MAYBE IT ISN'T THE GUNS

[W5HTW]

This link suggests mass shootings are not really new. While it points out that a mass murder in Australia was followed by a ban on semi-automatic weapons, resulting in no further such shootings, it also points out that these have been taking place long before the availability fo such huge firepower weapons as we have available today.

GUNS (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070422/D8OLBH2G0.html)

The article hints at, but does not state categorically, the idea that the collapse of our society began in the 1960s. Anyone who lived through that era as a responsible adult, and not as a teenager or younger, or a drug-laden hippie, would have to recognize that massive changes in American culture took place both suddenly and violently. We very quickly became a nation of "the hell with the rules" and we condoned that behavior.

Today there is some effort to reverse that, but we have so many criminals who are called instead "poor victims of society" that we can't deal with the most novel idea of all - "Let's make CRIME illegal."

Instead for every crime and every criminal, we invent crutches. We blame everyone BUT the criminal.

As long as we refuse to admit that humans, not devices, cause crime, we will have to deal with this failure.

Ed

[kk7ue]

Man kind walking away from God didnt help much either

[k5xit]

How you dare suggest such a thing? It will insult some on this board! Of course today much of society blames the victim not the criminal. There are many that daily are telling God to "stay away". It looks like that is working. The "correctness" and the destruction of the family unit are all symptomatic of moral decline.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (k5xit @ April 22 2007,08:24)]How you dare suggest such a thing? It will insult some on this board! Of course today much of society blames the victim not the criminal.
You are so right! I totally agree! Here's a good example of the media convicting the victims! (http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/iraq_war/2007/03/19/anniversary/)

Leaving names out of this for now (look into the story in the link for the names):

Quote[/b] ]...blamed the "awful corrosive passivity" of Virginia Tech students for not defending themselves against Cho Seung-Hui. He even mocks the male students as somehow not quite being men.

Then there's:

Quote[/b] ]"Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance. And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense."

Quote[/b] ]Of course, I'd rather be in the camp where people debate whether it's OK to criticize the president in a time of tragedy than in the camp where people blame the victims of the tragedy.

Yep, I definitely agreee.

[KC9ECI]

No one takes responsibility for their own actions any more. They always have to blame whatever they did wrong on some external influence. I know lots of gun owners and almost none of them have ever shot anyone. Of those that have, it's been either law enforcement, military, accidental, self inflicted, etc.

[k0ews]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ April 22 2007,08:18)]Quote[/b] (k5xit @ April 22 2007,08:24)]How you dare suggest such a thing? It will insult some on this board! Of course today much of society blames the victim not the criminal.
You are so right! I totally agree! Here's a good example of the media convicting the victims! (http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/iraq_war/2007/03/19/anniversary/)

Leaving names out of this for now (look into the story in the link for the names):

Quote[/b] ]...blamed the "awful corrosive passivity" of Virginia Tech students for not defending themselves against Cho Seung-Hui. He even mocks the male students as somehow not quite being men.

Then there's:

Quote[/b] ]"Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance. And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense."

Quote[/b] ]Of course, I'd rather be in the camp where people debate whether it's OK to criticize the president in a time of tragedy than in the camp where people blame the victims of the tragedy.

Yep, I definitely agreee.
Be careful here. You are referring to a very small minority of the conservatives with this. Don't paint them all conservatives with the same brush. The same can be said by the other side about the extreme left. I don't blame the victims, gun control laws, campus police, the administration, the kid's parents, or even George W. Bush. I blame the shooter. He and he alone is the SOB responsible for it. The idea that unarmed college kids who've probably never seen a real gun drawn are going to confront, disarm and foil this madman is completely absurd. Those on the extreme right are idiots for even suggesting it.

Now, back to the article at hand, I agree with a lot of it. There has been a great breakdown of society in general since the 1960s. The kids today are surviving the worst generation of parenting in history. These kids have been given much more than any generation in terms of affluence and material things, and have never been given less in terms of moral and spiritual guidance.

I'll leave you with Paul Harvey's comments on Columbine 8 years ago. They make sense to me.

LINK (http://frontiernet.net/~tzuleger/oldrants/rant09.htm)

[W5HTW]

Statistics do tell us a truth few control advocates want to hear. I don't have the latest but going back only a few years, here are some I found.

There are (were) roughly 60 million handguns (not counting long guns) in the USA that are not in military possession. This includes law enforcement and private citizens. ( I believe this was from about 1990, but can't recall for sure.) There are(were) about 50,000 gun deaths per year. This includes accidents and suicides, as well as criminal and law enforcement effects. It also includes deaths by rifles and shotguns, as no differientation was noted in the statistics, so it includes under accidents, hunting accidents. Let's see. Hmm. 50,000 is what percentage of 60 million?

In around 1990 the FBI noted in its crime statistics that only 17 percent of violent crime involved the use of a gun (of any type.) The rest were things like rape, muggings, strong arm robbery, assault with other types of weapons, and weapon-less assault (fists, feet.)

I find it difficult to recall dates. I have heard over and over how, if you own a gun for defense of your home, and someone breaks in, you are X-times more likely to have the gun taken away from you and used against you. Yet in one year in Albuquerque, not ONE such incident was reported. In that same year, six incidents of home owners successfully defending themselves against VIOLENT intruders were reported in the newspapers. I wish I could remember which year that was. I don't recall, though, in ANY year, reading about a gun being taken away from someone and used against them.

One woman called police twice as someone was breaking into her home. They were on the way, but it does take minutes for police to arrive at the scene. They are not there instantly, even in the best of circumstances (unless you live IN the police station.) By the time they arrived, he had entered her house, and had just kicked down her bedroom door. She shot him twice with a .45. He made no complaint to police! Nor did he harm her.

It was estimated that in the city of Albuquerque there were roughly 40,000 handguns in the hands of private owners. Considering that to be a basis for gun control, one would expect at least 4,000 murders per year. Instead there are on average about 55, and of those, more than half are gang related. Several of the remaining are domestic violence cases.

The statistics do not support gun control as a means of crime control. Criminals use whatever weapons are available, and certainly if guns are there, they will use them.

Add to this some other interesting notes. This is only a guess on my own part. Most people who own guns, own several, at least two. Most people who own guns never commit any type of crime, ever.

For criminals, though, it is not "one gun, one crime." Most criminals, and especially street gangs, access multiple guns. One criminal, many guns. Probably on average, three per criminal? Yet it is the guns we count as statistics, not the criminal. He uses a gun in a crime, is arrested, sentenced, released, uses another gun in a crime, etc. Same guy, different gun. This badly skews the statistics of "gun equals crime."

I am very much for responsible gun ownership. It is quite likely I am at least partly responsible for the instant gun check, as I suggested it to my congressman in the early 1980s, and he was to bring it to Congress. I described the technical details of how it was to be accomplished. I want guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. But I do not believe in a blanket indictment of all gun owners as "potential criminals."

This VT shooter was a problem person with many indications he was going over the edge. Instead of resolving this, he was allowed to continue. It is absolutely true he should not have been permitted to buy a gun. The system failed us because he was already noted as having dangerous tendencies. This is what gun control should be about - keeping guns out of the hands of the dangerous, and I am completely for that.

Responsible gun ownership is what we have to face, or we will lose our rights someday.

Ed

[N2RJ]

The increase in selfishness is responsible.

It's all about ME ME ME and all of the rest of you can go to h3||.

By the way, gun control != banning guns.

Gun control is a good thing. Making sure crazies and kids don't get guns, making sure that if a crime is committed with a legal gun that it can be traced, ensuring that guns themselves are safe and requiring proper training are all good things.

[kf4vgx]

Quote[/b] (KC9ECI @ April 21 2007,07:21)]No one takes responsibility for their own actions any more. #They always have to blame whatever they did wrong on some external influence. #I know lots of gun owners and almost none of them have ever shot anyone. #Of those that have, it's been either law enforcement, military, accidental, self inflicted, etc.
Quote,
I know lots of gun owners and
"almost none of them "have ever shot anyone. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

Its the almost part that gets me http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif .

[ka5s]

Quote[/b] (kk7ue @ April 22 2007,00:37)]Man kind walking away from God didnt help much either
There is no real indication that the USA is "walking away from God":
LINK1. (http://www.coloradocollege.edu/Bulletin/March2006/?importance)
LINK2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States)
LINK3 (http://treygivens.mu.nu/archives/204535.php)

IMO (mileage varies) what we HAVE done since the 1960's is adopt the idea that anything we want to do, and that doesn't result in being punished (and sometimes that does), is OK. From this we get "if it feels good do it" -- and a slowly rising level of deception and corruption in government and business.

We wanted it bad; we GOT bad, and the preachers didn't help.

IMO!


Cortland
KA5S

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ April 21 2007,21:25)]The article hints at, but does not state categorically, the idea that the collapse of our society began in the 1960s. #Anyone who lived through that era as a responsible adult, and not as a teenager or younger, #or a drug-laden hippie, would have to recognize that massive changes in American culture took place both suddenly and violently. #
I think the evidence strongly supports such a conclusion. Many of the social patterns established in those misguided years have settled into the fabric of Western Culture in ways that have proven ever more detrimental to our future. It is not just a phenomenon of the US, but the process has been even stronger and more damaging in Europe.

One of the fundamental differences between a liberal viewpoint and a conservative viewpoint (to use the extant terms with but little heed for their absolute accuracy) is that the conservative usually tends to see simple correctives and the liberal often tends to a wider range of options. It is a matter of the one seeing an issue in far simpler terms than the other. The liberal all too often sees so many facets of a matter at dispute that he worries them as a dog worries a bone. And to the same result.

We have become overly enamored of a concept of "humanity" that so diminishes conflict and debate that we now demand the banishment of honesty and clarity in discourse as being "politically incorrect." Truth must be dressed in the proper guise to become acceptable, at which time it ceases to be truth having degenerated into propaganda. We have become so "sensitive" that we must now devise categories of murder and mayhem to include "hate crimes" as a separate class of felony, but we as swiftly retreat from any willingness to impose punishment so harsh as to be shorn of color TV or air conditioning.

After all is said and done, our elevated sense of "humanism" has led us in so few years from what has been accurately described as our "greatest generation" to that of today. I leave each of you to categorize this generation for yourselves.

Quote[/b] ]We very quickly became a nation of "the hell with the rules" and we condoned that behavior.

When was the last time you saw anyone actually stop at a stop sign? How about a stop before turning right on red, a universal mandate wherever that traffic law pertains?

Two tiny examples of a currently ingrained readiness to follow an inner voice that values self above all else, above all others, and measures every action against the will to self-indulgence. Self has supplanted the commonweal. It is this quiet arrogance of self that is at the root of all of our society's ills.

[kf4vgx]

If the lord was here on earth today,he should have a nice house to live in, wouldn't you say .

And if he were here he should have lots of land to put that house on http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

And he should have a nice car to drive as well http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Well I just want you all to know he has asked me to care for it until he arrives.

signed , Jim,
Former preacher and owner of fairy tale land.

And remember if you have a quarter ,you can send this congregation a " Dollar ". http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 22 2007,06:23)]One of the fundamental differences between a liberal viewpoint and a conservative viewpoint (to use the extant terms with but little heed for their absolute accuracy) is that the conservative usually tends to see simple correctives and the liberal often tends to a wider range of options. It is a matter of the one seeing an issue in far simpler terms than the other. The liberal all too often sees so many facets of a matter at dispute that he worries them as a dog worries a bone. And to the same result.
You are confusing complexity vs simplicity as the issue when it is really a matter of efficient logical thought, and has nothing at all to do with Democrat vs Republican.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (k0ews @ April 22 2007,09:37)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ April 22 2007,08:18)]Quote[/b] (k5xit @ April 22 2007,08:24)]How you dare suggest such a thing? It will insult some on this board! Of course today much of society blames the victim not the criminal.
You are so right! I totally agree! Here's a good example of the media convicting the victims! (http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/iraq_war/2007/03/19/anniversary/)

Leaving names out of this for now (look into the story in the link for the names):

Quote[/b] ]...blamed the "awful corrosive passivity" of Virginia Tech students for not defending themselves against Cho Seung-Hui. He even mocks the male students as somehow not quite being men.

Then there's:

Quote[/b] ]"Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance. And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense."

Quote[/b] ]Of course, I'd rather be in the camp where people debate whether it's OK to criticize the president in a time of tragedy than in the camp where people blame the victims of the tragedy.

Yep, I definitely agreee.
Be careful here. You are referring to a very small minority of the conservatives with this. Don't paint them all conservatives with the same brush. The same can be said by the other side about the extreme left. I don't blame the victims, gun control laws, campus police, the administration, the kid's parents, or even George W. Bush. I blame the shooter. He and he alone is the SOB responsible for it. The idea that unarmed college kids who've probably never seen a real gun drawn are going to confront, disarm and foil this madman is completely absurd. Those on the extreme right are idiots for even suggesting it.

Now, back to the article at hand, I agree with a lot of it. There has been a great breakdown of society in general since the 1960s. The kids today are surviving the worst generation of parenting in history. These kids have been given much more than any generation in terms of affluence and material things, and have never been given less in terms of moral and spiritual guidance.

I'll leave you with Paul Harvey's comments on Columbine 8 years ago. They make sense to me.

LINK (http://frontiernet.net/~tzuleger/oldrants/rant09.htm)
You're absolutely right, it isn't ALL conservatives and I would also point out that in that same story:

Quote[/b] ]I actually feel sorry for decent conservatives today, having to be soiled by association with such garbage.

Wouldn't want to engage in demonizing all who disagree with me. I value their opinion in spite of that and would feel awful if my post made any of them feel the way I did when some have attempted to censor my opining. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

OTOH, how often I have heard the point made that muslims have rarely condemned those responsible for 9/11 only to see that same behaviour exhibited by Coulter and O'Reilly apologists?

Maybe every generation of adults have tried to give their kids that which they didn't have. As many who grew up in the '60s can remember, there was a 'depression mentality' to many of our parents who felt that no matter how much money they had it wasn't enough to buy some clothes or sneakers. Maybe there is some overcompensation of that in the giving. Maybe it's that there is so little time for a household where both parents work for real parenting to take place. Not being a parent, I don't really know. But blaming society or parents for a 23 year old mans murder spree is small solace to the victims or the parents.

Maybe it's time we trusted our kids with more responsibility before making them instant adults on their 18th birthday? Oddly enough, I brought that up about a month ago and I feel that this is a textbook case of a man who had to grow up on one day. Because he was sheltered he wasn't ready.

[al2n]

A victim of a school shooting gives her views on how to stop the violence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmSpj9z4S0Q

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 22 2007,10:19)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 22 2007,06:23)]One of the fundamental differences between a liberal viewpoint and a conservative viewpoint (to use the extant terms with but little heed for their absolute accuracy) is that the conservative usually tends to see simple correctives and the liberal often tends to a wider range of options. It is a matter of the one seeing an issue in far simpler terms than the other. The liberal all too often sees so many facets of a matter at dispute that he worries them as a dog worries a bone. And to the same result.
You are confusing complexity vs simplicity as the issue when it is really a matter of efficient logical thought, and has nothing at all to do with Democrat vs Republican.
I did not offer the comment as a parallel to simple party politics. Simplicity and complexity, in the final analysis, are integral to that process you would define as "efficient, logical thought." You are falling into the "Rag Chew" pit of reading things you want to see instead of what may be on the page.

I stand by the simple précis (and simple generalizations are always simplistic): conservatives (which inhabit and thrive in the climes of Democrats as well as in those of Republicans) tend to see things in simple and clear-cut terms and liberals tend to see many sides of any issue.

Those patterns of thought have greatly influenced the course of "Western" society since the dawn of the "Age of Reason" and the "Enlightenment."

[k0ews]

Quote[/b] ]Maybe every generation of adults have tried to give their kids that which they didn't have. As many who grew up in the '60s can remember, there was a 'depression mentality' to many of our parents who felt that no matter how much money they had it wasn't enough to buy some clothes or sneakers. Maybe there is some overcompensation of that in the giving. Maybe it's that there is so little time for a household where both parents work for real parenting to take place. Not being a parent, I don't really know. But blaming society or parents for a 23 year old mans murder spree is small solace to the victims or the parents.

Maybe it's time we trusted our kids with more responsibility before making them instant adults on their 18th birthday? Oddly enough, I brought that up about a month ago and I feel that this is a textbook case of a man who had to grow up on one day. Because he was sheltered he wasn't ready.

Well stated, and well put. I see it all the time as a teacher. Most of the time at the high school in which I teach, the kids drive cars to school that are much nicer than mine. All of them have a cell phone, all of them have their own computers, etc., etc. They're really not at a loss for much in the material department. However, they also spend every minute of every day in some sort of activity; Mom and Dad both work, kids are never home for dinner, etc.
I really believe that the status symbol of this generation is seeing how many things that parents can put their kids in. There's no time for meaningful conversation.
Also, most parents think they are done parenting when the kid turns 18. It doesn't work that way. My Dad is 72 and he's STILL parenting me. He and my mother both still give me advice and guidance and the amount of respect I have for them is higher than it ever was and they've not yet stopped being my parents. It's a job that's yours for life when you do it.
I see a lot of parents who are afraid of pissing their kids off. It drives me nuts! Kids don't have to like you every minute of every day. They are resilient, and do get over things, but it is important to be fair, constant, and consistent and to follow up. If that gets done, the kid usually turns out OK. A structured childhood is where the kids usually get their security from. The prisons are full of people who didn't get enough structure. They seem to find it another way, however.

[KC2ESD]

The reason for all the shootings and crime is because people lost the fear of going to Hell if they do something very wrong.
God has been kicked out of Schools, Court houses and off TV. People forgot about eternal damnation and thats why Murder is up, so is rape including Child Rape. God needs to be reinvited to our sociaty if we want the killings to end.

Rick KC2ESD

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 22 2007,10:20)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 22 2007,10:19)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 22 2007,06:23)]One of the fundamental differences between a liberal viewpoint and a conservative viewpoint (to use the extant terms with but little heed for their absolute accuracy) is that the conservative usually tends to see simple correctives and the liberal often tends to a wider range of options. It is a matter of the one seeing an issue in far simpler terms than the other. The liberal all too often sees so many facets of a matter at dispute that he worries them as a dog worries a bone. And to the same result.
You are confusing complexity vs simplicity as the issue when it is really a matter of efficient logical thought, and has nothing at all to do with Democrat vs Republican.
I did not offer the comment as a parallel to simple party politics. Simplicity and complexity, in the final analysis, are integral to that process you would define as "efficient, logical thought." You are falling into the "Rag Chew" pit of reading things you want to see instead of what may be on the page.
I guess I did fall, but at least I can get up. Some cannot. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif


Quote[/b] ]I stand by the simple précis (and simple generalizations are always simplistic): conservatives (which inhabit and thrive in the climes of Democrats as well as in those of Republicans) tend to see things in simple and clear-cut terms and liberals tend to see many sides of any issue.

Seeing many sides of an issue is as important as being able to reduce overwhelming complexity to simple principles. Alas, I often see Conservatives err on the side of thinking too simplistically and the Liberals err on the side of abandoning principle entirely.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ April 22 2007,17:33)]Seeing many sides of an issue is as important as being able to reduce overwhelming complexity to simple principles. #Alas, I often see Conservatives err on the side of thinking too simplistically and the Liberals err on the side of abandoning principle entirely.
Thank you. You make my point for me very elegantly. Though not all principles, and not all liberals are quick to abandon them.

As a genuine liberal (of the "old-time," thinking variety, and not one of the "neo-liberals" of today's knee-jerk popularity), I have experienced the very real difficulty of trying to make a decision or determination when many issues present one with a dim sum menu of choices. In some ways, I often envy the man who can see things in binary terms of black-and-white, of uncomplicated good versus evil.

There is something to treasure about religion in the way it used to captivate people's discretion, and I am not of the view that having abandoned those "old-fashioned" mores to the extent our sociey has abandoned them connotes progress. In far too many ways, the bulb of The Enlightenment has burnt out.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 21 2007,08:23)]Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ April 21 2007,21:25)]The article hints at, but does not state categorically, the idea that the collapse of our society began in the 1960s. Anyone who lived through that era as a responsible adult, and not as a teenager or younger, or a drug-laden hippie, would have to recognize that massive changes in American culture took place both suddenly and violently.
I think the evidence strongly supports such a conclusion. Many of the social patterns established in those misguided years have settled into the fabric of Western Culture in ways that have proven ever more detrimental to our future. It is not just a phenomenon of the US, but the process has been even stronger and more damaging in Europe.

One of the fundamental differences between a liberal viewpoint and a conservative viewpoint (to use the extant terms with but little heed for their absolute accuracy) is that the conservative usually tends to see simple correctives and the liberal often tends to a wider range of options. It is a matter of the one seeing an issue in far simpler terms than the other. The liberal all too often sees so many facets of a matter at dispute that he worries them as a dog worries a bone. And to the same result.

We have become overly enamored of a concept of "humanity" that so diminishes conflict and debate that we now demand the banishment of honesty and clarity in discourse as being "politically incorrect." Truth must be dressed in the proper guise to become acceptable, at which time it ceases to be truth having degenerated into propaganda. We have become so "sensitive" that we must now devise categories of murder and mayhem to include "hate crimes" as a separate class of felony, but we as swiftly retreat from any willingness to impose punishment so harsh as to be shorn of color TV or air conditioning.

After all is said and done, our elevated sense of "humanism" has led us in so few years from what has been accurately described as our "greatest generation" to that of today. I leave each of you to categorize this generation for yourselves.

Quote[/b] ]We very quickly became a nation of "the hell with the rules" and we condoned that behavior.

When was the last time you saw anyone actually stop at a stop sign? How about a stop before turning right on red, a universal mandate wherever that traffic law pertains?

Two tiny examples of a currently ingrained readiness to follow an inner voice that values self above all else, above all others, and measures every action against the will to self-indulgence. Self has supplanted the commonweal. It is this quiet arrogance of self that is at the root of all of our society's ills.
Quote[/b] ]Many of the social patterns established in those misguided years have settled into the fabric of Western Culture in ways that have proven ever more detrimental to our future.

Yes, we went through big changes in the 60's, and the permeated the 70's. The trouble is, ronnie and his supporters believed, wrongly, the a "get tough" policy as in, "we'll show them how to behave" approach would work. Well, it hasn't. What we're seeing now is the result of that obscene backlash promulgated by ronnie and all who think he was a good president. He's the one that spread the "we don't care about anyone that doesn't look like us, act like us, or sound like us. And they passed expensive law after expensive law with the intent to force everyone into their own images. Well, enjoy the results...this is what you guys got with your attitudes.

What the hey....let's not turn the clock back just to the 60's, let's go all the way back to...when? Before the civil war? Before the revolutionary war?

ronnie and his supporters were, and are DEAD WRONG. We've evolved, we're not going back no matter how many expensive laws are passed. Get used to it. Things will NEVER be "like the were before the 60's." But way too many people are too stuck in their thought patterns to see the reality of what's happened.

You guys pick the most simplistic reasons for "the way things are." And you ignore the reasons that might indicate that you might adjust your viewpoint. You're dug in to the end. All of America is.

Get your heart in America, or get your Donkey out. But what America? Yours? Mine? Theirs? Ours? Chinas? Big Business's? The Ghetto's? The hearlands? The East Coast's? The West Coast's?

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ April 22 2007,18:14)]Yes, we went through big changes in the 60's, and the permeated the 70's. #The trouble is, ronnie and his supporters believed, wrongly, the a "get tough" policy as in, "we'll show them how to behave" approach would work. #Well, it hasn't. #What we're seeing now is the result of that obscene backlash promulgated by ronnie and all who think he was a good president. #He's the one that spread the "we don't care about anyone that doesn't look like us, act like us, or sound like us. #And they passed expensive law after expensive law with the intent to force everyone into their own images. #Well, enjoy the results...this is what you guys got with your attitudes.

What the hey....let's not turn the clock back just to the 60's, let's go all the way back to...when? #Before the civil war? #Before the revolutionary war?

ronnie and his supporters were, and are DEAD WRONG. #We've evolved, we're not going back no matter how many expensive laws are passed. #Get used to it. #Things will NEVER be "like the were before the 60's." #But way too many people are too stuck in their thought patterns to see the reality of what's happened. #

You guys pick the most simplistic reasons for "the way things are." #And you ignore the reasons that might indicate that you might adjust your viewpoint. #You're dug in to the end. #All of America is. #

Get your heart in America, or get your Donkey out. #But what America? #Yours? #Mine? #Theirs? #Ours? #Chinas? #Big Business's? #The Ghetto's? #The hearlands? #The East Coast's? #The West Coast's?
Wow, what a pile! We could grow a lot of mushrooms with your reasoning.

The very fact that you must reach back to use Reagan to support such nonsense speaks reams about the quality of your thinking. He's been out of office for twenty years. Stop making the dead the rationale to excuse what you have erected in the name of "progress." Look around you and smell the fruit of the garden you've planted.

As I said, what a pile! Somebody find a honey wagon.

[K1VSK]

Let's have some common sense here. A deranged kid gets a gun and shoots a whole bunch of other kids. Clearly there is one thing in this scenario which is controllable - not the kid, not his mental state nor the other kids - it's the apparent ease with which this nut got the gun. Guns have absolutely no socially redeeming value and it's obvious to anyone who cares to look what the solution is.
Ignore the liberal/conservative jargon, religious connotations, NRA gun zealots and neo-nazis and hopefully some lesson can be learned here.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ April 22 2007,19:12)]Clearly there is one thing in this scenario which is controllable
Clearly, there are many things in the scenario which are controllable, not one. You built your case on a false assumption that is, itself, based on a biased belief -- an opinion.

As one simple example of another "thing" that was controllable: #Had any one of the victims had access to a gun, and the training to use it, the tragedy may have had an entirely different ending.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 21 2007,17:58)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ April 22 2007,18:14)]Yes, we went through big changes in the 60's, and the permeated the 70's. The trouble is, ronnie and his supporters believed, wrongly, the a "get tough" policy as in, "we'll show them how to behave" approach would work. Well, it hasn't. What we're seeing now is the result of that obscene backlash promulgated by ronnie and all who think he was a good president. He's the one that spread the "we don't care about anyone that doesn't look like us, act like us, or sound like us. And they passed expensive law after expensive law with the intent to force everyone into their own images. Well, enjoy the results...this is what you guys got with your attitudes.

What the hey....let's not turn the clock back just to the 60's, let's go all the way back to...when? Before the civil war? Before the revolutionary war?

ronnie and his supporters were, and are DEAD WRONG. We've evolved, we're not going back no matter how many expensive laws are passed. Get used to it. Things will NEVER be "like the were before the 60's." But way too many people are too stuck in their thought patterns to see the reality of what's happened.

You guys pick the most simplistic reasons for "the way things are." And you ignore the reasons that might indicate that you might adjust your viewpoint. You're dug in to the end. All of America is.

Get your heart in America, or get your Donkey out. But what America? Yours? Mine? Theirs? Ours? Chinas? Big Business's? The Ghetto's? The hearlands? The East Coast's? The West Coast's?
Wow, what a pile! We could grow a lot of mushrooms with your reasoning.

The very fact that you must reach back to use Reagan to support such nonsense speaks reams about the quality of your thinking. He's been out of office for twenty years. Stop making the dead the rationale to excuse what you have erected in the name of "progress." Look around you and smell the fruit of the garden you've planted.

As I said, what a pile! Somebody find a honey wagon.
The very fact that you have to reach back to the 60's says the same thing. That you spew such nonsense about why we're where we are bespeaks volumes about how you just don't know what really was happening. More after the sopranos.

[K1VSK]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 22 2007,17:42)]Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ April 22 2007,19:12)]Clearly there is one thing in this scenario which is controllable
Clearly, there are many things in the scenario which are controllable, not one. You built your case on a false assumption that is, itself, based on a biased belief -- an opinion.

As one simple example of another "thing" that was controllable: #Had any one of the victims had access to a gun, and the training to use it, the tragedy may have had an entirely different ending.
You are confusing fact and fiction unless you believe some college freshman or professor would be allowed to carry a gun to class. It's not a bias when there is only one viable option.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (kk7ue @ April 21 2007,21:37)]Man kind walking away from God didnt help much either
Some of the biggest propaganda/BS originators are going to heaven. We live in a culture where the ONLY value someone has is in how much money can be gotten out of him.

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ April 22 2007,18:12)]Let's have some common sense here. A deranged kid gets a gun and shoots a whole bunch of other kids. Clearly there is one thing in this scenario which is controllable - not the kid, not his mental state nor the other kids - it's the apparent ease with which this nut got the gun. #Guns have absolutely no socially redeeming value and it's obvious to anyone who cares to look what the solution is.
Ignore the liberal/conservative jargon, religious connotations, NRA gun zealots and neo-nazis and hopefully some lesson can be learned here.
Remind yourself of your statement when someone breaks into your home and you are unable to defend yourself as he rapes the women in your house, steals your valuables, and then kills all of you so there will be no witnesses to his crime. But you, with your dying breath, will find comfort in the fact that you had no guns, did not use a gun, and you preached the gospel of no one else should have a gun, either.

Funny, that criminal that just took your life doesn't share your view. And that criminal will still be able to get a gun no matter what forms of 'gun control' are instituted. Criminals aren't supposed to have guns, it's against the law. But the criminal does not care about this, he uses a gun anyway. THAT'S why they call him a criminal! The law means nothing to him.

[kg4kww]

Could it be society?

I think that society and how it treats people has a lot to do with how people react to the way they are treated.

In todays, high stress got to have it today world, it's tough and some people have a hard time dealing with the stress, end result, they crack up.

[kg4kww]

Could it be the movies??

Check out the link below

Killer Re-Enacted Violent Film (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91194-1261563,00.html)

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ April 22 2007,19:05)]Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ April 22 2007,18:12)]Let's have some common sense here. A deranged kid gets a gun and shoots a whole bunch of other kids. Clearly there is one thing in this scenario which is controllable - not the kid, not his mental state nor the other kids - it's the apparent ease with which this nut got the gun. Guns have absolutely no socially redeeming value and it's obvious to anyone who cares to look what the solution is.
Ignore the liberal/conservative jargon, religious connotations, NRA gun zealots and neo-nazis and hopefully some lesson can be learned here.
Remind yourself of your statement when someone breaks into your home and you are unable to defend yourself as he rapes the women in your house, steals your valuables, and then kills all of you so there will be no witnesses to his crime. But you, with your dying breath, will find comfort in the fact that you had no guns, did not use a gun, and you preached the gospel of no one else should have a gun, either.

Funny, that criminal that just took your life doesn't share your view. And that criminal will still be able to get a gun no matter what forms of 'gun control' are instituted. Criminals aren't supposed to have guns, it's against the law. But the criminal does not care about this, he uses a gun anyway. THAT'S why they call him a criminal! The law means nothing to him.
Well said.

I fail to understand this "If we ban guns, guns will cease to exist" fairy tale.

Hell if it would WORK, I'd be willing to give up mine, to live in this fantastical utopia.

For now, I'll put a tooth under my pillow, because the tooth fairy is a helluva lot more likely then gun control working.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ April 22 2007,19:59)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 21 2007,17:58)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ April 22 2007,18:14)]Yes, we went through big changes in the 60's, and the permeated the 70's. #The trouble is, ronnie and his supporters believed, wrongly, the a "get tough" policy as in, "we'll show them how to behave" approach would work. #Well, it hasn't. #What we're seeing now is the result of that obscene backlash promulgated by ronnie and all who think he was a good president. #He's the one that spread the "we don't care about anyone that doesn't look like us, act like us, or sound like us. #And they passed expensive law after expensive law with the intent to force everyone into their own images. #Well, enjoy the results...this is what you guys got with your attitudes.

What the hey....let's not turn the clock back just to the 60's, let's go all the way back to...when? #Before the civil war? #Before the revolutionary war?

ronnie and his supporters were, and are DEAD WRONG. #We've evolved, we're not going back no matter how many expensive laws are passed. #Get used to it. #Things will NEVER be "like the were before the 60's." #But way too many people are too stuck in their thought patterns to see the reality of what's happened. #

You guys pick the most simplistic reasons for "the way things are." #And you ignore the reasons that might indicate that you might adjust your viewpoint. #You're dug in to the end. #All of America is. #

Get your heart in America, or get your Donkey out. #But what America? #Yours? #Mine? #Theirs? #Ours? #Chinas? #Big Business's? #The Ghetto's? #The hearlands? #The East Coast's? #The West Coast's?
Wow, what a pile! We could grow a lot of mushrooms with your reasoning.

The very fact that you must reach back to use Reagan to support such nonsense speaks reams about the quality of your thinking. He's been out of office for twenty years. Stop making the dead the rationale to excuse what you have erected in the name of "progress." Look around you and smell the fruit of the garden you've planted.

As I said, what a pile! Somebody find a honey wagon.
The very fact that you have to reach back to the 60's says the same thing. #That you spew such nonsense about why we're where we are bespeaks volumes about how you just don't know what really was happening. #More after the sopranos.
You retort bespeaks a deeper confusion than the head-swimming nonsense you first posted.

I didn't "reach back to the 60's:" The entire thrust of the thread had its genesis in the 60s. You are so lost now, one must ask what were YOU doing in those formative years? Perhaps a really insightful look at your own path might be revealing.

Your taste in TV speaks another volume.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:red'>MAYBE IT ISN'T THE GUNS</span>
<span style='color:blue'>MAYBE IT IS.</span>

[K1VSK]

Two final comments:
1. I don't have the time or desire to try to teach supposedly adult people how to behave respectfully so some of the respondent's comments here are not worth further discussion; and
2. for those of you who have the illusion that guns prevent crime or provide defense thereto, your view is fundamentally flawed for two reasons, the first being that it would require every adult, including the sociapathics among us AND every child in school to carry a gun - an obviously brilliant concept! and second, we already tried it - remember the nineteenth century - history teaches us lots of things for those willing to learn... We eliminated guns then, albeit for a short period, which disproves the falicy that it can't be done so stop arguing that criminals will always have them - that's nonsense.

If anyone can provide some rationale basis as to how guns have any socially redeeming value, I'd be interested to hear it.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ April 23 2007,08:28)]We eliminated guns then, albeit for a short period, which disproves the falicy that it can't be done so stop arguing that criminals will always have them - that's nonsense.
Please provide some evidence to support this assertion. When, where, by whom and factual evidence of the desired result having been obtained.

[K1VSK]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 23 2007,07:01)]Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ April 23 2007,08:28)]We eliminated guns then, albeit for a short period, which disproves the falicy that it can't be done so stop arguing that criminals will always have them - that's nonsense.
Please provide some evidence to support this assertion. When, where, by whom and factual evidence of the desired result having been obtained.
any history book describing America's old west prohibition on guns within city/town limits may enlighten you, although I suspect you either won't or don't want to believe it.

Obviously you have your opinion (bias) and you find that self-dillusion may be a great place to live so I'd prefer to not spend more time educating you. Once you've read some history on the subject, come back and we can have an intelligent conversation but until then, this is pointless.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ April 23 2007,09:16)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ April 23 2007,07:01)]Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ April 23 2007,08:28)]We eliminated guns then, albeit for a short period, which disproves the falicy that it can't be done so stop arguing that criminals will always have them - that's nonsense.
Please provide some evidence to support this assertion. When, where, by whom and factual evidence of the desired result having been obtained.
any history book describing America's old west prohibition on guns within city/town limits may enlighten you, although I suspect you either won't or don't want to believe it.

Obviously you have your opinion (bias) and you find that self-dillusion may be a great place to live so I'd prefer to not spend more time educating you. Once you've read some history on the subject, come back and we can have an intelligent conversation but until then, this is pointless.
Astonishing. History as told by The Old Ranger of Twenty-Mule Team Borax fame. Or Matt Dillon. How 'bout Louis Lamour?

If all of those town ordinances to &quot;check yer shootin' arns&quot; were so effective, why are there so many guns in the US now? More to the point, how did so many Boot Hills get so full over so short a time?

Mythology is not history.

[K1VSK]

this demonstrates part of the problem rather than the solution - you are now confusing history with television - as I thought you would...

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ April 23 2007,06:28)]Two final comments:
1. I don't have the time or desire to try to teach supposedly adult people how to behave #respectfully so some of the respondent's comments #here are not worth further discussion; and
2. for those of you who have the illusion that guns prevent crime or provide defense thereto, your view is fundamentally flawed for two reasons, the first being that it would require every adult, including the sociapathics among us AND every child in school to carry a gun - an obviously brilliant concept! and second, we already tried it - remember the nineteenth century - history teaches us lots of #things for those willing to learn... We eliminated guns then, albeit for a short period, which disproves the falicy that it can't be done so stop arguing that criminals will always have them - that's nonsense.

If anyone can provide some rationale basis as to how guns have any socially redeeming value, I'd be interested to hear it.
Oh Brother!
Go live in Viet Nam, Britan, or some other gun free country where big brother rules

[KI6DCB]

Maybe we should ban guns. #&quot;Banning&quot; has worked well with cocaine, meth, rape, robbery, murder, etc. #I would be willing to bet any amount of money that banning guns would be exactly as effective as it has been with everything else we have banned. #The &quot;good guys&quot; won't violate the ban(s), but everyone else...

[K3XR]

Criminal negligence at VT ??

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=27972

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (KI6DCB @ April 23 2007,09:12)]Maybe we should ban guns. #&quot;Banning&quot; has worked well with cocaine, meth, rape, robbery, murder, etc. #I would be willing to bet any amount of money that banning guns would be exactly as effective as it has been with everything else we have banned. #The &quot;good guys&quot; won't violate the ban(s), but everyone else...
you forgot suicide

[K1VSK]

the people who say it can't be done aren't right, they just don't know how

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:red'>MAYBE IT ISN'T THE GUNS</span>
<span style='color:blue'>MAYBE IT IS.</span>

[N5NPO]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ April 24 2007,03:51)]Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:red'>MAYBE IT ISN'T THE GUNS</span>
<span style='color:blue'>MAYBE IT IS.</span>
Funny, I have a gun. It hasn't shot anyone. it hasn't fired itself or been fired by me in years. I know, I counted it's bullets and they are all there, yes every single one of them. Is there something wrong with my gun? It is dead? Why won't it shoot somebody or go rob a convience store or something? Isn't that what guns are supposed to do? Oh wait, maybe it is supposed to make me do those things... Hmmm, maybe my gun is a nice gun. Is that good?

[W5IEI]

Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ April 24 2007,03:48)]the people who say it can't be done aren't right, they just don't know how
Thanks for the laughs in this thread.

But,now that the joking around is over,can we hear your adult opinion?

Thanks http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[K1VSK]

Quote[/b] (W5IEI @ April 24 2007,04:30)]Quote[/b] (K1VSK @ April 24 2007,03:48)]the people who say it can't be done aren't right, they just don't know how
Thanks for the laughs in this thread.

But,now that the joking around is over,can we hear your adult opinion?

Thanks http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Sounds like you abide by the theory that, when logic fails, resort to insults

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (N5NPO @ April 24 2007,07:04)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ April 24 2007,03:51)]Quote[/b] ]<span style='color:red'>MAYBE IT ISN'T THE GUNS</span>
<span style='color:blue'>MAYBE IT IS.</span>
Funny, I have a gun. It hasn't shot anyone. it hasn't fired itself or been fired by me in years. I know, I counted it's bullets and they are all there, yes every single one of them. Is there something wrong with my gun? It is dead? Why won't it shoot somebody or go rob a convience store or something? Isn't that what guns are supposed to do? Oh wait, maybe it is supposed to make me do those things... Hmmm, maybe my gun is a nice gun. Is that good?
When good guns go bad. Watch. You'll see. One night you'll be sitting on the couch, watching TV and you'll see your gun being used by a perp to rob a liquor store.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (N5NPO @ April 24 2007,04:04)]Funny, I have a gun. It hasn't shot anyone. it hasn't fired itself or been fired by me in years.
How do you know it works?