and the like on their own property; in other words,
Stanford doesn't allow any firearms on campus, and schools should
certainly do the same thing. I know that doesn't solve the larger problem
of the fact that people do have such things available to them, but it does
address part of your comment.
> I'd rather people start looking hard at school violence in any form, not
> just shooting. Kids ought to learn that violence isn't how you solve
> problems.
Yup. Whole-heartedly agreed; that's one of the things that bothers me
about the spin on this that the media often puts out. Lots of people say
a lot about how horrible guns are, which whether true or not is just a
smokescreen to ignore the real problem of kids using violence (with
*whatever* weapons) to solve problems.
Kai Henningsen
yo...@huitzilo.tezcat.com (YoYo) wrote on 28.05.98 in <6kk5er$k...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>:
> Kai Henningsen <kaih=6uiTj...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
>
> >> I believe that the Second Amendment extends to my right to arm myself.
> >
> >I don't believe that a civilized society should have this. I won't
> >speculate over the US being one such or not. All I'll say is if I ever
> >feel I need a gun as a normal citizen, then something has quite seriously
> >broken over here.
>
> Well, I believe that the necessity for such a right lies in the
> possibility that things might become broken to the point where citizens
> might need to defend themselves. "Civilization" only exists to the exent
> that we can maintain it. That ability may well be contingent on our
> ability to use force to defend it.
If "we (individually) need to defend it by force", it's dead already, IMO.
Jeremy.
In net.current-events.general, Ian Dobbie (i...@muscle.rai.kcl.ac.uk) said...
>Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> writes:
>> mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net (Josh Brandt) writes:
>> > Yep. How much of this could be stopped if it was more difficult to acquire
>> > guns?
>>
>> Almost none of it.
>
>teenager has gone into their own school and shot up pupils (I'm sure
>someone will point out a few to me though). The one case we have had
>recently in this country (the UK) is an adult going and shooting children,
>but I think that is a whole different kettle of fish.
This is where, if I had the time to invest, I could start another
incarnation of the "abdication of personal responsibility and the many woes
it's brought our culture" thread, with specific focus on its destruction of
the ability of most parents to raise their children and the corresponding
burden this has laid on the educational system without commensurate
increase in resources being made available. I don't think I have the
energy or self-restraint to do it justice here though.
-J.
besides, we're having a nice variation on it in a local newsgroup here so
I'll get by.
--
"A little Consideration, a little Thought for Others, makes all the
difference. Or so they say... If you've been invited to a party, it's
probably a mistake. Make sure they don't blame you if it rains."
-- Eeyore (A. A. Milne)
Mark Atwood
to...@cugc.org (Lurking Girl) writes:
>
> Ignoring bullies does not make them go away, contrary to what my
> parents claimed. Teachers do not make them stop. The only way _I_
> found (after quite a lot of painful experience) was turning on the
> biggest jerk and clawing his face open.
Causing him to walk with a limp and have a hoarse voice for a day
worked for me. (Y'know, feet and throats are fragile and tempting
targets when you are moving REALLY fast.. *grin*)
Mark Atwood
kaih=6ujU-...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> If "we (individually) need to defend it by force", it's dead already, IMO.
>
Well then, once it reaches that point, then we're in the "state of
nature", and then the guns are REALLY necessary, not to "defend
civilization", but to EAT and avoid being eaten.
Kai Henningsen
m...@pobox.com (Mark Atwood) wrote on 28.05.98 in <v67m362...@colon.dev.ampersand.com>:
> kaih=6uiTj...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> >
> > I don't believe that a civilized society should have this. I won't
> > speculate over the US being one such or not. All I'll say is if I ever
> > feel I need a gun as a normal citizen, then something has quite seriously
> > broken over here.
>
> You don't need a gun when you deal with civilized people.
>
> However, even in a "civilized society" there are "uncivilized people",
> who if they they can get an advantage over you will KILL you.
>
> Those kind of people exist in the US, and Kai, they also exist in DE.
Extremely few of those, over here.
> Are you willing to kill to save you and yours? I don't know what your
> answer is, but I know mine.
>
> Yes.
Mine is "I really don't expect this to ever be a real question". It's
about on par with meeting an Ufo, for me. (Well, intellectually, I know
that the Ufo is even less probably, but both are improbable enough to not
even warrant contemplating. It's much more probable that I'll get run over
by a car tomorrow - several magnitudes more deaths by that than because of
anything a gun might help with. Hell, AIDS is more dangerous!)
Besides, from my experience with guns in the military, I'm pretty certain
I couldn't kill anybody even if I wanted to. I'm one of those people who
have trouble hitting a house wall. Much better, in such a hypothetical
crisis, if I find some other way to improve the situation - it might
actually work.
Kai Henningsen
yo...@huitzilo.tezcat.com (YoYo) wrote on 28.05.98 in <6kkfea$q...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>:
> Kai Henningsen <kaih=6uiyq...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
> >I'd rather people start looking hard at school violence in any form, not
> >just shooting. Kids ought to learn that violence isn't how you solve
> >problems.
>
> Um. This is a shibboleth that's bothered me for a while. The reason we
> have laws against various forms of violence is precisely because *violence
> is the single most effective problem solver there is.* Without laws,
> people resort to it because it's so amazingly effective.
Amazingly enough, it has not worked for me over 90% of the times I've
tried it, and I haven't even tried it very often. I've also seen it not
work for other people more often than not.
Frankly, violence has a lousy success record. People resort to it because
it's an ancient reflex, *not* because it is successful. It isn't. (It _is_
a way to release aggressions. Too bad its reflexive features mean that
you'll usually get the aggression back in a short time.)
But that wasn't what I meant. What I meant is that a modern society cannot
_afford_ using violence to solve problems. That way lies Lebanon or
Northern Ireland (the latter hopefully no longer).
Violence works when you have lots and lots of room. So much room that you
don't need to fight to the death, you simply get away from each other.
That doesn't work in our modern societies, however.
> What kids need to be taught is effective ways to solve problems without
> resording to violence.
That's one thing, yes. Another is that friends, or even neutrals, are much
better for you than enemies, thus you should try to avoid making enemies -
something that violence is especially "good" at. There's probably more.
Oh, yes. Once you break something, changing your mind won't make it whole
again, for example.
Kai Henningsen
m...@pobox.com (Mark Atwood) wrote on 28.05.98 in <v64sya2...@colon.dev.ampersand.com>:
> yo...@huitzilo.tezcat.com (YoYo) writes:
> >
> > What kids need to be taught is effective ways to solve problems without
> > resording to violence.
>
> One problem is, that many of these kids have problems THEY CANNOT
> SOLVE. Not the middle-class shooters, I think, but the poor urban
> ones that don't make the papers do.
>
> What can we do? Hell if I know.
Do something about those problems. Yes, I know it's not easy, and what's
worse, people don't agree what will help. But I believe that's what's
necessary.
Of course, there's a hint already in the problem description. Being poor
leads to all sorts of problems. As long as there are large segments of the
population that are poor ...
One of the political debates over here is that we might be in danger of
developing a large poor segment, and what to do about it. And indeed,
general violence seems to be increasing slowly, in a nearly textbook
fashion. This sure indicates to me that while solutions aren't necessarily
easy, they are indeed possible.
Kai Henningsen
to...@cugc.org (Lurking Girl) wrote on 28.05.98 in <6kkgnp$6p8$1...@imperatrix.plutonia.com>:
> Violence is not the way to solve problems in the adult world, but it's
> frequently the only way to deal with problems in the shape of other
> kids pestering one.
Always has been the exact other way around for me: the problems with other
kids pestering me has been them using violence, which made it impossible
to ignore.
> Ignoring bullies does not make them go away, contrary to what my
> parents claimed. Teachers do not make them stop. The only way _I_
> found (after quite a lot of painful experience) was turning on the
> biggest jerk and clawing his face open.
Well, tried that (or something similar), all I got for it is getting even
more painful experiences.
There's exactly one instance where I successfully averted violence other
than by being elsewhere. That one was by talking to the other guy and
finally getting him to the point where he was not absolutely sure it was
really me he wanted to hit.
Oh, I remember one instance where I wanted to help my friend out of a
trashing. Turned out that both the bully and my friend were quite content
with a simple substitution. I guess I learned something about both bullies
and friends that day.
Hitting a bully *may* help if you are a better fighter. Unfortunately,
most non-bullies aren't - at least among boys, I have no idea about the
girl side of things. This is not something that got regularly talked
about.
My later experiences with drunks are mixed enough that they lead to
absolutely no conclusion whatever exept that drunks, in general, and often
also individually, are completely unpredictable.
Lars Balker Rasmussen
mu...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net (Josh Brandt) writes:
> Are you honestly saying that, if some 16-year-old kid has a load of guns
> and talks about killing people, teachers or counsellors _shouldn't_ keep an
> eye on him?
>
> about shooting people isn't the aim. The aim is to keep him from actually
> going ahead and shooting people.
I thought the majority of homicidal maniacs were the quiet ones.
--
Lars Balker Rasmussen, Software Engineer, Mjolner Informatics ApS
l...@mjolner.dk
Mark Atwood
Lars Balker Rasmussen <l...@mjolner.dk> writes:
>
> I thought the majority of homicidal maniacs were the quiet ones.
Well, actaully, after doing some reading of stuff written by people
who would know (cops, judges, "front line" social workers, etc), most
of America's "homicidal maniacs" are young violent urban males, and
they are NOT "quiet".
The recent spate of "school shootings" that has the press all wound up
in knots is not statistically significant.
Lars Balker Rasmussen
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> writes:
> Lars Balker Rasmussen <l...@mjolner.dk> writes:
> > I thought the majority of homicidal maniacs were the quiet ones.
>
> Well, actaully, after doing some reading of stuff written by people
> who would know (cops, judges, "front line" social workers, etc), most
> of America's "homicidal maniacs" are young violent urban males, and
> they are NOT "quiet".
Sorry, I meant to have a "middle-class" in there.
Jim Kingdon
> >Oh geez, I'm about to start the eternal gun-control flamewar, aren't I?
>
> gun control is one of those things that should stay in talk.* where it
> belongs.
Sigh. That trick never works (at least, not if the purpose is to
avoid the flamewar). If one has the self-discipline to back out first
(without "saying this"), it can work...
> "I believe that the Second Amendment . . ."
Uh oh. Seeing those words on usenet makes me very, very, nervous
about what is about to happen in the newsgroup (as I think the posts
between then and now demonstrate :-)).
Kate Wrightson
In article <p4wyavi...@panix3.panix.com>,
Jim Kingdon <kin...@panix3.panix.com> wrote:
>Uh oh. Seeing those words on usenet makes me very, very, nervous
>about what is about to happen in the newsgroup (as I think the posts
>between then and now demonstrate :-)).
Given that none of those posts were in response to my post, except Kai's
which did not directly ask me a question, I think it worked just fine.
Besides. This hasn't been a flamewar, Jim. If you think it has been,
you've been hanging out on the nicer sides of USENET for too long.
--
___________________________________________________________________________
ka...@eyrie.org Kate Wrightson www.eyrie.org/~kate
Russ Allbery
Kate Wrightson <ka...@eyrie.org> writes:
> Besides. This hasn't been a flamewar, Jim. If you think it has been,
> you've been hanging out on the nicer sides of USENET for too long.
It has, in fact, been one of the most reasonable gun control debates I've
seen, since I think all the people involved realized the near utter
futility of changing anyone's mind on this subject. :)
Jim Kingdon
> Besides. This hasn't been a flamewar, Jim. If you think it has been,
> you've been hanging out on the nicer sides of USENET for too long.
:-).
Yeah, you're right about that. By usenet standards, this isn't a
flamewar. But then again I am exceptionally sensitive <daintily folds
hands> :-).
And I do hang out on the nicer sides (e.g. us.*, net.*) almost
exclusively. I only read one Big 8 group, and it is "insufficiently
nice" enough that I'd kind of like to give it up as soon as I can find
an alternative.