magicalfreddiemercury 15.02.2008 12:07 |
When there's bad news of any kind - a bleak prognosis, a school shooting - or some other kind of difficulty, how many of you have had people say to 'say a little prayer' or that they'll pray for you? GW Bush does it all the time - and while this is not about Bush, it IS about the propensity of some people to say they’ll pray for you, rather than offer real words of support. For example, regarding yet another US school shooting (where, apparently, it was just a person who killed others, not the rifle or handgun the guy carried, because if he were intent on killing he could have done so with a knife, a car, or a very sharp pencil... but that's a subject for another thread), Bush had this to say - == President George W Bush said he had spoken to Peters and told him "that a lot of folks today will be praying for the families of the victims and for the Northern Illinois University community. Obviously a tragic situation on that campus and I ask our citizens to offer their blessings, blessings of comfort and blessing of strength." == I don’t know how any of you read that, but I see little to no comfort offered there. There are no ‘fatherly’ words of wisdom and there’s no personal connection. To me, they are empty words offering no sense of support or guidance. So my question is, when you or others you know have been in a difficult situation, what REAL words of support have you received or given? And... were actual words of support more readily offered, or were prayers? |
Music Man 15.02.2008 13:49 |
I think it pretty much amounts to the same thing - with similar levels of sincerity. It's simply a matter of how the supportee will respond to the particular choice of words. A person like yourself obviously would not respond well to prayers and blessings, whereas to other people, it may well be all they would respond to. Both are quite understandable. Different strokes for different folks, you know? |
magicalfreddiemercury 15.02.2008 14:48 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: I think it pretty much amounts to the same thing - with similar levels of sincerity. It's simply a matter of how the supportee will respond to the particular choice of words. A person like yourself obviously would not respond well to prayers and blessings, whereas to other people, it may well be all they would respond to. Both are quite understandable. Different strokes for different folks, you know?I suppose I should rephrase. What I'm asking is how often actual advice or other comments that prompt a person to physically do something to change the situation come, verses the offering of prayer or suggestion to pray. For example, after 9/11, then-Mayor Giuliani talked to the people about how awful what happened was and how he understood how scared and angry we were. He showed us he identified with us and advised us to go out and shop. He was mocked for that particular comment, but he was right. He wanted people to DO something. Shopping would bring people back to lower Manhattan, it would bring cash back to the area AND it would give people something to do besides cower or dwell on what had happened. He gave advice. He made us feel like we had some control over the situation. He explained why he gave that particular advice and he did it while acknowledging it could be hard to carry out. Others said the victims, their families and New York had their prayers. While those prayers might have made some people feel a sense of peace, it wasn't tangible advice. That's what I'm talking about here. The difference. How often one is offered over the other, not what a person takes from either... though I admit, I was quick to voice my feelings on that. |
Micrówave 15.02.2008 18:02 |
Sounds like you were expecting "I won't let this happen anymore". Now, how exactly do we go about doing that? |
AspiringPhilosophe 15.02.2008 18:30 |
That shooting has been on the news all day around my campus (CMU) because NIU is in the Mid American Conference (MAC Conference) with us. We play their athletic teams and they play ours; we have conferences between departments in both universities. Plus NIU is pretty much a mirror image of CMU just in a different state (though VERY close to Michigan...the campus is maybe 8 hours away at max); so it hits a bit close to home here. There has been a rash of these things lately...I hope it stops soon. Our university is sending a card to them, I need to remember to go over and sign it. The Chippewas stand in solidarity with the Huskies. As far as the issues you raise; well, when people don't know what to say, a lot of times they'll just say the socially acceptable thing. I personally never say that someone is in my prayers, because I don't pray and I would never say that I will do something I won't do. I will say that they are in my thoughts, and they are because I have a tendency to worry about others FAR more than I worry about myself. But I'm a bit different than most people...I don't think words mean crap unless you back them up with actions. If someone around me suffers a loss of some kind, I don't just tell them that I feel sorry for them...because 50 people have said the same thing, and in the end of the day when you are alone and dealing with the emotional aftermath the "thoughts" and "prayers" of 50 people doesn't make a lick of difference. I'm a person who is there with you whenever you call them (and even when you don't)....I'm the shoulder you cry on...I'm the one who does anything that you need without asking. I can't tell you how many movies I've been to in the last week, how many "girl talk" times I've had with a girlfriend of mine who was recently dumped, and with another one who recently lost her grandmother...I've put myself behind in my school work to be there for her without giving it a second thought. But then again, that's the kind of person I am. |
magicalfreddiemercury 15.02.2008 18:38 |
Micrówave wrote: Sounds like you were expecting "I won't let this happen anymore". Now, how exactly do we go about doing that?I wasn't expecting that or any other lie. All this thread is about, which, it seems, I'm not making clear, is how often people offer prayers in times of need, instead of solid, actionable advice. |
magicalfreddiemercury 15.02.2008 18:47 |
HistoryGirl wrote: But I'm a bit different than most people...I don't think words mean crap unless you back them up with actions. If someone around me suffers a loss of some kind, I don't just tell them that I feel sorry for them...because 50 people have said the same thing, and in the end of the day when you are alone and dealing with the emotional aftermath the "thoughts" and "prayers" of 50 people doesn't make a lick of difference. I'm a person who is there with you whenever you call them (and even when you don't)....I'm the shoulder you cry on...I'm the one who does anything that you need without asking. I can't tell you how many movies I've been to in the last week, how many "girl talk" times I've had with a girlfriend of mine who was recently dumped, and with another one who recently lost her grandmother...I've put myself behind in my school work to be there for her without giving it a second thought. But then again, that's the kind of person I am.I hope your friends appreciate you, you seem to be a rare find. I'm glad you understood what I was trying to get at. :-) I'm not dissing religion (in this thread), I was just hoping to see how often people offer prayers - which often is as meaningless as a greeting of "how are you" - and how often people offer actionable advice. |
Roger Meadows Tailor 15.02.2008 19:25 |
You know,you can nip all these shootings in the bud by making it illegal to buy guns.Any country who supports the right to bear arms is pretty much lining themselves up for something like this. If you want to argue against that,try telling that to the families of the people who were killed. Its those poor folk who have to live with the actions of one deranged unhinged maniac. |
Music Man 15.02.2008 22:43 |
Roger Meadows Tailor wrote: You know,you can nip all these shootings in the bud by making it illegal to buy guns.Any country who supports the right to bear arms is pretty much lining themselves up for something like this. If you want to argue against that,try telling that to the families of the people who were killed. Its those poor folk who have to live with the actions of one deranged unhinged maniac.You're absolutely correct. Just as the consumption of alcohol was eliminated during prohibition, and drugs are virtually nonexistent in our modern society, all violent crimes will disappear if we outlaw guns. The families of victims - or anyone who elicits a strong emotional response to the issue - are the people who are least likely to formulate a rational opinion on the matter. Saying an argument is invalid because it would offend such people is absurd. Anyway, back on topic: The problem with offering advice is that no one is really qualified to give advice, most of the time. Additionally, more often than not, advice is either useless or simply not taken. I agree that the best thing you can do is to be there for those you care for, rather than offering thoughts, prayers, or advice (all of which are rather superficial, if you ask me). |
thomasquinn 32989 16.02.2008 04:33 |
So, essentially, what you are saying is that there is no correlation between gun legislation and violent crime? So you mean to tell me that the homicide rate in the US is not far larger than in Europe? Would you like me to quote you some statistics by the eminent sociologist Charles Tilly who devoted a paragraph to the matter? The suicide rate is roughly the same in the US as in Europe (expressed in a number of suicides/1000 members of the population, giving a comparable statistic for different populations). However, in Europe, homicide occurs between 1/10-1/20 as often as suicide (depending on what European country). In the US, the two rates are nearly equal, giving you a 1000-2000% homicide rate in relation to Europe.(1) Now, I see two possible explanations for this: 1) Americans are inherently more violent than Europeans 2) (Extremely) liberal gun-ownership legislation causes more violent crime I don't know about you, but I'm inclined to choose 2. (1) Charles Tilly, "Coercion, Capital, and European States AD 990-1992" (16th Edition, Malden, MA 2006) p. 68. |
YourValentine 16.02.2008 05:24 |
Publicly speaking about prayers is a very American thing, I think. I have never heard a German politician offering a prayer, that would sound very weird in our ears because religion is a private matter. You have to make a difference between an official representative like Bush or Guiliani and private words of support - which can be very helpful if you genuinely care. The Bush statement is just lip service, he made a statement because it goes with the job. I don't think he gives a toss about the families who lost their children. Guiliani was in New York when the WTC collapsed, so he was affected and found the right words. For a stranger there is really nothing you can say to make things any easier for the families who lost their children. |
Music Man 16.02.2008 05:26 |
You're oversimplifying the issue (TQ). For every statistic which emphasises the effectiveness of gun control legislation, there is a statistic emphasising how such legislation is either ineffective or counterintuitive. For instance, the high rate of gun ownership in Finland vs. the low rate of gun violence. |
Treasure Moment 16.02.2008 05:53 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: When there's bad news of any kind - a bleak prognosis, a school shooting - or some other kind of difficulty, how many of you have had people say to 'say a little prayer' or that they'll pray for you? GW Bush does it all the time - and while this is not about Bush, it IS about the propensity of some people to say they’ll pray for you, rather than offer real words of support. For example, regarding yet another US school shooting (where, apparently, it was just a person who killed others, not the rifle or handgun the guy carried, because if he were intent on killing he could have done so with a knife, a car, or a very sharp pencil... but that's a subject for another thread), Bush had this to say - == President George W Bush said he had spoken to Peters and told him "that a lot of folks today will be praying for the families of the victims and for the Northern Illinois University community. Obviously a tragic situation on that campus and I ask our citizens to offer their blessings, blessings of comfort and blessing of strength." == I don’t know how any of you read that, but I see little to no comfort offered there. There are no ‘fatherly’ words of wisdom and there’s no personal connection. To me, they are empty words offering no sense of support or guidance. So my question is, when you or others you know have been in a difficult situation, what REAL words of support have you received or given? And... were actual words of support more readily offered, or were prayers?haha you think a satanist like bush cares for the people? of course everything he says is pure bullshit :) |
Treasure Moment 16.02.2008 05:54 |
YourValentine wrote: Publicly speaking about prayers is a very American thing, I think. I have never heard a German politician offering a prayer, that would sound very weird in our ears because religion is a private matter. You have to make a difference between an official representative like Bush or Guiliani and private words of support - which can be very helpful if you genuinely care. The Bush statement is just lip service, he made a statement because it goes with the job. I don't think he gives a toss about the families who lost their children. Guiliani was in New York when the WTC collapsed, so he was affected and found the right words. For a stranger there is really nothing you can say to make things any easier for the families who lost their children.wow are we naive here or what? guiliani not only doesnt care about 9/11 victims, he is part of the gang who planned 9/11 |
pow wow 16.02.2008 06:18 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: You're oversimplifying the issue (TQ). For every statistic which emphasises the effectiveness of gun control legislation, there is a statistic emphasising how such legislation is either ineffective or counterintuitive. For instance, the high rate of gun ownership in Finland vs. the low rate of gun violence.Again that can be explained in part in the difference between US and Finnish psyche.................. Also there was a recent school shooting that happened in Helsinki. Would this have happened if guns had been banned? In my opinion, no. Take a look at Britain. Here before guns were banned we had Hungerford, Dunblane etc. Since the ban.....nothing!! It is not a coincidence. Admittedly we have a huge probelem with gang and gun culture now but these are not the same people that turn up at a school thinking their on an African game hunt. Just because something is part of the Constitution does not make it right, things move on. I feel this thread is going to go on and on again and frankly there's more chance of Jehovah Witness turning up on my doorstep talking sense than there is some of you blinkered lot. |
thomasquinn 32989 16.02.2008 07:14 |
'National psyche' is not an issue here; in fact, I daresay it is a fiction. The low gun-related violence in Finland can be (and has been) accounted for by the low concentration of the population. Worldwide, gun-related violence concentrates in areas of popualation concentration (i.e. cities, especially larger ones). It is to be noted that the correlation is exponential in nature (i.e. there is much more than just a linear connection population increase -> violence increase) |
Mr.Jingles 16.02.2008 07:56 |
Treasure Moment wrote:...and this comes from the same person who thinks Freddie Mercury is god.YourValentine wrote: Publicly speaking about prayers is a very American thing, I think. I have never heard a German politician offering a prayer, that would sound very weird in our ears because religion is a private matter. You have to make a difference between an official representative like Bush or Guiliani and private words of support - which can be very helpful if you genuinely care. The Bush statement is just lip service, he made a statement because it goes with the job. I don't think he gives a toss about the families who lost their children. Guiliani was in New York when the WTC collapsed, so he was affected and found the right words. For a stranger there is really nothing you can say to make things any easier for the families who lost their children.wow are we naive here or what? guiliani not only doesnt care about 9/11 victims, he is part of the gang who planned 9/11 |
john bodega 16.02.2008 08:09 |
Treasure Moment = the gang that planned 911 |
magicalfreddiemercury 16.02.2008 08:23 |
YourValentine wrote: You have to make a difference between an official representative like Bush or Guiliani and private words of support - which can be very helpful if you genuinely care. The Bush statement is just lip service, he made a statement because it goes with the job. I don't think he gives a toss about the families who lost their children. Guiliani was in New York when the WTC collapsed, so he was affected and found the right words.You’re exactly right. There is a difference between comments from public officials and those privately offered. You’re also right that the comments from one were heartfelt and from the other, superficial. I didn't mean to compare those two men, though, just the different ways support was offered. YourValentine wrote: Publicly speaking about prayers is a very American thing, I think. I have never heard a German politician offering a prayer, that would sound very weird in our ears because religion is a private matter.I find this very interesting. And this is what I'm talking about. If religion is a private matter, does that mean the average person doesn't automatically offer prayers either? In times of need, what do people say if not, "my prayers are with you" or some such thing? Because, here, not just from public officials, but also from the private sector, prayers are offered more than anything else. |
magicalfreddiemercury 16.02.2008 08:56 |
pow wow wrote: Just because something is part of the Constitution does not make it right, things move on. I feel this thread is going to go on and on again and frankly there's more chance of Jehovah Witness turning up on my doorstep talking sense than there is some of you blinkered lot.The gun control debate will not go away any time soon - just like the abortion debate. They're issues that whip up passion from both sides. I don't think there's one answer, nor do I believe one answer will be accepted by everyone. However, the need to revisit existing gun laws certainly exists. I hope the next president - whomever that may be - will have the balls to take on the deep-pocketed NRA and make some much-needed changes. |
john bodega 16.02.2008 09:59 |
Words of support & a promise to pray = both as useless as each other. Actions speaking louder than words, it's better to just shut up and do whatever it is you were about to 'pledge' to do. See this is why I'd never be a good mayor though.. I suppose, psychologically speaking, some people need to hear certain things to get on with their lives. |
Music Man 16.02.2008 10:31 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: 'National psyche' is not an issue here; in fact, I daresay it is a fiction. The low gun-related violence in Finland can be (and has been) accounted for by the low concentration of the population. Worldwide, gun-related violence concentrates in areas of popualation concentration (i.e. cities, especially larger ones). It is to be noted that the correlation is exponential in nature (i.e. there is much more than just a linear connection population increase -> violence increase)National culture would indeed play a limited role in nations so large and diverse as the United States, as well as Europe as a whole. It's also a valid point that population density also contributes to an increased volume in violence. There is also a correlation to income level and standard of living. I think I might even agree that banning guns would reduce levels of gun violence. Alcohol consumption was reduced during prohibition, and recreational drug use is reduced when it is illegal. However, much the same, gun violence will certainly never be eliminated (or reduced to a significant level) under any circumstances. The main issue, for me, is that, with strict gun control laws, the only way for me to protect myself from a gun-wielding aggressor is to openly break the law. I simply do not, and never will, trust the government to protect me or anyone else. If guns were more prevalent, never again would a one-sided massacre ever occur. Everybody would be given an equal opportunity to survive. Perhaps gun violence is minimized in the situations of absolute gun control, and absolute gun freedom. Therefore, in compromising, the United States would be inadvertently maximizing gun violence. If the only utility of a gun were aggression, I'd certainly agree to ban them. However, in addition to the several uses that do not involve killing people (by far the vast majority), there is also the utility of being the only possible way to protect yourself against gun-wielding aggressors. |
magicalfreddiemercury 16.02.2008 11:28 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Words of support & a promise to pray = both as useless as each other. Actions speaking louder than words, it's better to just shut up and do whatever it is you were about to 'pledge' to do.I agree in part. Actions do speak louder than words. But sometimes, if they're the right words, they can help a person recover from whatever it is they needed support for in the first place. When I had to put my first pet to sleep, years ago, the vet said something to me that still affects me today. My dog was 16 and he said the time I had with her might not have been enough for me, but 16 years of living was a lot for her. She'd lived her life and it was time for me to let her go. I've found an odd comfort in that and have drawn on it several times since then. So, words of support are not always useless. |
AspiringPhilosophe 16.02.2008 12:21 |
Since it seems like this topic is going off on a bit of a tangent anyway, I feel the need to jump in and justify a few things (besides, everyone knows how much I LOVE a good debate) I know that I've said this before, but having guns available for purchase legally doesn't mean that everyone will go out and commit crime, just like banning guns doesn't mean that all violent crime will cease. The UK for example, has very strict gun laws compared to the US. But when I was in Glasgow in December/January visiting my friends, I walked past a location where someone was stabbed and bled to death on the campus of Strathclyde. In addition I talked to friends who had been threatened by the "Neds" as they call them with being stabbed for refusing to give them money for a bus fare. As I talked with people (both U of Strathclyde students and others I met) and listened to the news of the past year and goals for the next year in Scotland and the UK in general, I found out that Glasgow has a HUGE knife problem. Japan has the same thing; violent crime still exists, its just the method that is used to perpetuate it changes. Banning guns is not going to stop violent crime. National psyche may not play a big role to us who don't feel particularly beholden to a national identity, but lets face facts here...most people are not like us and very quickly and powerfully identify to their national identity. Myself, for example: I don't identify as an American and I probably never will; I identify myself as a member of the human race who happens to come from a country called America and I'd rather not be judged for being an American. But I am the exception to the rule, most Americans are very proud to be what they are. Like it or not, guns have played a major role in American history for a number of reasons. First is the frontier mentality...like it or not when Europeans showed up in this country they had to fight and defend their lives and families from Native Americans whom they viewed as inferior and savage. Guns were key to this; so in the American mind guns have become equated with people able to protect their lives, family and property. The EXACT same thing happened in Europe during the Middle Ages (only with other weapons and against Pagan "barbarians"), so they are no better. But they have had the advantage of time...the Middle Ages were a LONG time ago, which allows society to mature and remove itself from that idea; The frontier days in America are less than 200 years ago, less than the blink of an eye in the historical mindset. The second thing that plays a role is the American obsession with independence: Americans were terrified of government, and first made a government that was so weak that it collapsed. They made one that worked, but they were terrified to amassing to much power there. Guns were intended to be the protection of citizens from the government if it ever got over-zealous and tyrannical. This is bred into the American psyche; a fear of strong government and the equation that the more government you have, the more you have to fear. Especially in a period of war, people identify more strongly with the ideals of what their country is, and these are two VERY important ideals, and ideals that will never be removed most likely. And the prayer thing...that is very American. But that goes back to the founding of the country and the ideals of puritanism and what not... Incidents like this will never be prevented; you cannot predict when someone will just go crazy and snap (which is ALWAYS what happens in these cases). To prevent the issue, you can't just take away the weapons they use, you'd have to know who it is and prevent them from snapping. It's the snapping that kills people, after that it's merely a matter of how many and by what method. Since you cannot go inside the psyche of people, determine that they are going to snap and lock them away, things like this will always hap |
magicalfreddiemercury 16.02.2008 12:34 |
HistoryGirl wrote: Incidents like this will never be prevented; you cannot predict when someone will just go crazy and snap (which is ALWAYS what happens in these cases). To prevent the issue, you can't just take away the weapons they use, you'd have to know who it is and prevent them from snapping. It's the snapping that kills people, after that it's merely a matter of how many and by what method. Since you cannot go inside the psyche of people, determine that they are going to snap and lock them away, things like this will always happen. The best we can do is try to limit the damage they can cause, and if they give signs of being at risk we can try to prevent it, but they have rights and freedoms just like everyone else; we cannot take that away from them just because we "think" they are a risk.I have to take issue with this... did you expect anything less? :-) Yeah, it's the snapping that kills people but you said right here that the best we can do is limit the damage they can cause. The best way to limit the damage is to take away the weapons that can cause the most damage. Guns vs. knives, for example. Chances are, a guy with a knife will be tackled and stopped before too much damage is done, while a guy with a gun will do as we've seen done too often on school campuses and elsewhere. AND... in this particular case, like several others, this guy was on medication. He stopped it. He WAS a risk. But bought himself 4 guns. He should not have been able to purchase those guns in the first place. And, if proper laws were in place and/or enforced, he shouldn't have been able to buy them on the spot. At the very least, there should be a long waiting period between applying to buy a gun and receiving it. To drive a car, you need to take lessons, pass a written test, a vision test and a driving test. What do you have to do to get a gun? |
Treasure Moment 16.02.2008 13:12 |
they want to ban guns so you can be a good slave later on when all your rights will be removed. |
Music Man 16.02.2008 14:01 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Yeah, it's the snapping that kills people but you said right here that the best we can do is limit the damage they can cause. The best way to limit the damage is to take away the weapons that can cause the most damage. Guns vs. knives, for example. Chances are, a guy with a knife will be tackled and stopped before too much damage is done, while a guy with a gun will do as we've seen done too often on school campuses and elsewhere.But if guns were more prevalent, odds are the assailant would also be suppressed before too much damage had occurred. The only difference is that if guns were illegal, there's still a chance that the assailant would have access to a gun. Additionally, if someone had broken the law by carrying a weapon to defend themselves and others, they would be punished for saving everyone from the massacre. |
magicalfreddiemercury 16.02.2008 14:51 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: But if guns were more prevalent, odds are the assailant would also be suppressed before too much damage had occurred.Or more people would be killed as they get caught in the crossfire. Cops are experienced handlers of guns, yet... I forget the term... when in a tense situation, if one cop shoots, then the knee-jerk reaction of the others is to shoot, too. Imagine the knee-jerk reaction of laymen with guns. <font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: The only difference is that if guns were illegal, there's still a chance that the assailant would have access to a gun.That's the interesting part of this. Street crime would still be an issue if there were an absolute gun ban - which there won't be. However, these types of attacks - the school shootings and such - always seem to be carried out by people who are more likely to buy their weapons legally than from some underground dealer. So, a ban of sorts on gun sales would definitely help this type of situation. Why can't there be a 30-day waiting period? Why can't there be mandatory gun-safety training classes for people wanting to buy a gun? I'd love for there to be a mental evaluation on them, too, but I don't see a fair way to administer that. But then, when buying a weapon that can kill, maybe fairness to the potential victims is more important than fairness to the person carrying. I dunno. Point is, there can be a reduction in the amount of gun crime and the magnitude of each incident if buying a weapon were not as easy as it apparently is now. To think, I promised myself I'd stick to the point of this thread and not go off about guns. Blah. So much for promises... :-/ |
Music Man 16.02.2008 16:05 |
I suppose, technically, all I'm really against is the inane banning of guns. I really wouldn't mind if there were some sort of mandatory process toward gun use that is similar to the process toward automobile use. In New Jersey, at least, obtaining a hunting license is very similar to obtaining a car license. I remember having to take a course which emphasized safety and proper use of a firearm. Additionally, there was a written examination, as well as a test in firearm competence. Everyone who owns a firearm should demonstrate competency, as well as have a clear understanding of gun safety. A proper shooter respects his weapon and the lethality of which it is capable. Then again, I realize that not everyone in the world is responsible. Is it appropriate for a few bad apples to spoil the bunch? Perhaps - I don't really know, and you all put forth valid opinions. All I know is that I would feel oppressed if I had to forgo my right to possess a firearm. |
Music Man 16.02.2008 16:06 |
And I apologize for contributing to the derailment of your thread. |
AspiringPhilosophe 16.02.2008 16:13 |
@ Magical of course I expected nothing less from you :-) You are one of the intelligent people on the thread I truly enjoy conversing with and I'm never offended by anything you say or take issue with. After all, how boring would the planet be if everyone always agreed with everyone else? Not a place I want to live, I can tell you that. Yes, less damage can be inflicted with a knife. My point is that if you want to ban guns simply to stop violent crime, you are missing the point. Violent crime will still occur, banning guns is only going to ban the tool they use to commit the crime. The real issues of why the crime was committed in the first place need to be addressed, which is a point I think both you and I can agree on. Treating the symptom is not going to stop the problem. It is important to note that both of these school shooters (and I believe the third one in Louisiana as well) purchased their guns legally. If the laws are enforced, there is nothing that the government can do to prevent these people from using their guns on others. I believe your argument is that the laws are insufficient, which could indeed be the case. I'm personally all for a waiting period between application for a gun license and actually being able to get a gun...I'm also for basic psychological tests for everyone who wants to apply for a gun license. However, I am not for just jumping right from what we have in the ways of laws now to a complete ban...to me that is an issue of cutting off the whole arm instead of just the diseased finger. Lets start with figuring out where the laws are insufficient, putting laws in place to cover the holes and seeing how that goes. A complete ban might be unnecessary, and I'm not exactly the biggest fan of unnecessary laws (neither are most Americans I don't think). As far as treating the snapping goes...yes, this was an example of the person being a threat. He was off his medication and had been acting strangely. Just like the Virginia Tech shooter, who had actually been to court because of his weird behavior. These are cases where people should have recognized that these people were a potential threat to themselves and others. However, most people operate under the assumption that "This will never happen here." As a result, they dismiss signs they should see that indicate things like this are coming. But what is the other option? Automatically hauling anyone off that seems to be a bit off in the head and locking them up? There is no law against being weird, or against being anti-social, against disagreeing with an institution, or against getting mental help if you need it. The government cannot force people to get the help they need; not only do they not have the time or resources, but it would also be ineffective since you have to admit you have a problem for the help to be effective and it would be a huge trampling on the rights of people to simply lock someone away because someone else thinks that they are "A little off". Depriving someone of their freedom is one of the most important violations of constitutional rights, and that is why the circumstances in which the government is allowed to do it are so restrictive and spelled out, tight and cautious. I think most people would rather have a system like what we have now, where the government is necessarily slow to act on matters like locking someone in a psych ward or jail or any other place where their freedom is taken away, rather than have a system where the government has the ability to lock you away based on any report from anyone. You might save some lives, that is true. But at what cost? @ Treasure Moment Can you just got away? All you ever do is spew useless and stupid shit all over the place. Either grow a brain and grow up and start contributing usefully, or find another place to take out these absolutely ridiculous points of view. OK..I'm done derailing now. Sorry Magical! |
magicalfreddiemercury 16.02.2008 17:01 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: And I apologize for contributing to the derailment of your thread. HistoryGirl wrote: OK..I'm done derailing now. Sorry Magical!LOL! Not a problem you two. Besides, I'm the guiltiest one here since I sort of derailed it in my original post with the sharp-pencil remark. :-/ HistoryGirl wrote: @ Magical of course I expected nothing less from you :-) You are one of the intelligent people on the thread I truly enjoy conversing with and I'm never offended by anything you say or take issue with.Wow. You have made my day. :-) I do agree with much of what you've said in your post. I just hope there will be serious discussion like this where it can make a difference. Neither side has to worry about much, because I doubt much will be changed. I do believe, however, that small steps taken to make acquiring a gun more difficult will help weed out at least a few would-be mass murderers. What will they use if not a gun? I don't know. Preferably pills, so the only one hurt by them is them. |
Micrówave 18.02.2008 11:27 |
Roger Meadows Tailor wrote: You know,you can nip all these shootings in the bud by making it illegal to buy guns.That's right!!! Thank God drugs are illegal, or we could have a serious problem there, too!! |
lovelykate 18.02.2008 11:41 |
microwave hi !!!!! |
Treasure Moment 18.02.2008 11:41 |
Micrówave wrote:hah, drugs should be legal, the fact that the usa government itself distributes the drugs is quite funnyRoger Meadows Tailor wrote: You know,you can nip all these shootings in the bud by making it illegal to buy guns.That's right!!! Thank God drugs are illegal, or we could have a serious problem there, too!! |
lovelykate 18.02.2008 11:44 |
hello treasure |
Treasure Moment 18.02.2008 11:53 |
hi lovelykate |
lovelykate 18.02.2008 11:55 |
how are you ?? |
Music Man 18.02.2008 12:18 |
Now, what happened to this thread? |
lovelykate 18.02.2008 12:21 |
i have no idea |
magicalfreddiemercury 18.02.2008 12:33 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Now, what happened to this thread?It's not just derailed, it's a new train on a completely different track. |
john bodega 18.02.2008 12:35 |
<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: Now, what happened to this thread?Morons happened. |
lovelykate 18.02.2008 13:19 |
heyyy |
AspiringPhilosophe 18.02.2008 15:27 |
Immaturity and Ignorance (or Stupidity) That's what happened to this thread |
lovelykate 18.02.2008 16:48 |
haha |
sparrow 21754 18.02.2008 18:31 |
y'know, i swear there must be a school shooting season. not to be terrible, but it really is starting to become some sick joke. this doesnt happen in other parts of the world (at least ive never heard it happen). it happens often now to a point where its not even news anymore. like hearing the newest death toll in iraq. its not that i care less either (hopefully noone has thought that), but its what i see now with these kind of things. something needs to be done, but there seems to be no 'certain' way. |
AspiringPhilosophe 18.02.2008 18:45 |
^^ There was just a shooting not too long ago in Finland; while shootings may not be frequent around the world, violence in schools and universities does seem to be a growing trend. On that note...guess what I found when I walked into my classroom today to teach my two sections? A huge white sticker stuck to the teaching podium (where only the instructor can see it) giving codes and numbers to call in the case of "disruptive students" or "threats of violence". Talking to the profs and GA's who had classes in other buildings today, they appeared this weekend and are in ALL the academic building classrooms now. Pretty sad commentary on society; though as my co-GA Marko pointed out "Why do they think you'd call these numbers? Guess who would be the first one shot if you stood in the front of the room to use the phone on the podium to call? Oh wait, Mr. Shooter...I have to call this 5 digit number because I have a classroom disturbance." Of course I pointed out to him that we'd likely be the first one shot anyway since we are the ones standing at the front of the classroom, which doesn't necessarily make either of us feel great about handing back student exams Wednesday that are....well...they are total shit is what they are. |
magicalfreddiemercury 19.02.2008 08:45 |
HistoryGirl wrote: ^^ There was just a shooting not too long ago in Finland; while shootings may not be frequent around the world, violence in schools and universities does seem to be a growing trend.They do seem to be a growing trend. As it is, raising a child is difficult, add post 9/11 awareness and all these shootings, and it ups the difficulty level tremendously. Society as a whole has changed. Population has increased. There seem to be fewer and fewer 'neighborhoods' and more transient-type areas. I know the phone number of only one family where I now live. That family is the only family who has been here for more than two years. My daughter gets to know neighborhood kids and soon, they're gone. Their parents are renters, mostly, so we never get to know them very well because they move on so quickly. It's so different from when I was growing up. We knew all the neighbors, were in and out of each other's houses and could take our bikes on long rides through several towns without (much) worry. Now, I won't even let my daughter play in front of the house unless I'm out there with her. It's not just school shootings that seem to be a growing trend, but also a 'look the other way' attitude. Since people don't really 'know' people anymore, they tend to not get involved even if something doesn't look right. I'm guilty of it, too. I think that attitude adds to the already-existing problem. As a parent, I want to raise my kid with confidence not paranoia, and yet, I find myself constantly warning her about... almost everything. Awareness is good. It's just so damn sad that there's so much to be aware of. Maybe it was always this way and maybe I'm just getting old. You worry more as you age... or so they say. :-/ |
Donna13 19.02.2008 09:04 |
HistoryGirl wrote: ^^ There was just a shooting not too long ago in Finland; while shootings may not be frequent around the world, violence in schools and universities does seem to be a growing trend. On that note...guess what I found when I walked into my classroom today to teach my two sections? A huge white sticker stuck to the teaching podium (where only the instructor can see it) giving codes and numbers to call in the case of "disruptive students" or "threats of violence". Talking to the profs and GA's who had classes in other buildings today, they appeared this weekend and are in ALL the academic building classrooms now. Pretty sad commentary on society; though as my co-GA Marko pointed out "Why do they think you'd call these numbers? Guess who would be the first one shot if you stood in the front of the room to use the phone on the podium to call? Oh wait, Mr. Shooter...I have to call this 5 digit number because I have a classroom disturbance." Of course I pointed out to him that we'd likely be the first one shot anyway since we are the ones standing at the front of the classroom, which doesn't necessarily make either of us feel great about handing back student exams Wednesday that are....well...they are total shit is what they are.Maybe bullet proof vests or metal detectors will be the next step. Or shooting lessons for all teachers. |
magicalfreddiemercury 19.02.2008 09:44 |
Interestingly, I just found this (and it sort of pertains to what I was saying above)... === TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's!! First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant. They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes. Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints. We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking. As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, booster seats, seat belts or air bags. Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat. We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.. We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this. We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank Kool-aid made with sugar, but we weren't overweight because, WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING! We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on. No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K. We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem. We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound or CD's, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or chat rooms........ WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them! We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents. We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever. We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes. We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them! Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!! The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law! These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever! The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL! === The above is so true, and yet it makes me wonder how the generations who grew up like that created the technology-dependent, sit-on-your-ass, school-shooting, politically correct society in which we live today. |
Roger Meadows Tailor 19.02.2008 16:07 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Interestingly, I just found this (and it sort of pertains to what I was saying above)... === TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's!! First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant. They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes. Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints. We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking. As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, booster seats, seat belts or air bags. Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat. We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.. We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this. We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank Kool-aid made with sugar, but we weren't overweight because, WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING! We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on. No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K. We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem. We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound or CD's, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or chat rooms........ WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them! We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents. We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever. We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes. We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them! Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!! The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law! These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever! The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL! === The above is so true, and yet it makes me wonder how the generations who grew up like that created the technology-dependent, sit-on-your-ass, school-shooting, politically correct society in which we live today.Thats modern day America for you.You live by the sword,you die by the sword. |