| greaserkat 14.12.2012 12:59 |
I don't know what to say anymore. There have been so many shootings this year here in the U.S. that I'm not shocked something like this happend. But to target children? There are no words for something like this. link |
| brENsKi 14.12.2012 13:07 |
absolute fucking tragedy. world has finally gone berserk...it went mad years ago |
| Mr.Jingles 14.12.2012 18:27 |
How many times will we allow incidents like this happen in this country? It makes me sick to the stomach to think that we are getting used to it. We'll have a few weeks of grief, and some gun restriction discussion will come around, but after a while everybody will forget about it until the next incident happens. |
| YourValentine 14.12.2012 20:49 |
What is freedom? Obviously, freedom means that schools must be secured like banks and prisons in order to protect the right to bear arms. Freedom means owning 2 hand guns and a semi-automatic weapon and getting killed with them by your own son. Freedom means being fined by the authorities for "drinking in public" but the right to bear arms must be upheld in case the free citizens want to protect themselves against these authorities fining them for drinking in public. Freedom does not mean you can sit in a movie theater without fear that some idiot thinks the premiere of the "hobbit" is great chance for the next massacre. Freedom does not mean your children can go to a school without fear of being shot by the next depressed semi-genius or school drop-out with the guns he picked up at his parents' house. Hard to understand, really. |
| john bodega 14.12.2012 21:52 |
"Now is not the time to talk about gun control" - I'm paraphrasing, but I keep seeing this quote in news articles about the shooting. I'd love to know when an appropriate time for that conversation would be, because you'd think that ~20 dead kids would be as good a reason as any. Mind you, I've had this conversation enough times that I no longer need to have it with people because I know how it ends. 'We need our guns!'. Whatever works for you I guess! |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.12.2012 05:59 |
The appropriate time to talk about gun control is indeed not now - it should have been years ago, before this ever happened. When the amendment in question that allows Americans to own guns was written, a gun was a flintlock musket, which would take an easy thirty seconds to load in the hands of an experienced gunman, would have a range of some 150-200 yards and could hit a circle of three meters in diameter at a hundred yards, if the gunman was good. No founding father would have wanted (semi-)automatic assault weapons in the hands of citizens. This horrendous tragedy should not be used for political reasons, it should never have come to this in the first place. |
| tomchristie22 15.12.2012 07:45 |
Hearing about this hit me unexpectedly hard. Tremendously sad, one way or the other. I can't begin to imagine what it would be like to lose a young child in such a horrific way (or at all). |
| GratefulFan 15.12.2012 10:32 |
My mind can't even get to the 'issues' yet. The enormity of this reality of this is so crushing that my vision of the grief and horror of the families and responders and community eclipses everything. I had a couple of nuclear arguments with my own child this week about his school attendance that in an instant dissolved to nothing in the relative gift that my son was here and safe, the end of the world a couple of days ago reduced to its proper place as a bump in the road. Experience tells us that the power of the emotion that drives all our responses to these nightmare scenarios attenuates over a relatively brief time whether it's focused on gun control or gratitude and perspective in our own lives. And that is wasteful and sad. For the sake of these precious, innocent and vulnerable lives lost I hope I can do a little better for a little longer, this time. |
| The Real Wizard 15.12.2012 11:22 |
40% of the country stands with the NRA lobby. Ten thousand gun-related deaths in the US last year. All the rest of the developed countries per capita COMBINED do not come remotely close. "Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine." link Yet the second amendment is right. Timeless. Flawless. Even though it was made long before automatic weapons were invented. But when it comes to gun-toting Americans, numbers and facts do not matter. There is no discussion. These people truly believe that if everyone had a gun, we'd all be safer. Children will continue to die because of the vanity of these dumb, xenophobic, uneducated, irrational people that exist in far too great numbers. And they think they're heroes. The right to bear arms. But the right to health care is "socialism" and bad. The rest of the civilized world shakes their head in disbelief. But of course everyone else is wrong. |
| waunakonor 15.12.2012 16:23 |
People think having guns will mean we're protected, but Elementary School kids will not be toting around guns. Even if someone, for instance, was sitting in a movie theater with a gun in hand, he would be off-guard enough to still get shot regardless of how protected he was. Ah, but I'm evidently preaching to the choir as everyone here seems to think the same way. That includes this guy: link |
| Heavenite 15.12.2012 20:56 |
Australia, where I live, banned semi-automatic rfiles in 1997 after the Port Arthur massacre in my home state the previous year. 35 people back then and, as I recall, it was the world's worst non political massacre for many years. Significantly, there hasn't been another massacre in the 15 years since in Australia thank goodness. The Australian death rate from guns subsequently dropped from around 500 people a year to 200. In America, 9 people per 100,000 died from firearms in 2010, compared to just 1.04 per 100,000 in Australia. Mind you, that's still bad compared to just 0.22 per 100,000 that died in the UK. That means that a person in the US was 40 times more likely to have died as a result of a firearm than in the UK in 2010. But Americans think they're safer having them. Go figure! |
| john bodega 16.12.2012 01:48 |
There are only the most tenuous (and increasingly less relevant) reasons for a civilian having a firearm - and I'm talking about the kind that is tailored for taking the odd potshot at an animal in a less-than-expedient fashion. But there is literally no reason for any civilian to have a weapon designed to inflict harm on a human being. The weak argument of "hey, farmers need guns!" isn't much of an excuse to have guns in circulation of the type that this asshole used on a bunch of unarmed children. I Googled the main rifle that he used - fucking say to me, with a straight face, that you think a civilian should own something like that, for any reason at all. I would happily puke in your face if I could. There's no fuckin' reason. Not even the old 'I have the right to defend my home!' nonsense. I've often thought (and sometimes still do) that if I lived alone and didn't have accidental injury to my family to worry about, that I might be the kind of person who'd own a gun for self defence. Seems innocuous enough, right? - It's Me Or Him! But ultimately, if you grow up with a gun as a part of your process of rationalisation (as Americans do), it starts to be an acceptable part of your problem solving mechanisms. I don't buy the trope that video games and movies are mainly to blame for firearm related violence (most games I've played don't hold a candle to the Old Testament) but I do think that such common literature dumbs down our concept of what it actually means to shoot someone to death. I saw a horrible video on Youtube a few years ago (duly flagged it and got it removed, although maybe I shouldn't have) where one of these gas station clerks gets shot because he didn't have any money in the cash register. The robber puts a couple of bullets into him and runs out. The clerk lets out a rather guttural yelp and hits the deck immediately. You can't see him after that, but you can hear him rolling around on the floor wailing wordlessly. After that, his moans become longer and more drawn out. Within a minute or two, the noises turn into gurgles and death rattles, and then about a minute after that he goes quiet. He died in incredible agony before anyone could do anything about it. Although an old lady does walk into the gas station, looks confused by the awful noises she's hearing, and leaves again. Maybe reading it like this wouldn't have much of an impact on you, but the video left a horrible one on me. But I think watching a video like that would surely have to change your feelings about whether or not it's okay to rationally decide to shoot someone. Like I said after the cinema shooting a couple of months back, the idea of everyone packing heat is just silly. Can you imagine the amount of friendly fire that would've gone down in that cinema if they'd all been armed? The only heroic tales of self defence I hear of usually involve a law enforcement officer (see: the Dimebag shooting). Being a gun owning society didn't save the people murdered in that bar, or the ones at Virginia Tech - how much more of this do people really want to go through before they can say they're at least trying to make a change, even if it's a rough one that's going to take a while to see the benefit of? It's a cognitive dissonance at play, here. These people have had it shoved into their heads from day 1 - 'it's my right to own a gun!'. It never crosses their mind that while they might have a legal argument for owning a gun, they've really got almost nil moral reason for owning one. I mentioned self defence earlier, but even so - just what does that justify, in the end? It's not self defence to get someone on the ground and blow their brains out (as was done recently). To say nothing of the fact that these kids were knocked off by guns that didn't even belong the shooter, but his mother (I read that - do correct me if I'm wrong, as facts in these kinds of stories do tend to shuffle about in the first few days). People fantasise about a horrible future where guns are illegal but the criminals still get their hands on them, but the truth is that America's there already. This asshole used someone else's gun to do what he did. 'People will still die' is a ridiculous statement when you weigh it up against the possibility that 'this sort of thing might happen less often'. I have no time for anyone who isn't at least open to that idea. I have an incredible distaste for this whole thing. I don't deny that maybe if I was American and had grown up in a gun toting family that maybe I'd feel differently, because my gut would tell me that someone was coming for my guns and my rights, and I have no doubt that a situation like this is going to result in what will be seen as a possibly unfair amount of 'Murica bashing, but let's be serious - a bunch of kids and some teachers got pumped full of ammunition that is designed to cause maximum damage against a human target. Short of visiting the crime scene itself, what is it going to take to get through to people that this isn't an episode of TJ Hooker, that real people died horrible deaths here, and that it might be worth doing something to curtail the circulation of these weapons? Fucking abominable, the whole lot of it. |
| Donna13 16.12.2012 22:47 |
Just about 13 or 14 hours prior to this attack, a man in China used a knife to attack an old lady (it was her knife and they had argued), then he went to a primary school and attacked the heads of over 20 children with the same knife (this from the news on the Wikipedia website). Then also on Wikipedia I have learned that there are security guards in schools in China due to these types of attacks occuring. Also a man used explosives to kill even more school children (than this latest attack) in the United States back in 1927 after first killing his wife. These seem to follow the same pattern and this is more relevant (I think) than the chosen weapon. I think most Chinese are too poor to be able to play violent video games or to watch many movies; also back in 1927 there were no video games and movies were in their beginning stages (when was the first movie? I should have paid better attention during Hugo.). So I guess my point is that while gun control makes sense, it probably is only part of what is necessary and the other part is maybe increased security being hired for public venues where crowds are gathered including churches and schools. But I don't think we can ever get to 100 percent security. Anyway, I always wonder if some of these problems are human problems that cannot be solved or if somehow over the course of time we can make progress as a species. It would be so interesting to be able to look into the future and see if we are ever able to stop violence and wars. |
| john bodega 17.12.2012 12:57 |
"But I don't think we can ever get to 100 percent security" But that's meaningless. It is within the realm of possibility to improve that percentage, so why not try? Nothing personal, but it's one of the oft repeated phrases after a massacre that makes me angriest. It amounts to 'people will still die, why tinker with things?'. It infuriates me as much as the old chestnut : 'people die in cars too, but we're not banning cars!'. Thing about cars is that they have a clear, definable function in society, and they're mostly safe. You can have a safe drive to work - who wants to bank on a bullet to the head being as safe as your daily commute? These fallacies - ones like the comparisons to cars - they only have to be thrown about just enough to play on peoples apathy to the point that they sort of nod their heads and say 'yeah, you're right - not much can be done, let's just do nothing'. And while I acknowledge that some fairly well meaning and grounded people say these things with the best of intentions, it doesn't make them any more helpful or constructive. And as for that stabbing in China - so what? That's China. They put up nets so that factory workers can't turn themselves into pavement pizza anymore. Why not aim a little higher than that bog hole? |
| john bodega 17.12.2012 13:05 |
"So I guess my point is that while gun control makes sense, it probably is only part of what is necessary" Oh, absolutely. The guy on the news (the one I was referring to when mentioning the cars comparison) was very right when he said it's 'a people problem'. Whether or not guns are available isn't the only issue, and you'd be naive (ie. Brian May) for thinking they'll disappear in America in our lifetime. The nature of the weapons available can be altered, though. There is a huge range of weapons that have absolutely no business being in civilian ownership. The other side of the issue is a human one, and one that really can't be regulated by government. That's down to individuals and communities monitoring themselves and each other, and mentally unsound people getting looked at. That's where the "it'll never be 100 percent" part unfortunately comes into it, because people don't always pick up on the warning signs - how often has it been said of these assholes, 'he seemed like a nice kid'? But I'll bet this prick would've had a harder time blowing those kids away if his nutjob survivalist mother didn't have that semi-automatic lying around. Which -is- the part that can be looked at, and should be. No matter how many idiots bleat about the rights they think they have. |
| inu-liger 17.12.2012 16:40 |
Zebonka12 wrote:But I'll bet this prick would've had a harder time blowing those kids away if his nutjob survivalist mother didn't have that semi-automatic lying around. Which -is- the part that can be looked at, and should be. No matter how many idiots bleat about the rights they think they have.YEAH, this is the part that bothers me....why in god's name did that woman have an assault weapon among her (reportedly) 4 gun collection?!? Something tells me either she had issues herself, or there was a threat that simply hasn't been told to us the general public, that prompted such a bunch of purchases! |
| Holly2003 17.12.2012 17:10 |
inu-liger wrote:YEAH, this is the part that bothers me....why in god's name did that woman have an assault weapon among her (reportedly) 4 gun collection?!? Something tells me either she had issues herself, or there was a threat that simply hasn't been told to us the general public, that prompted such a bunch of purchases! Godzilla? Aliens? Communist hordes? Armour plated bears? Tell me what possible threat there might be that would require any civilian to own an assault rifle ... |
| magicalfreddiemercury 17.12.2012 18:29 |
The time to discuss gun control is every moment that gun control is not discussed. Unfortunately, gun control alone is not going to do it. We also need to make sure there is help for families with a member suffering from a mental illness. There are parents afraid of their own kids - like the mother in this latest nightmare (though how she could have been aware of her son's unstable personality AND still own/collect weapons is something I'll never understand). These parents struggle on their own, and are either offered medications that often make their children yet more unstable, or they're offered the advice to have their children arrested so there's a "paper trail". They're told that paper trail will get them the help they need, when what it really means is these young people will wind up in jail - which, I think we can all agree, isn't 'help'. I have no idea what kind of 'real' help they need, I just know that ignoring those suffering from these mental/emotional issues is not going to keep us safe regardless of (much-needed) new or enforced gun laws. I read this post the other day, and I found it both enlightening and disturbing. Maybe it will be of interest to you, too. It's written by the mother of an emotionally unstable son who will soon grow too strong for her to control: link |
| The Real Wizard 17.12.2012 22:30 |
I only skimmed that story and wow, it was powerful. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 17.12.2012 23:39 |
My thoughts, exactly. I hope, this time, there will be enough public pressure for a sustained and meaningful conversation about gun control, and about proper care and treatment for the mentally ill. |
| Donna13 18.12.2012 00:37 |
I wrote a long post filling in some holes of what I was trying to say in my last post because I was frustrated that Zebonka so misinterpreted what my thoughts were ( also I admit I am not such a good writer) but the cell tower reception is off and on for me (tall trees here and weak signal). So I lost it all. I lose a lot of my posts. I try to write briefly or concisely but then I tend to go into summary or conclusion mode prior to fully explaining ideas. Anyway I will move on to other ideas. That was an interesting link Magical. Also distressing to read. Written in a calm style but she is probably suffering so much anguish. |
| YourValentine 18.12.2012 01:43 |
I was really shocked to read this blog by the mother of a mentally instable child. I cannot believe there is no medical help for her in a civilized country like the USA. I also think that gun control is not the only answer, I believe that the society must try to become less violent as a whole. Even if I will be blamed to be anti-American again I must point out that the USA seems to have a bigger tendency to solve problems with violence than other countries. War is often the first means of choice instead of being the last resort and according to statistics considerably less children in the USA are getting a non-violent education than in most other Western countries. To me it seems that the public discourse does not do any justice to the real underlying problems, it is dominated by stupid fire arm lobby arguments ("there would have been less victims if the teachers had been armed") and even more grotesque statements by political commentators like Huckabee who blamed the gays and the lack of God's presence in schools. We have a similar- although less deadly - ongoing argument in Germany: speed limit on highways. I think we are the only country in the world who has no general speed limit for highways and it is always a matter of "freedom". Apparently, it would be against the most basic human rights to force "free citizens" to slow down and lessen the risk for other people on our high-traffic motor highways. It is the same slave owner argument as the American arm lobby uses. It must be a God-given right to own slaves, own fire arms, speed up like crazy. Just like the twisted American fire arm lobby the German car lobby will tell you that the lack of speed limit will make the traffic safer and the car industry better and if the speed limit comes we will have more dead people on the roads. You just cannot win an argument like this with normal logic. |
| john bodega 18.12.2012 03:04 |
"Zebonka so misinterpreted what my thoughts were" I don't think it's that, entirely, although I might've possibly missed the spirit of what you intended to say - who knows. I only meant to point out that an all too human thought process in these situations (and one that I readily admit to having had myself in the past) is that 'it will never be 100% safe' enters into our heads when trying to contemplate a way forward. It gets to a point where that's an irrelevancy, and the way it gets brought up in these discussions is upsetting to me because it helps no one. So if I sounded dissatisfied, it's more with the situation in general and the way that we approach it - not with your post in particular. |
| Donna13 18.12.2012 09:04 |
I don't think that the "not 100 percent final result" would in any way prevent moving forward. That would be similar to a patient confusing what a doctor is telling them and thinking he is advising against surgery when he is actually not (i.e., risk factors with certain operations) or a parent telling a child about flying in an airplane. It is only realistic to consider the final result in any endeavor but the lack of perfection should not lead to a lack of trying or of attempting to make progress. I may have unwittingly used a "talking point" that anyone would associate with an NRA type argument and it was probably not a necessary thing to say. It is maybe similar to a person taking Brian May's hand and gently saying to him, "Brian, honey, I need to tell you that even if humans stop killing animals, it will not solve the problem of violence against animals 100 percent. If a whale really wants to eat a seal, there isn't much we can do about it." Ha. Anyway fault is mine for not considering very well my posts. And the China situation is interesting to me because of an experiment I read about long ago involving mice or rats learning a maze faster after mice/rats learned it in another location ... so it was just a strange feeling (or whatever a good word would be ... surreal ... eh) for me to read about the guy in China ... Almost a simultaneous decision to commit a very similar act of violence. Most likely coincidence and mental illness similarity but with what physics research is up to these days (not that I can easily understand that stuff) there may be a lot that is still unknown about how information or ideas travel. And the 1927 story was just to illustrate that violent images or games are not necessary in order for a person to get the idea to blow up a lot of school kids. Just interesting in the context of this particular latest crime. |
| thomasquinn 32989 18.12.2012 10:41 |
I think the last part of the above-mentioned blog is some of the most profound truth I have ever seen: I don’t believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael’s sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn’t deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise—in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population. (link With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill—Rikers Island, the LA County Jail, and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation’s largest treatment centers in 2011 (link No one wants to send a 13-year old genius who loves Harry Potter and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society, with its stigma on mental illness and its broken healthcare system, does not provide us with other options. Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, “Something must be done.” |
| The Real Wizard 18.12.2012 12:08 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: My thoughts, exactly. I hope, this time, there will be enough public pressure for a sustained and meaningful conversation about gun control, and about proper care and treatment for the mentally ill.Half of the country is talking about it, and most of the world is talking about it. But the half of the country NOT talking about it are the ones standing in the way. How do we include the gun-toting NRA lifers into the debate in a meaningful way? How do we show them that the lives of children are worth more than the feeling of dogmatically obeying constitutional amendments? This really is up to us. The politicians are a reflection of the people. If the people engage in the debate and demand change, then it will happen. This is what the civil rights movement was all about. |
| The Real Wizard 18.12.2012 12:23 |
YourValentine wrote: I was really shocked to read this blog by the mother of a mentally instable child. I cannot believe there is no medical help for her in a civilized country like the USA.Civilized? Half the country believes there should be no universal health care, and these same people believe to the death (pun intended) that everyone should have a gun. They are also pro war and "pro life" at the same time. This does not sound like a civilized country to me. Even if I will be blamed to be anti-American again I must point out that the USA seems to have a bigger tendency to solve problems with violence than other countries.The only people who will call you anti-American for pointing out facts is... Americans. Just like the twisted American fire arm lobby the German car lobby will tell you that the lack of speed limit will make the traffic safer and the car industry better and if the speed limit comes we will have more dead people on the roads. You just cannot win an argument like this with normal logic.But the difference is - Germany doesn't have a traffic death rate that is higher than the rest of the civilized world combined. It has, in fact, one of the lowest rates of traffic fatalities in the world. link link So they may have a point. Germany's roads may not be perfect, but they are amongst the safest in the world. We can't say the same for the schools in America. Restriction tends to lead to rebelling. I would argue Germany's roads are (comparatively) safe because people don't feel the need to be above the law. This is the same reason why there is very little drinking and driving in Germany - the drinking age is so low, so there is no need to get pissed as a teenager and drink and drive later in life as a form of rebelling against authority. The world generally looks up to Germany as an example on these matters. |
| waunakonor 18.12.2012 21:11 |
Ouch, TheRealWizard, that's harsh. I'm assuming you're intelligent enough to know that generalizations like that are very rarely true. Anyway, the "jokes" about people shooting up Elementary Schools started a few days ago. Pathetic. |
| The Real Wizard 18.12.2012 21:21 |
waunakonor wrote: Ouch, TheRealWizard, that's harsh. I'm assuming you're intelligent enough to know that generalizations like that are very rarely true.I'm listening ... feel free to debunk. In the meantime, I recall nearly half the country voting Republican last time around, and just about every time.. |
| YourValentine 19.12.2012 02:47 |
I want to add another thought to the discussion. I think that there is general agreement in many countries that the administration (police, army) should have the monopoly on violence and citizens should resolve their problems peacefully. I think this general agreement does not exist in the USA to the same extend, maybe it does not exist at all. In the USA people think they have to resolve their own problems, period. There is not so much trust in the government as in European countries, for example. The idea that a school headmaster should be be armed at any given moment and she should shoot and kill an intruder is so grotesque that I do not know how to respond to that. In other countries people think about less guns in the wake of such a tragedy and not more guns. |
| Donna13 19.12.2012 08:37 |
YV, I can understand how all this would be shocking to a German. I have been to Germany in 2002, to visit friends of my family who are German. Solingen was so pristine, and I visited many other areas on this trip and found the same perfection and beauty. In Solingen the children walked through the town by themselves or with just one other child without anyone (any adult) walking them to school or worrying about them. I was so surprised to see this, I asked my friends why the children were allowed to walk alone and my friends said, "If anyone tried to hurt them, there would be plenty of other people around who could help." My childhood was the same. But at some point between the 1960's, when I was born, and today, parents stopped letting their kids play outside by themselves. I think they started to worry much more about abductions and did not want to have any worry about that at all. They wanted to know at all seconds of the day just what their kids were up to. Parents sit in cars with their kids at the end of the road where they live, waiting for the school bus and they are there again when the school bus drops off the kids in the afternoon. When I was a kid, I played outside after school with the other kids in the neighborhood, and we roamed freely (makes us sound like cows) and we could play in the street or on the side walk or in our back yards: hop scotch, roller skating, riding my bike. I had to stand with just other kids waiting for the school bus in all temperatures and weather conditions. A parent would never have dared to "cramp our style" and embarrass us by waiting for the bus with us or walking us to school. Today the kids play indoors and they have problems with lack of exercise. It is sad. In the inner city, parents are worried about children being shot by drug dealers (stray bullets) and other criminals who are capable of shooting a person for their shoes or jacket. In the suburbs where there is no street crime, parents are worried about abductions. So now that this tragedy has occurred, parents, I expect, will take matters into their own hands and will make sure security guards are hired for the schools. The kids will have to pass by a person like this (armed guard I suppose) on the way to class. I think they may already have armed guards in the inner city schools ( in neighborhoods with high crime rates). |
| waunakonor 19.12.2012 14:40 |
The Real Wizard wrote:For one thing, over half of the voters in the country didn't vote Republican. That's not including those who did or could not vote (such as me). In general, youth are somewhat overwhelmingly liberal, and you'd be somewhat hard-pressed to find a kid who thinks gay marriage is immoral, though it depends where you go.waunakonor wrote: Ouch, TheRealWizard, that's harsh. I'm assuming you're intelligent enough to know that generalizations like that are very rarely true.I'm listening ... feel free to debunk. In the meantime, I recall nearly half the country voting Republican last time around, and just about every time.. Your comment seemed to imply that you believe all Americans think in the same shallow manner, and that it's the rest of the world vs. Americans. What I was trying to say was that I assume you're intelligent enough to know that this is definitely not the case, and many Americans are capable of seeing things as they really are, and not this "it worked then so it must work now," thought process. I sure hope you're that intelligent. |
| The Real Wizard 20.12.2012 00:04 |
waunakonor wrote: For one thing, over half of the voters in the country didn't vote Republican. That's not including those who did or could not vote (such as me). In general, youth are somewhat overwhelmingly liberal, and you'd be somewhat hard-pressed to find a kid who thinks gay marriage is immoral, though it depends where you go. Your comment seemed to imply that you believe all Americans think in the same shallow manner, and that it's the rest of the world vs. Americans. What I was trying to say was that I assume you're intelligent enough to know that this is definitely not the case, and many Americans are capable of seeing things as they really are, and not this "it worked then so it must work now," thought process. I sure hope you're that intelligent.Of course I am - or at least I think I am ! The voting turnout is estimated to be 58%. Worse than Canada. Obviously not all Americans are dumb, as the stereotypes tend to say. I know plenty of great Americans. But one can't deny that it's basically two countries in one. How polarized it is. But your comments about the youth are very encouraging. |
| YourValentine 20.12.2012 06:00 |
Donna13 wrote: YV, I can understand how all this would be shocking to a German. I have been to Germany in 2002, to visit friends of my family who are German. Solingen was so pristine, and I visited many other areas on this trip and found the same perfection and beauty. In Solingen the children walked through the town by themselves or with just one other child without anyone (any adult) walking them to school or worrying about them. I was so surprised to see this, I asked my friends why the children were allowed to walk alone and my friends said, "If anyone tried to hurt them, there would be plenty of other people around who could help." My childhood was the same. But at some point between the 1960's, when I was born, and today, parents stopped letting their kids play outside by themselves. I think they started to worry much more about abductions and did not want to have any worry about that at all. They wanted to know at all seconds of the day just what their kids were up to. Parents sit in cars with their kids at the end of the road where they live, waiting for the school bus and they are there again when the school bus drops off the kids in the afternoon. When I was a kid, I played outside after school with the other kids in the neighborhood, and we roamed freely (makes us sound like cows) and we could play in the street or on the side walk or in our back yards: hop scotch, roller skating, riding my bike. I had to stand with just other kids waiting for the school bus in all temperatures and weather conditions. A parent would never have dared to "cramp our style" and embarrass us by waiting for the bus with us or walking us to school. Today the kids play indoors and they have problems with lack of exercise. It is sad. In the inner city, parents are worried about children being shot by drug dealers (stray bullets) and other criminals who are capable of shooting a person for their shoes or jacket. In the suburbs where there is no street crime, parents are worried about abductions. So now that this tragedy has occurred, parents, I expect, will take matters into their own hands and will make sure security guards are hired for the schools. The kids will have to pass by a person like this (armed guard I suppose) on the way to class. I think they may already have armed guards in the inner city schools ( in neighborhoods with high crime rates). Donna - in Germany kids are hurt, abducted, abused, killed in public places like in any other country but it is still an exceptional incidence when a child is hurt. Each time that happens we have discussions about how children can be protected more effectively but arming parents or hire armed security has never been an option. We do not have this extensive violence culture that the USA has been accustomed to live with. I think it will be almost impossible to turn around and what you say about hiring armed security only confirms that. The silent majority will not reclaim the country, instead the will turn the wheel of violence to another climax by having their children go to gun-protected schools - what a horrible idea. Not long ago NYC policemen shot 9 innocent bystanders when they pursued an armed person who had shot his former boss at the Empire State building. These policemen were professionals but they did not protect the public - they made matters worse. The society cannot win a shootout, there must be a change towards a peaceful culture. After all, most people would not want to be forced to kill another human being only to protect their own lives and familes. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 20.12.2012 06:41 |
About this 'anti-Americanism'... no country is perfect so I can't see how simply pointing out the faults of the USA makes one anti-American...though it can, of course, make others feel rather defensive. There's a lot wrong with my country, but I wouldn't consider living anywhere else because, in my less than partial opinion, the USA is the greatest place on earth - faults and all. I do think, however, the best way to show patriotism is to acknowledge the homeland's shortcomings, not to pretend the homeland is exceptional simply because it exists. Without addressing failures, how can one improve? Unfortunately, only half of those actively involved in the US political process see its imperfections. The other half is blind to progress because they see that as a threat to their ideal America (circa 1950's) where everyone celebrates Christmas, women know their place, children are seen but not heard, (Christian) prayers are said in schools, we can clearly tell the difference between "us" and "them", local news is the only news (oh. Sorry. That's how it is now, too) and, therefore, everything is right in the world. If anything, that is the biggest problem facing this country and, for that, I'd invite others to mock away, though doing so will only entrench those of that mindset even further. And yes, because of the youth, Latinos and women of this country, Obama won in an Electoral College landslide. However, he barely scraped by (considering) with the popular vote. The part of the population that gives a damn is evenly split and that is something I, as a very proud American, find stressful and embarrassing. Back to the gun debate – Obama is trying to get something done, and maybe he will succeed, but that will only address part of the problem. The mental health issue is a big – if not bigger – problem that we cannot and should not ignore. |
| Donna13 20.12.2012 08:37 |
Thanks for your comments, YV. I wouldn't describe American culture as a whole as a culture of violence. If you stick to the safer areas I think our violent crime rates are actually lower than England and Canada. I don't have a link but that was just something I ran across online a few months ago. There are certain high crime areas in this country and the extremely high number of violent crimes in those areas brings up the overall score. And I don't know how we would fix those areas. It is definitely part of the culture in those areas. My own life experience: I know people who own guns but I have never met anyone who has been hurt by a gun except for two suicides. (One of the suicides was not an American but just working here.). I really hope kids do not have to see the guns that the security guards would have (if that is the course we are on). I shouldn't have made such a bold prediction that the children might be walking by a person with a gun visible to them; this would probably be avoided in a school setting although guns are visible to children in other settings such as at the airport, etc. I can't say I ever feel relaxed in the presence of a gun. I find them to be scary objects. |
| john bodega 20.12.2012 10:13 |
Far as anti-Americanism goes, it's there for a reason. Every country - I really mean every last one - ought to be criticised for its faults, because it's all too easy to start believing your own press and imagining that the faults don't exist. I guess people give America a bit extra because they've been the top of the food chain for so long. It's not pretty, and maybe not even entirely fair in a lot of instances, but that's how it goes. If China ever really does become the big dog, I'm sure the same thing will happen. I can't help but feel like we treat countries like China and India with kid gloves because no one wants to be accused of being racist. Pff. It'd be racist, if you ask me, if we singled any one country out, but like I said - no country should be above criticism. There's a lot I wish was a little different in mine, for starters. Anyway, back on the topic of guns - I think it behooves the US to at least try some new approaches to gun control. The Constitution says 'we should have guns!' - fine. Start playing with the idea of massively cutting down on anything bigger than a handgun, or having more stringent background checks and personal references and psychiatric evaluations for people who want a gun. For people who dig recreational shooting, maybe they should be in the same league as people who like to have track days with their non road-legal cars - it stays at a facility, and you use it there only. Sky's the limit, and it doesn't hurt to try any of these things. I can envision the reaction to the first mass shooting in an America that has removed many of its guns, of course, but the guns didn't save anyone this time did they? I'm not up on the story behind each mass shooting in the last few decades, but I can't really remember any where a bystander with a weapon 'saved the day'. (I'm not being glib, by the way - if that's happened before then I'd love a link to the story). |
| magicalfreddiemercury 20.12.2012 10:28 |
Excellent points, Zebonka. I agree completely - from the top of the food chain reference to the very end. Just a point on the 'save the day' issue - after the Arizona shooting where Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot in the head, a young man who owns and carries a gun was interviewed. I'll post a link to the story about what happened but here's the most important part - == "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'" But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out. Zamudio agreed: "I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky." == Here's the full article from MSNBC - and yes, MSNBC leans far left but the facts are facts regardless which way you lean - link |
| Holly2003 20.12.2012 10:53 |
I take your point about everything else but MSNBC does not "lean far left". Just because it isn't as vitriolically conservative as Fox doesn't make it a left-wing news organisation. |
| GratefulFan 20.12.2012 11:09 |
MSNBC is without question a left leaning news organization. It acknowledges itself as such. It is at times as vitriolically and poisonously left as Fox is vitriolically and poisonously right, something that probably disappoints me more because we on the left are supposed to be the good guys. |
| greaserkat 20.12.2012 11:20 |
The thing about MSNBC is that they at least acknowledge when they are wrong. But like Holly pointed out, it is not the far-left equivalent of Fox News. The actual intelletual capacity of Rachel Maddows alone is ten times more than all of Fox News put together |
| GratefulFan 20.12.2012 11:41 |
Rachel Maddow is fucking horrid most of the time. MSNBC was one thing once, but it's another thing now. Playing the ratings game, the anti-Fox role, whatever it is the result is people like Maddow engaging in EXACTLY the kind of mocking and reductio ad absurdum positioning of the 'other side' as people like Bill O'Reilly. Who would want to be informed of anything on that basis? In their worst modes Fox and MSNBC are mirror reflections of each other, looking into the abyss and having it look back into them. It's pitiable. And sharing views and ideals from the left doesn't make it any less so. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 20.12.2012 11:42 |
MSNBC might not be as far left as FOX is right, but it is definitely left-leaning and proud of it. As for Rachel Maddow, greaserkat, I couldn't agree more. I think the woman is a genius. Love her. |
| greaserkat 20.12.2012 11:53 |
I completely agree; MSNBC is a left-leaning news outlet. I think it would be hillarious for her to go on any of the Fox News programs, especially Fox and Friends or America Live with Megyn Kelly |
| Holly2003 20.12.2012 12:26 |
I suppose it depends on your definition of left, right and centre. Remember, the centre depends on how wide the road is :) To my mind over the last 60 years or so the democrats and the republicans pretty much agree on most of the big issues -- capitalist economic system, expansionist foreign policy, and big tax breaks and subsidies for corporations,. There are some differences in domestic social policy -- the democrats are, on balance more liberal-leaning on a number of social issues, but even that is a generalisation as often you may have liberal republicans and conservative democrats, depending on the issue and what's at stake for their local electorate. Fox News is so conservative and downright ignorant and stupid on most issues it doesn't qualify in my mind as a news organisation to be mentioned in the same breath as, for example, the BBC. But does that make MSNBC left wing? Or are they just left of Fox? Or are they left "liberal" in the American sense of that term (in my view, still fairly conservative on political, foreign and economic policy)? In other words, do they advocate rolling back the capitalist state to be replaced by govt. nationalisation of healthcare, power, transport etc? Or are they only "left" on some social issues? (Question: Is there a voice on MSNBC for Palestinians? There wasn't whan I lived in the USA. Has that changed? Because in Europe one of the political identifiers of the left is a general pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli outlook. WHat's MSNBC's view on Israel these days?) |
| GratefulFan 20.12.2012 14:52 |
It's interesting as I definitely heard your initial comment from a very North America-centric cultural position. Rather than considering where MSNBC editorial opinion might sit on a globally referenced political spectrum I heard you say that Fox was ideological and MSNBC was not. I see MSNBC as politically progressive, and I see politically progressive in America as on the left of and sometimes to the left of the Democratic party. Left on social issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control and favourably inclined to expanded government roles in things like health care and the redistribution of wealth via taxation and social programs. I wouldn't say there is a voice for Palestinians in the way I think you mean it. There is no strident and rigid pro Isreali stance either like on Fox News or like they currently have coming out of whatchmacallit...that country to the north of the United States. I forget the name of the place but I'm sure most of them up there are pretty embarrassed about it. Rachel "Genius" Maddow did say something like "Ixnay on the whole ground war with Gaza thing Isreal" a month or so ago, if that's illuminating at all. In general the issue is covered comparatively shallowly relative to domestic issues with a degree of removed interest reflective of the fact that MSNBC is a progressive voice but the United States does remain an ally and supporter of Isreal. It matters less to me what they cover than the fact that how they cover it tends to leave people half ignorant and fully dug in. Multiple surveys show Fox News viewers are the least informed consumers of news, but not surprisingly MSNBC viewers are never too far behind. Generally second only to Fox, on one survey they were more likely than consumers of any other media source to be uniformed about a key aspect of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Ideological news outlets are awful places full of venom, foolishness, performing monkeys, idiocy and smugness. MSNBC is particularly smug, with Rachel Maddow the eye rolling crown princess of smugdom. As relates to engagement with issues and events, If one seriously wants to be a thoughtful, empathetic and informed person open to good ideas from anywhere you're better off soaking your head in acetone than watching Fox News or listening to "geniuses" like Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews or the departed Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. |
| GratefulFan 20.12.2012 14:59 |
MSNBC as Fox's liberal evil twin (NY Times): link |
| The Real Wizard 20.12.2012 20:46 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: There's a lot wrong with my country, but I wouldn't consider living anywhere else because, in my less than partial opinion, the USA is the greatest place on earth - faults and all. I do think, however, the best way to show patriotism is to acknowledge the homeland's shortcomings, not to pretend the homeland is exceptional simply because it exists. Without addressing failures, how can one improve?^ this is why I like you so much. |
| The Real Wizard 20.12.2012 20:54 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I'm not up on the story behind each mass shooting in the last few decades, but I can't really remember any where a bystander with a weapon 'saved the day'.It hasn't happened. If it did, the NRA wouldn't have secluded themselves into a cave. They'd be hammering this point home ad nausea. |
| thomasquinn 32989 21.12.2012 03:31 |
@Holly: It's not true that the European left is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. Aside from the fact that there are large differences of opinion within the left, most of the European left *does* support the pacifist and left-wing Israeli political parties, they (me included) just detest Likud, Israel Beithenu and it's pro-war allies. At the same time, only a small minority supports the ultra-nationalist Palestinian parties. On the whole, the European left favors a two-state solution, while the right supports a one-state solution where the Palestinians are considered Jordanians and/or Syrians. |
| Holly2003 21.12.2012 11:49 |
Just watched the most obstinately dumb and misleading press conference by the NRA which can be summed up as follows: Guns aren't the problem, people are. And Hollywood movies. And violent music. And video games. So everyone should be armed to protect themselves from other people, and every school in the USA should have armed guards. How fucked up are these people? The only interesting bit was when a protester held up a placard and due to the camera angle it looked like the NRA spokesman was saying: "NRA KILLING OUR KIDS" |
| GratefulFan 21.12.2012 12:02 |
Piers Morgan lost his shit on similar logic on CNN the other day. link |
| Holly2003 21.12.2012 13:27 |
Is that your polite way of telling me to calm down GF? :) It's a bit unfortunate that I find myself on the same side of the debate as someone as odious as Piers Morgan but sometimes even his ilk get it right. I've found it very difficult to watch any of the coverage of the massacre or the debates afterwards. Today was an exception, and I'm already regretting it. There's only so much inflexible dimness I can listen to before losing the rag. |
| GratefulFan 21.12.2012 15:22 |
No! LOL. I just thought you might find it interesting to see a fellow Brit similarly moved by the infuriating logic of the pro gun lobby. My vague sense of Piers Morgan is of somebody who had some kind of taloid career in Britain but usually cleans up well enough for CNN and looks a bit like an elf when he smiles at Susan Boyle. I didn't mean to compare you to somebody odious. You're not odious! :) Beyond the initially intended point there is I suppose some value in a cruelly neutral look at that exchange and the NRA comments you saw. Even if you strip away the parts where Piers went over the top and invites some criticism the fact is that what we have on this side is a more difficult argument to articulate. It's more complex and diffuse and when reduced to "You're all so fuckingly fucking ridiculous" it's a vulnerable one in the war of rhetoric. In the United States you don't have to be a crackpot to embrace pro gun beliefs. Perfectly normal people far more like you or I than not find logic and appeal in the idea of personal and community safety and responsible self sufficiency through private arms. The opposing argument to that is that a similar sense of personal safety and security is achieved all the time without guns for self defence in other places and that giving up some autonomy on self defence over time is worth the benefits to society and individuals alike. Whether we like it or not guns probably do prevent some kinds of crime and the significant number of people who currently perceive safety and autonomy though gun ownership live in a country unusually vulnerable to sudden public violence. It's an argument that has to be won incrementally and with patience and compromise and an understanding that convincing people to introduce an element of tangible risk in their lives to prevent a theoretical one to themselves or somebody else will have to be earned. I hope a reasonable place to start will be restricting the use of the assault style weapons and getting rid of the high capacity magazines completely. God or whoever willing. For the sake and soul of that counrty I hope so. |
| greaserkat 21.12.2012 15:37 |
This just happend a couple hours ago in Pennsylvania link |
| thomasquinn 32989 22.12.2012 02:23 |
Latest NRA brainfart: the best way to protect children from gun-toting madmen is to post gun-toting madmen at every school. Yeah, a heavily-armed janitor is a perfect solution, because they can never, ever go berserk, and if they do (which they won't ever do), they certainly wouldn't target, say, the children in the school where they keep their arsenal of guns. Seriously, how can it be that ANYONE takes these scumbags seriously? In any civilized country, they'd be considered a borderline terrorist organization or at the very least dangerous extremist nutcases. I'd at least expect the roughly 25 civilized states of the US not to pay them any attention or give them any exposure, but reality seems to hold a different opinion... |
| thomasquinn 32989 22.12.2012 02:25 |
greaserkat wrote: This just happend a couple hours ago in Pennsylvania linkI just read about it. But of course, guns still aren't a problem. The NRA will be releasing a press-statement in a week or so, when they've thought of a sufficiently crazy argument along the lines of "if the gunmen hadn't had a gun he'd have killed way more people 'cause everybody knows you can kill way more people with a knife/a truncheon/your bare hands than with an assault rifle, which is really just a piece of sporting equipment, like a football". |
| Donna13 22.12.2012 07:01 |
ThomasQuinn, I don't think the janitor would ever be armed. Maybe you are just practicing in case you are ever hired as an expert commentator for MSNBC. |
| thomasquinn 32989 22.12.2012 07:35 |
Donna13 wrote: ThomasQuinn, I don't think the janitor would ever be armed. Maybe you are just practicing in case you are ever hired as an expert commentator for MSNBC.They proposed to place an "armed guard" (their words) at every school. I don't think calling him an "armed janitor" is stretching the truth very much. It seems to me that you're looking for some flaw in my argument to latch on to, and apparently saying that the person in question wouldn't be a janitor is the best you can do. You're right Donna13, it's a guard, not a janitor. The rest of the argument, i.e. the part that matters, still stands. |
| Donna13 22.12.2012 08:45 |
ThomasQuinn, I am just teasing. It was an MSNBC joke. If you were also joking, then that was pretty good. I realize that humor doesn't translate easily. But I appreciate all attempts at it here, that's for sure. |
| thomasquinn 32989 22.12.2012 09:10 |
We can't get MSNBC here in Holland, so I'm afraid I really don't 'get' MSNBC-jokes, sorry for that. Naturally, we can get Fox News, though, which is a joke in itself. For what it's worth, I was trying to make a joke, but I do find the NRA's statement deeply troubling none the less. |
| greaserkat 22.12.2012 23:22 |
The MSNBC "jokes" aren't even funny in my opinion. The "expert" commentators are all on Fox News, everyone knows that |
| Heavenite 08.01.2013 07:34 |
Charlton Heston, who was the president of the NRA a number of years ago said they would need to take his guns away from his cold dead hands! NEWS FLASH! Charlton Heston died in 2008! Time to act! |
| Heavenite 08.01.2013 07:35 |
And here's the wiki article to prove it! > link |
| magicalfreddiemercury 08.01.2013 07:51 |
The Real Wizard wrote:magicalfreddiemercury wrote: There's a lot wrong with my country, but I wouldn't consider living anywhere else because, in my less than partial opinion, the USA is the greatest place on earth - faults and all. I do think, however, the best way to show patriotism is to acknowledge the homeland's shortcomings, not to pretend the homeland is exceptional simply because it exists. Without addressing failures, how can one improve?^ this is why I like you so much. ========== I'm just seeing this now and it made my day. Thank you. :-) |