Shootings in US schools

[Brianwarnock]

Hunting has been discussed many times and Col and Rich must know by now that Ken hunts on license and eats what he kills, or so he tells us , Hunting to cull is a necessity brought about by man's interference with nature and has no relationship to farming/abatoirs which may follow good or bad practice.

There are "sports" hunters and Ken knows I think they are perverts, but as hunting had its own thread it should not take over this one..

Brian

 

[Kraj]

I think there are several misperceptions going on here.

1. A lot of folks assume that if you're a hunter you must be a NRA member. I'm not a lot of my hunting friends are not.

2. If you are a NRA member, you must be a frenzied gun freak. Not so (IMHO). I'm guessing, from the NRA members I know, that most are easy going folks that simply like to hunt and/or shoot guns. It's just that it's the extremist ('frickin idiots' ) that make the headlines, etc...

Sorry if I fed the fires of stereotyping, Ken. It wasn't my intention to imply either of your points. I was simply trying to say that even the "extremist friggin' idiot" NRAers who make the headlines really aren't the problem and point out that focusing on them isn't really relevant to addressing the problem of gun violence.

 

[KenHigg]

Sorry if I fed the fires of stereotyping, Ken. It wasn't my intention to imply either of your points. I was simply trying to say that even the "extremist friggin' idiot" NRAers who make the headlines really aren't the problem and point out that focusing on them isn't really relevant to addressing the problem of gun violence.

Sorry if you felt I was doing a comeback to your point. That wasn't my intent ... I guess I was making those statements for the benefit of those out side of the US that may get select bit's and pcs of NRA related news.

I agree that hunting in general should be kept to a separate thread but it is kinda / sorta within the context of a gun control discussion... Isn't it?

 

[jsanders]

Its an American thing. Its all to do with the macho Rambo-esque, bullet-belts-over-the-shoulder, sneaking round like they're in the Vietnam jungle, then blasting something image. As long as they kill or wound something they're happy.

As I said its marginally better than murdering children, and the satisfaction of taking an innocent life is still the same I suppose.

Col

You're embarrassing yourself Col.

How can you expound, like you’re some kind of expert, when everyone here who actually knows something of the subject, is in total disagreement with your assessments?

Really, don’t you think you would be paid more attention if you at least tried to get the spirit of this conversation partially correct?

Here’s the deal

1. No one I have ever met would consider killing wild life even remotely like murdering children.

2. The Amish chose to remove themselves from modern society to keep to more healthy traditions, like family, love, honor, and equivalent. It is a great tragedy that they were targeted by a defective person from the very society they have chosen to abstain.

It must be some kind of great comfort to you and Rich that you can find so much fault in our lives, You must be able to sleep, oh so much more soundly, knowing you are superior to us in every way.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The American people in general are NOT given over to murdering children in school. This incident was (should be) an isolate case, to be considered only on its merits.

First, late-breaking reports on the killer in the Amish shootings reveals that he admitted to having molested younger female relatives when he was 11 or 12. So there is a history of sickness that went unnoticed. Second, he was apparently pushed towards the edge of insanity a little farther when his own daughter died only 20 minutes after being born. So this guy was a true whacko. When dealing with true whacko types, don't attribute their failings to those around them.

Then, let's be clear on the Amish. They live a simple life because their values are not about ostentatious living. They are not about fast cars and faster women. They are all about family, love, and forgiveness. They believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph, and they accept His son as their Savior. But they are so self-effacing that you hardly ever hear of them. Let me tell you, they are excellent farmers, builders, and animal husbandry experts. I have known a few - very few - persons who were Amish. They believe in hard work and a reverential attitude to the planet around them. They are certainly no worse than vegan-type vegetarians or animal-rights activists.

Next, the reason Americans own guns was actually in response to the excesses of the British troops who taught us the unfortunate lesson that only with guns could we repel the oppression of the Redcoat Army. Nothing else got the attention of the British governors - or the King. Then, once we were on our own, you Brits proved again that we really DID need the guns. I believe it was called The War of 1812. (I'm pleased to report that the folks here in south Louisiana gave good account of themselves at the Battle of New Orleans.) The fabric of history shows us time and again that having guns is the way to avoid many bad issues. Look at what happened in Germany in the 1930s after they confiscated privately owned weapons. Look at the invasion of Israel. Then look at the invasion of Kuwait, who didn't have wide ownership of guns.

As to gun ownership laws, it is a patchwork quilt. The U.S. Constitution merely forbids the states from outright prohibiting gun ownership, but it leaves precise interpretation of that situation as a state's right. You guys do NOT understand that the USA is LEGALLY a patchwork country. That is, each state is sovreign unto itself, but voluntarily entered into the agreement to join the USA and bind itself to the principles espoused in the constitution. That didn't mean relinquishing all state-level sovreignty. Which is why we have 50 different sets of laws on things that astound you on the other side of the waters.

Let me ask this as a hope of illustrating the principle. We refer to the United Kingdom. But isn't it true that Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the other nations have certain levels of autonomy? They have their own assemblies that can enact laws independent of the governing body of the UK as a whole, right?

Well, each state of the USA has its own governing bodies as well. What you see as bickering, disagreement, and disunity is actually part of the grand design of the USA. And sometimes it actually works. Because we aren't supposed to do ANYTHING except by consensus. It is truly sad on many levels that the 9/11 tragedy polarized us to the point that GWB could get into office and stay that way. I am hoping that this pendulum will swing back the other way soon. But until the scars of 9/11 heal, I fear that we will have a government that is still reacting to the perceived and actual threats posed by the world around us.

 

[Rich]

Next, the reason Americans own guns was actually in response to the excesses of the British troops who taught us the unfortunate lesson that only with guns could we repel the oppression of the Redcoat Army. Nothing else got the attention of the British governors - or the King. Then, once we were on our own, you Brits proved again that we really DID need the guns. I believe it was called The War of 1812. (I'm pleased to report that the folks here in south Louisiana gave good account of themselves at the Battle of New Orleans.)

Ah, so it is true that Americans want to remain in the 19th century

The fabric of history shows us time and again that having guns is the way to avoid many bad issues. Look at what happened in Germany in the 1930s after they confiscated privately owned weapons. Look at the invasion of Israel. Then look at the invasion of Kuwait, who didn't have wide ownership of guns.

What invasion of Israel, we all know about the invasion of Iraq, what the hell's that got to do with private gun ownership, are you seriously suggesting that there's a country going to invade and try and take over the Mighty armed forces of United States, absolute nonsence as an argument for retention if ever there was

As to gun ownership laws, it is a patchwork quilt. The U.S. Constitution merely forbids the states from outright prohibiting gun ownership, but it leaves precise interpretation of that situation as a state's right. You guys do NOT understand that the USA is LEGALLY a patchwork country. That is, each state is sovreign unto itself, but voluntarily entered into the agreement to join the USA and bind itself to the principles espoused in the constitution. That didn't mean relinquishing all state-level sovreignty. Which is why we have 50 different sets of laws on things that astound you on the other side of the waters.

Let me ask this as a hope of illustrating the principle. We refer to the United Kingdom. But isn't it true that Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the other nations have certain levels of autonomy? They have their own assemblies that can enact laws independent of the governing body of the UK as a whole, right?

Well, each state of the USA has its own governing bodies as well. What you see as bickering, disagreement, and disunity is actually part of the grand design of the USA.

Their own assemblies have very little power actually, anything significant is decided at national level.
As for your voluntary agreement, I thought you had a bloody civil war to force states to join The Union. Are our history books not telling us the truth?

 

[Mile-O]

Let me ask this as a hope of illustrating the principle. We refer to the United Kingdom. But isn't it true that Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the other nations have certain levels of autonomy? They have their own assemblies that can enact laws independent of the governing body of the UK as a whole, right?

Sort of.

Ireland is an independent country, and has little to do with the United Kingdom. Scotland has its own parliament, which has small power to promote its own interests - through this, we banned smoking in all public places in March of this year. The other parliament is not specifically English but governs the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. That's your Tony Bliar seat of power. Wales has even less powers, it just has a national assembly. I'm not too sure what Northern Ireland has.

 

[Rich]

I'm not too sure what Northern Ireland has.

Nothing much at the minute, the good christian folk won't talk to each other

 

[KenHigg]

You're embarrassing yourself Col.

How can you expound, like you’re some kind of expert, when everyone here who actually knows something of the subject, is in total disagreement with your assessments?

Really, don’t you think you would be paid more attention if you at least tried to get the spirit of this conversation partially correct?

Here’s the deal

1. No one I have ever met would consider killing wild life even remotely like murdering children.

2. The Amish chose to remove themselves from modern society to keep to more healthy traditions, like family, love, honor, and equivalent. It is a great tragedy that they were targeted by a defective person from the very society they have chosen to abstain.

It must be some kind of great comfort to you and Rich that you can find so much fault in our lives, You must be able to sleep, oh so much more soundly, knowing you are superior to us in every way.

Pretty darn good J

 

[KenHigg]

The American people in general are NOT given over to murdering children in school. This incident was (should be) an isolate case, to be considered only on its merits.

First, late-breaking reports on the killer in the Amish shootings reveals that he admitted to having molested younger female relatives when he was 11 or 12. So there is a history of sickness that went unnoticed. Second, he was apparently pushed towards the edge of insanity a little farther when his own daughter died only 20 minutes after being born. So this guy was a true whacko. When dealing with true whacko types, don't attribute their failings to those around them.

Then, let's be clear on the Amish. They live a simple life because their values are not about ostentatious living. They are not about fast cars and faster women. They are all about family, love, and forgiveness. They believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph, and they accept His son as their Savior. But they are so self-effacing that you hardly ever hear of them. Let me tell you, they are excellent farmers, builders, and animal husbandry experts. I have known a few - very few - persons who were Amish. They believe in hard work and a reverential attitude to the planet around them. They are certainly no worse than vegan-type vegetarians or animal-rights activists.

Next, the reason Americans own guns was actually in response to the excesses of the British troops who taught us the unfortunate lesson that only with guns could we repel the oppression of the Redcoat Army. Nothing else got the attention of the British governors - or the King. Then, once we were on our own, you Brits proved again that we really DID need the guns. I believe it was called The War of 1812. (I'm pleased to report that the folks here in south Louisiana gave good account of themselves at the Battle of New Orleans.) The fabric of history shows us time and again that having guns is the way to avoid many bad issues. Look at what happened in Germany in the 1930s after they confiscated privately owned weapons. Look at the invasion of Israel. Then look at the invasion of Kuwait, who didn't have wide ownership of guns.

As to gun ownership laws, it is a patchwork quilt. The U.S. Constitution merely forbids the states from outright prohibiting gun ownership, but it leaves precise interpretation of that situation as a state's right. You guys do NOT understand that the USA is LEGALLY a patchwork country. That is, each state is sovreign unto itself, but voluntarily entered into the agreement to join the USA and bind itself to the principles espoused in the constitution. That didn't mean relinquishing all state-level sovreignty. Which is why we have 50 different sets of laws on things that astound you on the other side of the waters.

Let me ask this as a hope of illustrating the principle. We refer to the United Kingdom. But isn't it true that Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the other nations have certain levels of autonomy? They have their own assemblies that can enact laws independent of the governing body of the UK as a whole, right?

Well, each state of the USA has its own governing bodies as well. What you see as bickering, disagreement, and disunity is actually part of the grand design of the USA. And sometimes it actually works. Because we aren't supposed to do ANYTHING except by consensus. It is truly sad on many levels that the 9/11 tragedy polarized us to the point that GWB could get into office and stay that way. I am hoping that this pendulum will swing back the other way soon. But until the scars of 9/11 heal, I fear that we will have a government that is still reacting to the perceived and actual threats posed by the world around us.

Darn - Another good one - Good go Doc -

 

[Rich]

Here’s the deal

1. No one I have ever met would consider killing wild life even remotely like murdering children.

.

How many million Americans have you met and thus are able to speak for?

You must be able to sleep, oh so much more soundly, knowing you are superior to us in every way

Not every way Jenny, just most, we aren't better than you at American football or rounders for example

 

[KenHigg]

How many million Americans have you met and thus are able to speak for?

I'm guessing a few more than you -

 

[Rich]

I'm guessing a few more than you -

I see, so just a few are representative of your "diverse" COUNTRY?

 

[KenHigg]

I see, so just a few are representative of your "diverse" COUNTRY?

That seems to be the notion you imply with W, the NRA, etc...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Ah, so it is true that Americans want to remain in the 19th century

Naw, we are firmly in the 21st century. This century has better guns. Better scopes, infra-red and laser sighting, better ammo, better coatings on the slug... why should we step back in time? Sheesh, what a STUPID comment.

What invasion of Israel,

OK, perhaps you would prefer "attacks on" Israel. Several since 1968.

what the hell's that got to do with private gun ownership

Just hang on a sec... I'll tie it together for you.

are you seriously suggesting that there's a country going to invade and try and take over the Mighty armed forces of United States

It has everything to do with gun ownership. You not only don't want to attack the USA with its powerful army, but even if you do, you SURELY don't want to try to occupy a country where everyone behind every tree could probably pick off a dozen or so of your soldiers even after the army is no longer around.

The theory is that in the ultimate invasion, even if the army didn't protect us, our own people would form impromptu militia groups that would protect the country. THAT is what gun ownership has to do with protecting the country. (At least in theory.) It is why you don't poke a hornet's nest. You don't just get attacked by a few hornets. Every last one of the hornets has a nasty little stinger and they'll ALL come after your sorry butt.

As to the Civil War - also sometimes called the War of Northern Aggression - yes, sadly it happened. We had reached a point where consensus was nearly impossible on some key economic issues. The history books correctly reported that such a war occurred. They correctly reported that many times we had fighting of brother against brother. They correctly reported that many battles were like slaughters rather than skirmishes.

I don't excuse it. It was not a pretty thing. But then, take a look at other "civil" wars. (Which by the way are rarely civil in any but the most technical interpretations.)

Look at the last 20 years. Hutu-Tutsi conflicts in Africa. Bosnian "ethnic cleansing" in cental Europe. Darfur is another tragedy derived from an ongoing civil war. The fighting still under way in Iraq is a religious-based civil war all its own.

Sometimes countries must go through the forge of civil strife to reach a new balance. As much as I deplore the killing, I understand it. I don't agree with it. I don't believe it is right. But I understand it.

It is the exact same situation that led us to do what we did in 1776. When you reach an intolerable situation because no one will listen, you start doing things that make the other party listen.

Were we wrong to rebel from King? Damfino! (Do at least TRY to hold yourself in check, Rich...) Peaceful attempts to resolve colonial issues failed, leading to the 1776 insurrection.

Were the Bosnians or Hutus or Tutsis right? Damfino! But history is beginning to say "NO." We are still too close to know all the answers, but in general it looks like it was the work of extremists who no longer cared about others.

Are the Shiites and Sunnis of today right? Damfino! Only time will answer that one. It is still too soon.

 

[Rich]

Naw, we are firmly in the 21st century. This century has better guns. Better scopes, infra-red and laser sighting, better ammo, better coatings on the slug... why should we step back in time? Sheesh, what a STUPID comment.



OK, perhaps you would prefer "attacks on" Israel. Several since 1968.



Just hang on a sec... I'll tie it together for you.



It has everything to do with gun ownership. You not only don't want to attack the USA with its powerful army, but even if you do, you SURELY don't want to try to occupy a country where everyone behind every tree could probably pick off a dozen or so of your soldiers even after the army is no longer around.

The theory is that in the ultimate invasion, even if the army didn't protect us, our own people would form impromptu militia groups that would protect the country. THAT is what gun ownership has to do with protecting the country. (At least in theory.) It is why you don't poke a hornet's nest. You don't just get attacked by a few hornets. Every last one of the hornets has a nasty little stinger and they'll ALL come after your sorry butt.

As to the Civil War - also sometimes called the War of Northern Aggression - yes, sadly it happened. We had reached a point where consensus was nearly impossible on some key economic issues. The history books correctly reported that such a war occurred. They correctly reported that many times we had fighting of brother against brother. They correctly reported that many battles were like slaughters rather than skirmishes.

I don't excuse it. It was not a pretty thing. But then, take a look at other "civil" wars. (Which by the way are rarely civil in any but the most technical interpretations.)

Look at the last 20 years. Hutu-Tutsi conflicts in Africa. Bosnian "ethnic cleansing" in cental Europe. Darfur is another tragedy derived from an ongoing civil war. The fighting still under way in Iraq is a religious-based civil war all its own.

Sometimes countries must go through the forge of civil strife to reach a new balance. As much as I deplore the killing, I understand it. I don't agree with it. I don't believe it is right. But I understand it.

It is the exact same situation that led us to do what we did in 1776. When you reach an intolerable situation because no one will listen, you start doing things that make the other party listen.

Were we wrong to rebel from King? Damfino! (Do at least TRY to hold yourself in check, Rich...) Peaceful attempts to resolve colonial issues failed, leading to the 1776 insurrection.

Were the Bosnians or Hutus or Tutsis right? Damfino! But history is beginning to say "NO." We are still too close to know all the answers, but in general it looks like it was the work of extremists who no longer cared about others.

Are the Shiites and Sunnis of today right? Damfino! Only time will answer that one. It is still too soon.

Christ it's worse than I thought you're living in the 18th century. the United States can blow any friggin country off the face of the planet it likes with it's
arsenal of military weapons, the excuse that civillians need weapons to repell invaders is rather pathetic, to say the least.
You had your civil squabble in the Nineteeth century, what the hell's Bosnia got to do with America's love affair with guns?

 

[KenHigg]

...can blow any friggin country off the face of the planet it likes with it's ...

I think SJ has established the correct spelling is with a 'ck' - It's 'frickin'. Please get it correct from now on.

 

[Rich]

I think SJ has established the correct spelling is with a 'ck' - It's 'frickin'.

Not in England it's not and although America thinks it owns the free world (in fact it thinks it is the free world) it doesn't (and isn't)

 

[jsanders]

Not in England it's not and although America thinks it owns the free world (in fact it thinks it is the free world) it doesn't (and isn't)

No but they did learn English more or less to accomidate us.

 

[KenHigg]

Not in England it's not...

With all due respect Ricky - SJ does seem to have a bit more mastery of all things intellectual, so I think we need to use his spelling as the norm.

and although America thinks it owns the free world (in fact it thinks it is the free world) it doesn't (and isn't)

Where'd that bit of hostility that makes no coherent connection to my light hearted pun on the simple spelling of a slang word come from? You hitting the bottle again?