English Club Chatter

It isn't always men.

In 1979 I believe, Brenda Spencer, 17, shot into an elementary school, killing two andd injuring nine others. There was a standoff and after it was all over all she had to say is "I don't like Mondays." That's where that song comes from.

I just read about the Amish shooting, and I have to wonder about how the kids will deal with that since they haven't had the exposure to this sort of thing on TV. Which, of course, brings up the point about saturated media coverage for every school shooting. It seems there is a small percentage of suicidal people out there who buy into the legend status and insist on taking people with them. Could one actually do this if they weren't in some way expecting to die, whether by their own hand or suicide by police?

These are likely people who in the past might have just carried grudges with them, singled out those against whom they have an issue, or quietly offed themselves. Clearly the media has no legal culpability, but what about some sort of slightly remorseful feeling of maybe a bit of culpability? Certainly the media is not to blame, but they don't help by plastering the histories and photographs of these horrible people all over the news for days. I have noticed that the coverage doesn't last nearly as long for shooting incidents which are deemed unspectacular, such as the Montreal shooting. This may serve to up the ante for future folk who have lost their gruntles or have some other whacko excuse for shooting defenseless people.

First of all I think the FBI statistic is still 90% of crime is committed by men, I'll have to check on it in my "spare time." However, I am actually appalled that this shooting happened. The nut job that did this did it because he had a grudge with women over something that happened 20 years ago!!! What demon (mental or real) provoked him to do this horrific act NOW? The Amish of Lancaster PA are trying to blend with our English world, but not like this. NO ONE deserves to go to school and have their lives turned upside down or taken away because some sociopath decides that they're going to get a gun and shoot people execution style. I say sociopath because of a line from a movie (The Pretender) "psychopaths don't know right from wrong...Sociopaths know right from wrong they just don't care." There's that media influence oh wait don't forget the weblog is a form of media. We can't let media off the hook, nor can we let parents of children, who take guns to school off the hook as well. Name a cameraman or anchorman that gave up their seat in a boat so that a Hurricane Katrina victim could get out of the vile water or off the roof of a building. Name a news station that hasn't swooped in like a vulture and to cover this Amish school shooting story. Have we lost our consideration of and ability to help our fellow man to who can get the story? These people (the Amish families that are directly effected) haven't even had time to get over the shock before having a microphone shoved in their face, or a reporter asking them questions for the local news.
As to Professor Hamlin's question "Is it just convenient," unfortunately in High School my friends and I discussed this, we actually thought along the lines of military strategy, NO I'm NOT on the verge of getting a weapon and figuring on hurting anyone, schools are easy targets because they are confined areas. For example, this school is sectioned off into different buildings but they have a general floor plan if a gunman wanted to all they would have to do is walk on campus, open a door to a class with, a well you get the picture, then close the door, move on to the next classroom, and so on until he is either taken out by the police or takes his own life. I was using he because of the FBI Statistic. Schools are also convenient because if someone the gunman doesn't like goes to this particular school they only have to target the schoolroom that this person is in then maybe cover his tracks by destroying a few more lives by taking advantage of the floor plan, by again opening another door. Again I say that I have NO intention of harming anyone at this school or any other school or anywhere. This is just what me and my friends discussed after Columbine and our own snowday tragedy. Now this milk truck driver one knew the area, knew the Amish, knew where the ONE Room school with no cameras was, and knew that the Amish wouldn't fight back. So he took advantage of this convenient situation to enact an act of violence that is vile, reprehensible, and EVIL. The Amish according to faith will probably forgive him, but it doesn't mean that they will forget. My main question is why after 20 years did he do this, let alone why at all? And I think that this question is the one that drives all media in these cases, the people's need/want to know WHY?

Although I haven't read about thr most recent shootings I have reed about the college incidents. I understand the statistics and the politics involved, but I don't think that the chosen areas are really a convience. I think it is more a choice due to one's past with a similiar atmosphere that may have triggered a certain thing or event in that persons life. I was taught in history years ago that in about every 4-5 generations, things and people tend to repeat. Now, there weren't mass school shootings in the pioneer days, however, there were attacks made on homes, cities and even government offices that to some reason a person felt the need to fulfill. I can't remember the title of the movie, but it stars Matthew McConnehay, as a child and grows killing people because he says God told him too...(anyone know?). But as for convience I don't really think that is the case. i don't much believe in medical mental problems...to me its just good verses evil in our hearts and minds..it is real. Some people just don't care becausse of the evil influence they have allowed to enter into their lives and with that they act upon things that seem barbaric. I don't excuse these people buy any means, but showing the pictures doesn't help our societies young minds to mature as we want them to in order to prevent things such as this. It seems more like logic than convience. In order to sell a product you will go to the people you know will buy. So then, these "maniacs" act in ways that they know will get our attention. The movies "Saw," is an example. It is twisted and thoughtless, but I almost feel the wrong people are in th insane assylems. The shootings, I am sorry to say, are not preventable, but I think we can learn to recognize a people lost in our world that may need the extra attention..remember, it's the quiet ones. We can be sure as to why they do what they do, but if it is ans was out of convience, I feel then that we need to make our schools safer then. But how?

The name of the Matthew McConaughey film was "Frailty." I guess in my rant earlier convenience is the wrong choice of word, it should be accessiblity. To make schools safer we have to make them less accessible to those who would do us harm and we have to make the choice between safety and freedom. Do we make changes that every student wear a picture identification tag everywhere on school grounds, campus, not just carry one around in their wallet. Do we put up metal detectors and have bag searches? How much security will it take to make us feel safe and when does it become overwhelming meaning that there is more security that it makes us feel insecure? When it comes to school shootings involving children, yes there are cases of elementary school shootings like in Michigan a little girl was shot by another six year old student, parents need to keep there guns locked up, teach their kids gun safety and the consequences such as things will never be the same if you pull the trigger, or if they touch that gun they will be punished, and I don't mean time outs, they don't give time outs in jail neither should parents. With adults commiting the crimes there is not a lot we can do adults have learned to manipulate, calculate, and pull the trigger without thinking to fight this people need to recognize that the big burly biker with the tatoos up and down the arms isn't always the bad guy sometimes the bad guy wears T-shirts and jeans and sits in the back all to himself quiet and avoiding everyone else. Then again the bad guy could be the most talkative person in the room wearing the business suit, and pronouncing how smart he is. There is evil influencing us everyday and the more mentally susceptible you are to evil the more evil you will cause (therefore it is in my opinion a person's susceptiblity to this influence that makes them mentally diseased/disturbed). Don't be fooled by the saying that it's always the quiet ones, although they are in the majority, it is actually people of high intelligence that commit the most heinous acts, they just lack the compassion for human life. In this case of the assault on the Amish school, this man was a truck driver one of the most lonely jobs anyone can have, he also had a predisposition of violence toward women, he was not mentally diseased, he was mentally disturbed. I only mentioned sociopath earlier because this man was a sociopath, driving truck for too long of a period made him no longer know how to interact with people, he knew it was wrong to murder/assault/etc. people, but he did it anyway, he knew that taking revenge out on women was wrong, but he wrote letters to his children and to his wife, then drove to this Amish school house let the boys and a pregnant girl go then bound the other girls legs together and executed them, then committed suicide. This was cold, calculated, and unremorseful. General sociopathic behavior for a better description we better consult the psychology or sociology department.

I know many people get heated on this subject, but wouldn't these socio-/psychopaths be far less dangerous if they didn't have guns? It seems to me almost nobody in our society needs a gun -- certainly not handguns or other weapons designed only to kill people. According to the Constitution, we have the right to bear arms. Why? The intention seems to have been so that we can rise up and overthrow the government, if we feel the need. In the twenty-first century that seems not only silly but insane. Countries all over the globe have people who are deranged, but they don't have as many Columbines as we do. Our culture celebrates violence, and our gun laws make it possible for every wacko lunatic to act out his fantasies. In Ohio we even have this ridiculous concealed-carry law, apparently based on the logic (!!) that there'll be fewer gun deaths if everyone is packing heat. NUTS!

I should point out, by the way, that one of the tragic ironies of the recent Amish school shooting is that the Amish are strict pacifists. Innocence upon innocence.

Oh, and MM, thanks for getting that Bob Geldhof song stuck in my head. It won't come out no matter what I apply directly to my forehead.

Hopefully without ruffling any feathers, is there anyone who really believes that any kind of law or legislation prohibiting guns would be followed or adhered to by criminals (people who already break laws). If we can't successfully keep illegal drugs from entering our borders and ending up in the hands of criminals, how would illegal guns be any different?
Additionally, removing a tool of violence does not remove violence, I seem to recall a group of people perpetrating a large amount of violence with nothing more than box cutters and mace. After guns would we outlaw bladed tools, hammers, baseball bats, sticks, and rocks? I am by know means an advocate of violence or guns (remote controlled death), but far too many guns have been in production for far too long to eliminate the problem with anything short of a unanimous consesus of all humans, law abiding and otherwise, that we should do away with ballistic weapons. It's not so easy a problem (much like everything else in human society) that we can just say X is the fix. Almost any topic that we've become completely polarized on as a nation (gun control, abortion, etc.) has, it seems to me, become that way because people see these things as having a clear cut solution, one way or the other (gun prohibition vs. conceal carry), when the real answer is often far more complex. I don't think that we are doing too badly on the gun topic. I happen to many gun owners who are responsible and educated about guns, and very few who are not. We have laws in place to ensure no one can buy handguns spur of the moment. Fully automatic weapons are very hard to come by (I've looked), and many school districts have strict security screening processes to limit violence as much as possible. Alas, we don't live in a perfect world, and human beings will find whatever means available to end another's life if they truly desire to. Just be glad these aren't available in the United States...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ObIl5KFc-D4

I believe that these things will continue to happen. You cannot please everyone and due to the fact that we can't, will perpetuate more problems. There is no cure to violence PERIOD. We have been at it for hundreds of thousands of years. It is all on people that cannot agree with the other. Wars, conflicts, murder and yes even school shootings will continue to plague us.

Tupac Shakur once said, "When will their be world peace? When the world falls to pieces."

Now if you want to change the outcome of these events (which we can do) then we need to start implementing classes. These classes could be anything from, what to do in the event your school is under attack to martial arts training incorporated into the schools.

Another thing to heck with gun control. Our best weapon is knowledge here people. It is what separates us from the other beasts in the world (notice I did not excuse us from beasts). So lets incorporate gun saftey in our curriculums. I know if it is taught at a young age it can be very helpful. I am a student to youthful gun control classes given by my father and I will say that I have never used one in an act violence.

Tanks for reading,

Joe

I'm not a fan of automatic weapons or handguns, but I grew up poor, and if hunting had been illegal my family would have been in deep trouble. Venison, rabbit, fish and fowl was what sustained us throughout the year. We couldn't afford groceries all the time. I'm not posting this to get any sympathy, I just know that my experience is in no way unique. The culture I was raised in was not "high society" by any means. We scraped by, and still do. So do most of the people I know, including most of my family members. So if you take the hunting tools away, (including bows, muzzleloaders, etc.) you're sending droves of people even further into the poor house.

That said, I cannot stand violence. Yes, I've shot a deer, rabbits, taken fish, but I did honor to those animals by being aware of what I was doing. It was a shared experience with my father and grandfather and it was never taken lightly. Many people think of hunters and think of a bunch of "hicks" running around in the woods like a bunch of asylum escapees. Many people don't think of a young girl going hunting with her father to sustain her family and paying homage to the forest, the elements, the spirits that are taken in order to continue living. I may be biased, but I'll pass on the McDonald's "food."

About the people who commit these crimes - the normal response is always to try and find a reason. Most of the time, there just isn't anything to find. Who can know what happens in a person's mind before, during, and (not always applicable), after these "shootings?" That's why there are people in mental institutions and these things happen - WE DON'T KNOW. We don't understand how the brain works, why people do these things. That's why they're called "senseless." We can't make sense of it because there is no sense to such things. It's something much more twisted and maybe even primal that occurs when certain people and energies come together. Most of us are not those people and will never experience such a situation and that's a part of it too. We look for so much and want to understand but we don't want to enter into these dark places before "bad" things happen. We don't see until we have to, and that's not good for anyone. Especially those who pay with their lives.

Also...

it's gross how it's the children who so often pay for the mistakes of adults.

And this is for you Jim
"and you can see no reasons
cause there are no reasons
what reason do you need to be shot?"

All I need to remember is 7, 13, 7, 8, 12. According to www.cnn.com those are the ages of the girls who died.
In the Bill of Rights the second ammendment was meant specifically for hunters and minute men/town militia. These were the only authorities at the time, and it was one of the only ways to get meat especially in the winter time, the founding fathers never imagined people using a AK 47 to take down a rabbit. I believe that military weapons should stay in the military and those who are responsible and educated in the PROPER use of guns should handle them, I will not own a gun in my life, but I'm not going to take the right to own one away from someone who is educated in its useage AND its consequences. We just have to remember that we have the right to bare arms, it doesn't say that we have the right to bare arms and shoot people.
Also I wonder if Cain were alive today what would he say to what he started by killing his brother Abel?

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

In 2003 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,136 gun deaths in the U.S:

16,907 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,920 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
730 unintentional shootings (2% of all U.S gun deaths),
347 from legal intervention and 232 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).

Most suicides in the U.S. are committed with firearms.

While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.

A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
Among 26 industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/whocont.htm

I think people ought to consider not having handguns in their homes unless they are sure that no one in the house or who enters the house will ever have a moment of suicidal thought. No one can possibly gauge what thoughts and rash decisions children and teens will make every day of their lives. I'm not finding the statistic that says how many lives are saved by having handguns in the house or ones allowed to be carried by non-law enforcement people.

Certainly there must be reason why we allow handguns or why people insist on legally owning them, but "because it is my right" and 'for my family's protection" do not seem the best arguments. When things go wrong, they do so quickly and violently. How many people ultimately regret having had a handgun in their homes? Do you feel lucky?

Thanks, Stats, those are very useful figures. Nic and Joe, I just don't buy the arguments. OK, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But with guns, people kill MORE people. Wouldn't it be rather more difficult to injure/kill 10 or more people with a boxcutter, especially if you're not flying at so many thousand feet? And I'm also not convinced by the argument that since criminals aren't going to be too worried about illegal guns, regulation won't solve the problem. As Stats shows, most of the crimes we're talking about are not committed by "criminals" but by "ordinary" people who snap. Many of them seem to have home arsenals, so when they go on the rampage, they can do horrific things. Perhaps it wouldn't make sense to ban all firearms. As Monica says, some people who live in the country do need a rifle to hunt. But I have no trouble with banning all handguns, automatic weapons, or anything other than standard hunting equipment. And regulate it heavily (no weapons sales at K-Mart). Sure, some crooks would still get their hands on such stuff, but there would be TONS fewer kicking about. And look to other countries. If you look up the stats, this country is simply crazy in terms of gun deaths. This means it's not a natural or unavoidable phenomenon, it's a specific part of U.S. culture. Which means it can be changed. I grew up in Canada (lived there for almost 25 years). Not a single person I knew owned a gun. Not one. Who would need one? Down here everyone seems to have them; some have whole arsenals. So surprise, surprise, the rate of gun deaths is through the roof. To me this just seems like a problem with an obvious solution that no one is willing to admit. Why? The NRA is a massively powerful lobby. Guns = money (for the gun companies). And guys like waving around things that are long, pointy, and powerful. Yeesh.

Ok, I have finally heard about this Amish thing on the news. Yeah, I still stick to accessibility and not convience. I fyou listen to the journalism of the whole thing, this individual not only had a seemingly bad childhood, but he also confessed in his last letter of things he had done to whatever family members in the past. It may seem, in this case, this act of, believe it or not, potential human behavior for almost anyone, was an act of regret and he felt that these children depicted to replica of his past, and therefore wnated to totally delete that era in his past....but that still leaves another question; why these specific children? What possible religious background did he have that he targeted the Amish? Is it maybe even a small, yet inavertably repeat of the American Revolution...could the people we classify as "psycho" simply be a foreshadow of what is to come for our nation? Remember, we take advantage for a lot in this day and age in America.

Since we love stats and real world information, here is some information about gun laws and statistics in other countries (where, I might note, gun ownership has not been as widespread as it is here) and some information about crimes involving the use of weeapons that are not guns:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5032974.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5256612.stm

Moving on, HH your "obvious solution" is flawed. Illegalizing all guns or certain guns will create a new class of criminals overnight. These are people who (for good or bad), believe that their gun ownership is a part of their life and expecting them to turn in illegalized weaponry because of new legislation would be like expecting someone to give up a certain religion or lifestyle if legislation outlawed there practices. I stick by my statement that we CANNOT solve the problem with legislation alone unless there is an agreement among enough people, and that just isn't realistic at this time in our country. We could change the definition of what is and isn't a legal arm to bear (I know I'm not allowed to own a patriot missile or a .50 caliber machine gun, for example), so we wouldn't have to amend the Bill of Rights for that, but how would we ensure that everyone turned in their newly illegalized guns? House to house weapon searches? That hasn't worked in curbing violence in Iraq. Would these types of searches fall under illegal search and seizure? If not, would we then allow our law enforcement full access to anyone's home at any time to look for illegal drugs, illegal cable, illegal downloads, illegal documents/literature, stolen goods, etc.? Where does the line get drawn? How do we enforce these kinds of laws? If we don't know, then aren't we better off, NOT enacting these legislations until we do have answers? Or do we give up our privacy rights to a police state to ensure that no one has the capability of violence outside of beating someone with a toaster or just having really big hands? Hell, you could stab someone to death with a pencil, if you really cared enough to get the job done. A good slingshot and some ball bearings can be as effective as a bullet. And what about improvisation? A tube, some powder, ignition, and a ball of metal are all that makes up a muzzle loader. So, until we can get some satisfactory answers, isn't it better to stick with what we have, which (while not as perfect as the world some of us think we have the answer for) is NOT complete anarchy?

Well, I was just trying to say we could come up with a better solution than making ourselves defensless. The 2nd Amendment was set up for reasons other than "Hunting". It was set up as a means of personal control of our own constitution. It is true that there are more rifles and handguns in the hands of civilians than our military. The reason this is, because if we ever lost complete faith in the system of government we have, we could form a resistance to oppose the military forces.

Coupled with that is our current situation with the War on Terror. We have found ourselves in a world in which anything might happen. I hate to say it, but the status of these smaller countries gaining their Nuclear freedom could pose problems. For instance, we are trained in basic to be concious about the size of possible threats. China being one of these countries has roughly 7,024,000 troops to our 2,361,289 troops (wikipedia). Those numbers are pretty frightful should these people ever get upset with us, good thing we own guns in America. That way we can defend ourselves in the event of an invasion (of any kind).

Canada has some pretty good laws against weapon use, including the ban on using mace or pepper spray on humans as an act of self defense. They also have strict policies on owning handguns. They have a policy in which the people who do own weapons have to register them with the "Mounties". Furthermore it is as well illegal to own any fully automatic weapon or assault rifle there. Or to travel there with them. The list goes on and on with what is exactly illegal. On the numbers of suicide and homicide, Canada has alot fewer people than the United States. The Numbers in Canada estimate 32,623,500, while the U.S. population is at a 299,903,131. Naturally we have more guns and it is probably safe to say more crime.

On the case of Arsenals, my family has a pretty good stock (all legal mind you). Now I will not get into specifics, but there are some assualt rifles. My family has no intention of going out and committng these vile acts. We have a great deal of respect and honor for all living things. It is not fair to say that people with an arsenal are the ones that go out and do these things. The only people my family has killed, is in the various wars our country has had to fight to keep our freedoms alive. You guys know what, guns had alot to play in those wars. I know its sad and people die that arent suppose to, but it happens and it is something that we created these things for.

My final thought is this, If you don't want people killing people, then we must find a way for every person to agree about religion, abortion, international trade, health care, drug policy, and any other type of thing we may disagree on. Hey if you do that though it will destroy the very reason we post here. We won't have to worry about are arguments anymmore YAY.

America Prevails,
Joe McGregor

Hmmm. At the risk of angering the McGregor's (I'm thinking of that arsenal!), isn't your argument just a version of the old slippery slope, Nic? Surely legislation doesn't necessarily have to turn the country into something out of "Escape from New York" overnight? Sure, there are practical problems, and no one wants a police state with house-to-house searches, but couldn't limits be placed on manufacturing? Or couldn't laws be changed for new gun sales? How can we go on with the status quo? When faced with a shooting like the one in Pennsylvania, do we just say, a la Rumsfeld, "stuff happens"? It seems to me if there's a problem, we ought to work to fix it. America is far and away the most gun-crazy country among the developed nations (a wobbly term, I know), and I don't see any reason for it. Are we really thinking we need to preserve our right to rise up and overthrow the government? Last time that was tried was back in the 1860s, and it didn't turn out terribly well. The Democratic process seems a safer bet.

What do the rest of you think out there? Am I the only one who's happy not having a gun? Is it because I've been brainwashed by sinister Canadians? Should I install a gun-rack in my Civic?

I don't own a gun, and as I said earlier in the thread, I don't like guns, but I wasn't arguing that Escape from New York was imminent if there was new legislation. I was arguing for what you've just gotten to. An end to the kind of thought that they should just be one way or the other. A slow change over time that I rarely see in the arguments in today's politics. Maybe now we can talk about some practical ideas. Limits sound like a very reasonable place to start, and no Civic should be without a gun rack whether guns are in it or not.

Where to begin? There are a few things easy to be smart about, like “Knowledge/learning/education can be dangerous too, so dangerous that Socrates was forced to commit suicide. (Unfortunately, very dangerous for those poor Amish people.) Should we stop all education?” I hope not. And yes, if it weren’t for guns, people couldn’t kill people as easily as they do, but not all weapons are bad. And people will always find ways to murder. As it has already been rightly said, it is a very complex situation that will take a lot of time to work out, if it ever will. Isn’t that why we are still dealing with it? Perhaps it is an apathetic outlook, but, bringing it back to English, I have to agree with Vonnegut in Slaughter House 5 when he says that these things (war/killing/violence) will always be a part of life. But I want to bring a new and probably even more controversial topic into the discussion. Why does it seem to me that most of the people who are for firearms (as a way of protection, or even for hunting I suppose for that matter) are the “conservative, right-wingers”? Am I wrong about this? These as well are those who usually align themselves with Christian values. I think this seems to be the pattern, correct me if I’m wrong, and yes I know that there are exceptions… But for the most part, this seems to be the case. Now, in both “reasonable” excuses for owning guns I think that Christians should have no need. For starters, Jesus says that we do not need to practice self-defense, for not only will He protect us, but also avenge us, and His will shall be done, yes? In terms of hunting, Jesus also says that just as God provides for the birds in the trees, which He doesn’t care about as much as us, He will therefore certainly provide for us. So are there any thoughts on that? I look forward to hearing another possible side. So, another topic branching from this… why are people so easy to seemingly conform with whatever the rest of their party believes, maybe certain characteristics just clump together based upon the foundation of your beliefs, but it doesn’t seem to me that people think about what they always support. Anyway, I hope that all of us are broadening our thinking on these topics instead of becoming stauncher in what we already think.

I don't have anything meaningful to add to this discussion.

I own a couple guns.

Sorry to everyone who wasted valuable moments of their life reading my pointless nothing. You'll never get those seconds back.

I guess I just wanted to fit in.

I've been reading the arguments with great interest here, and I'm not sure that I'm necessarily for or against either side. I'm not ambivalent, but perhaps just confused. I don't have much personal experience with guns myself; however, after a prowler nearly followed me into my apartment in Columbus one night a few years ago, my ex- boyfriend (key-word EX) bought a gun. I did not trust him with a gun, and I didn't like having one in the house, so I ended up ending the relationship and moving out of our apartment. My current boyfriend, on the other hand, grew up in the rural south and has had much experience with guns, including lots of safety training and close supervision by his father, as well as military experience. He took me to a shooting range once, and I felt simultaneously empowered and quite frightened. My common sense tells me that I don't really need a gun in Galion, Ohio to keep me safe, and we don't keep one in the house- but if I lived in Columbus still, I might feel safer having one available, and I do like knowing how to use one.

My point is, I trust certain people with guns and others I don't. It seems to me that the argument lies less in the particulars of gun control and more in the type of behavior that fosters violence in humans, especially Americans. As others have pointed out here, and as Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine rather starkly and compellingly put it, doesn't our culture of fear, most notably exploited by the media, contribute to the proliferation of violence? What about the tendency of these things to take place in schools? High school for me does not bring memories of happy times but angst and frustration, as it does for many, much less stable people than myself. What makes high school a bad experience for some? Hormones, capitalism, lack of parental guidance and understanding- any of these things. It seems to me that until we address the things in our culture, such as fear mongering, implicit class structures, erratic human tendencies, and all the other things that might push people off the deep end, we can't end violence. It strikes me as counter-active to attempt to eradicate guns without addressing why we all tend to feel like we need one.

I think it also important to note here that people who go on shooting rampages are not representative of all gun owners. It's easy to assume that people who support the second amendment are gun-toting, wacko-lunatic Bush voters, but the truth is most people who own guns (in my experience) are sane enough and trustworthy enough to exercise their second amendment right with a fair amount of discretion- God knows I would never date someone who voted for Bush. (Having said that, I absolutely see no need for conceal-carry laws- that's just going too far- but then again I haven't actually met anybody that carries a gun around with them). It's also easy to imagine that these people are crawling out from under rocks in lots of different places. But these occurences are like plane crashes- they don't necessarily happen that often, but they get so much coverage and create so much fear that it's hard to think they aren't happening all over the place.

I agree that Nic's argument was on the extreme side, but it's also not likely that the second amendment of our Constitution is going to get repealed anytime soon. So, shouldn't we get practical and change the kind of argument we need to have about guns from political to psychological and sociological?

Ok, well, there seems to be a bias for guns here. Well, I will say that I agree with Trish...I am neither for or against guns. Will our people or government ever amend the 2 amendment...honestly, I don't ever see that happening. I don't think guns are a God given right, but our government does allow it, and our founding fathers inked in that the people have the right to beaar arms...(obviously not to kill innnocent people), but rather to defend ourselves should our government ever try to rule us in a dictatorship or what have you. No. The gun problem will never cease. HH, I also do not own a gun. I am neither proud of that nor saddened by that. If I would ever need one...I doubt I could find it in my heart to harm another human, God's child, phisically. Oh, and HH, if you so choose to ever get the gun mount in your car, make sure you have your concealed licence. I am curious everyone..who all here has the concealed weapon licence? And if you do, for what purpose? (maybe that will help out in this topic of concern).

I think the developing complexity of our discussion here is really useful. I still lean toward the anti-gun side, though. I don't think I would feel safe owning a gun. And I don't want to shoot anyone anyway (crook or no crook). Besides, you all are saying that you can kill people in so many ways -- if I'm attacked, I'll just go after my attacker with a spoon or a large dictionary.

In response to Chris's comments and Trish's follow-up, I'm also interested in the fact that schools are so often targets. It may be, as Angela said a while ago, that this is partly convenience. But I suspect schools and those in them are also the focus of hostility and resentment for some people. Thinking of Columbine, the high school experience can be intensely alienating for some (I sure wouldn't want to relive my high school days!!). And maybe colleges represent opportunities that some feel they've been denied? Maybe they represent other things too.

There's also a gender issue here, at least sometimes. The attacker in Pennsylvania shot and killed only girls. The shootings at Laval University in Montreal some years back targeted only women. This adds a whole other dimension.

And the relationship between attitudes to and ownership of guns and political affiliation is fascinating. Do gun owners tend to be conservative? Do conservatives tend to own guns? Is it that both tend to be prevalent in the country, whereas cities tend to be more liberal? Sort of weird, though, that "conservatives" would defend the right to bear arms, which is based on a radical and revolutionary philosophy. I haven't even got to the Christian issue. Very interesting.

Drawing from my own experience, (hunting aside), I have had my share of "stalkers" and also had someone try to break into my house when I was thirteen. I never even considered going after them with silverware or books ;)
I'm not a fan of handguns or the like, but when your personal safety and that of your family is threatened in those ways, you're not thinking of the morality of the situation. You're thinking of how to protect yourself and the people you love. I've never owned anything other than hunting tools, but I've seriously considered it. When you're the hunted, things tend to change, and they should. There's a reason we have survival instincts, and when they are "triggered" it can be a positive thing. But I chose not to go the handgun route. It's just not something I would do, unless I had a family I was solely responsible for. At the time, it was just me, and that was different to say the least. But the "law" just doesn't do much before and often during those types of altercations. I trust myself with a firearm before I trust the system with, well, almost anything. That's just the way it is. And for the record, I'm not anything resembling conservative.
I'm not going to touch the Christian issue with a twenty-foot pole. At least not yet. We'll see how it goes...

As disturbing as this topic is I'm going to make it even more complex. One I do NOT own a gun and I will never seek one out, I'll just call my hick cousins if there is trouble. Yes I'm an educated hick go ahead get your laugh on at the oxymoron. However, we "hicks" don't always run for a gun when there's a problem, sometimes we use baseball bats. Like it has been said over and over on this blog there are more ways than one to kill/murder/maime another human being.

A possiblity of the resolution of the second ammendment could be that psychological exams be established to determine if someone is legally sane enough to own a gun, although there are flaws with this idea, I can already see the tempermental blogs on this, but hear me out. This would help determine AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE whether a person is suicidal or homocidal. Yes things could change after purchase but there is a possibility of a heads up in this idea. Plus it couldn't hurt if people had classes on the responsiblities of owning guns, and respect for human life, BEFORE owning/purchasing gun(s), but we have to take responsible action in seeing that these new ideas would be adhered to. Would they? Probably not, since not everyone likes psychologists, you know people who actually need them like Tom Cruise.

Oh and saying that we need to rely on God to provide for our daily food, is more of the Janist approach that you cannot pluck an apple from a tree because it would cause harm to the tree, but if the apple fell to the ground you could eat it, but becareful not to harm the worm eating the apple. Not to forget the Amish culture is Christian and they hunt with guns, I know this for a fact because one of my Amish friends was accidentally shot with buckshot in the eye while hunting, he's fine but a little more careful when hunting.

Also it would be illegal for the police to search a person's home for illegal weapons without a warrant. Police/Prosecuters/Judges/Juries cannot find you guilty for owning a gun prior to changing any specifics of the second ammendment. I forget the actual legal term, but my one cousin purchased LEGALLY an assault rifle that is now illegal, but because he has the receipt of purchase that gives the date as prior to the chane in the law that made this gun illegal he can't be charged for possession. Not only does he have a gun collection he has taught his kids how to shoot, but has made it explicitly clear that they are not to touch the guns without his permission and if they did they would be punished, and I don't mean no Playstation for a week. His boys fear and respect guns and will not touch them without adult supervision, and they will only shoot at targets NOT humans when he is with them. He also keeps the guns LOCKED UP, but he doesn't conceal and carry. I truly believe that gun EDUCATION and evalutation of owners is necessary.

Oh by the way take a look at Switzerland the neutral country. Guns abound there but their laws are stricter than ours. But their government also takes care of their citizens, our government is questionable.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%28switzerland%2Bgun%2Blaw%29&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html

On the matter of guns and Christians, has anyone else notice that one of the things that seems to have mesmerized the media about the Pennsylvania shootings is that the Amish completely reject vengefulness? The grandfather of one of the murdered girls was on TV last night saying he had already forgiven the killer, and the reporters are clearly at a loss. Gee, real Christians. How odd!

"Why a spoon? Why not an axe?"

"Because it's dull you twit, it'll hurt more."

Although, I recommend you stick to the dictionary or a complete Shakespeare, HH. That's the only thing I'll be using mine for. I never intended for any of my arguments to seem extreme. I was just trying to address potential problems with taking either extreme to answer the problem.

Ouch! There's no need to drag me into this, Nic. Maybe you should hit your burglars with your Magic: The Gathering volume?

Have to return to this. I find it nearly hypocritical. The posts in this thread began to criticize a lifestyle some choose not to understand. Pulling out the willful ignorance to assimilate towards the groups ideological preference. MM's post was very thoughtful and was one of those 'now wait one minute'gestures. However, it was overlooked and ignored. Ignominious apathy? Does it take a tragedy to bring down those ideological walls? If it does, then is there not a thread of shame?

This leads to the same 'Israel vs. Palestine' divide. A simplicity based on ideology. Sure, coexistence is preferred. But I cannot believe annihilation is as well. In my spare time I try to catch wind of what is being thrown around in the ideological divide. Every once in awhile I come across a meaningless petition that is titled "Professors against Israel' or something along those lines. I can't help but to shake my head in disappointment. Is the creation of this stance and divde any different than racism, sexism and the like?

Of course, HH stepped in to pull the 'now wait one minute' card. (Applause). He is the educator not the petitioner of a brand of ideology (as far is evident). When I see a petition or a lecture that clearly plays upon ideology I cannot help but think there is an effort to aggrandize ones name and standing by propagating their stance. Thus creating a divide which leads to the willfully ignorant statements against a set of people or beliefs that we do not care to understand. There is no challenge in that. we are all connected. IF it is ideology that connects us it is also what divides us. This is not conducive to civilization. Leave it to the two faced politicians who in reality can care less about you or I.

In reference to the first paragraph>>>make that the previous thread.

Confusion as usual. I assume the lifestyle referred to in the previous post is conservatism.
So, I guess we're back to that vague rhetoric in which things are said but it is difficult to ferret out the context or the meaning contained in the allusions and references. The assumption that anything in these posts is overlooked and ignored is based on what? Often we don't comment on things with which we agree because it is often redundant. The ideological walls are what exactly? More information.

in respone to jim....No no. It has nothing to do with conservative vs. liberalism. That’s not the point at all. Those sort of labels propel us to think one way or the other and to believe one idea without contemplating the others. Shed the labels and we can understand other cultures, lifestyles, each other and so on with some ease. If we look past the fact that the Amish are simply conservative (I don't think that is arguable) then that life they live becomes easier to understand (in other words...they don't just "smell bad"), though we may not agree with it.

Apart from that. There have been many females throughout our history (local and beyond) that have committed 'egregious crimes'. They are just smarter than the men that do.

Oh, you were referring to the Amish. I was being facetious about the conservative reference because it had been some time since most of the Amish focussed discussion. Nevertheless, it was unclear what exactly was being addressed, especially since the conversation had shifted into gun control mode.
It is still unclear to me what was meant by "the willfully ignorant statements against a set of people or beliefs that we do not care to understand" That is quite an assumption in the context of the conversation about the Amish people that has occurred in the blog. I don't see an absence of caring at all, and I also sense a willfull bent toward becoming more educated on the matter. And as far as willfull ignorance, that's another thing I see in society at large, particularly those who label themselves as fundamentalists or today's version of conservatives or skinheads, but I'm not really seeing that here.

Here's where our labels break down. Are the Amish conservative? Certainly in so far as some of the Ordnung requires them to maintain a lifestyle that seems ancient. On the other hand, as I pointed out a while back, this lifestyle was only adopted in the late nineteenth century, as a reaction to modernism. So they weren't so much conserving a lifestyle they were living as adopting a new one that was consciously reactionary (anyone seen the movie "The Village"?). And are they conservative in the political sense? They generally don't engage in politics at all, so I don't think the term applies. Some of their beliefs might mesh with current Republican views, but others would seem more compatible with those of Democrats. Some are even communist (small c), based on the condemnation of private property in Acts. They're really outside of our handy Left-Right, Liberal-Conservative, Democratic-Republican scale, which is one reason, I think, people have been so fascinated by them. And of course you can't talk of the Amish without talking of religious belief, which is what governs everything they do. You could label this an ideology, I suppose, but I don't know as that's helpful. When a woman tells a reporter that forgiving the murderer of their children is not only possible but essential, because they are filled with God and God calls for forgiveness, how do you position this on our political scale?

Consciously or subconsciously don't we tend to label pretty much everything? Even if we say we refuse to label something, doesn't that sort of label it anyway? To simplify the solutions of major issues it is suggested that we don't label and that we try to understand different cultures. Naturally it would be impossible to even approach an understanding of most of the cultures and subcultures in any society. I have a rough enough time trying to understand my own position in the American Cult. Of course it's easier to accept what is shown us concerning people, places, politics, religions, etc. that many of us will never visit. This relieves us of the burdensome responsibility of caring. In the hearts of many thinking citizens in any country, there must be an understanding that people are people no matter in what kind of society they exist. Is it a particularly American phenomenon that so many of our citizens just don't give a crap about anything that doesn't directly affect them? Obviously the business honchos (label), the government and the media don't go out of their way to have it be any other way.
And hey, I find my neighbors fascinating because their lifestyle is such a drastic departure from anything I could ever imagine for myself. To sit on my deck and watch four big-ass horses working in my backyard, is to behold something that could never be described accurately. Not only the act of farming playing out in front of me, but also my perception and analysis. Even with all the films and books about people who choose to live in a lifestyle similar to that of my neighbors, I can always come closer to my own form of understanding through observation and interaction. What makes the incident in Lancaster so difficult for me is not so much the perceived innocense, the non-violent quaintness, and the seeming unquestioning willingness to forgive, but what makes it so difficult is that whenever I see any of my neighbors' children I cannot help but smile and wave. Yes, I have labeled them adorable.

I haven’t been able to respond in a few days. I see that there has been a misunderstanding in what I earlier said, which in itself is understandable. I think someone tried to say that I was thinking of Jainism, but incorrectly said Janism (if there is something called Janism, and I don’t know what it is, I’m sorry). I see the confusion, but what I was saying was not a matter of being non-violent, which is what motivates the Jainists. I was talking more about not feeling obligated to take care of yourself, but having faith that God will take care of you. Not expecting apples to fall from trees (which Jainists don’t), but more like manna from Heaven (not literally). I know it was a stretch, but I wanted to bring something new in. So, I hope that’s all clear.

So what about assault rifles? (Isn’t assault a crime?) They aren’t for hunting, and they aren’t for personal protection, and I don’t know for sure, but I doubt they are allowed to be carried with a concealed carrying license, if you could easily conceal one, haha. So do we support those who just love the “art” of ammunition, and like to shoot big guns in their backyards? (I’m beginning to agree with Dr. Hamlin’s idea of men and their big pointy toys.) But what are those responsible ones really hurting? Yes it’s unnecessary, but so are a lot of things. I guess that we have to remember that we’re all in this together, and we don’t all agree, so there will always be problems.

Drivers of automobiles also kill loads of people. Some of these are also pointy toys.

No ouch intended, Billy Shakespeare, I thought you had a sense of humor. Don't tell me we've been reading humor into some of your works only to find out you don't have one. I actually enjoyed Much Ado, and I'd be disappointed to find out you weren't funny, but were actually just a bad writer.
Besides, the box my MtG stuff is in would be way more awkward to hit someone with than your collected works or a chair or a Swiffer(TM) handle.

What's not comfortable about marrying young and having 5 children, growing old and so on..ummmm...nothing if your AMISH. ...on the other hand..I think I have to agree with mature butts post (2nd above). here here. good thread.