On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:32:35 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:51:11 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>> 
>> [Snip for brevity]
>> 
>> To reply to your last point (mine) first. I think that you are right, gun laws
>> won't help. It is too late for you, (not personally) there are too many guns in
>> circulation and the belief that you need a firearm to defend yourself too
>> ingrained. To quote a long dead poet who died in a fight. Why, this is Hell nor
>> am I out of it.
>
>I disagree with the observations, but not the quote.
>
I don't know if that is an observation I thought that it was a belief. But
please correct me if you see things differently. You live there whilst I am only
an onlooker. And I don't like the conclusions that I have come to and would like
to be wrong

>The problem that I saw, first hand in the USA high school system, is
>that there is often no hope. I don't work in a school, so I can't
>observe how it's changed over time. But I did ask some others people for
>their memories of school. There have always been cliques, but it seems
>that kids have been getting more and more insular and stopped talking to
>people not in their group. Whether the 5 year olds playing team sports,
>or parents arranging strict play dates is to blame for this is another
>discussion.
>
I don't have children myself so no personal experience but the trend in the UK
seems to be going the same way.

>So kids grow up with much less of a safety net, and very few people to
>talk to when things go wrong. Take a common occurrence, a fight within
>one of these small groups of kids. One kid singled out, where do they go
>and who can they turn to?
>
>IMO, the problem isn't the guns or these kids either killing themselves
>or killing others before they kill them self. It's that these situations
>occur in the first place.
>
Some people say that modern society is changing too fast for us to adapt to it
safely. I think that this has a kernel of truth. The demise of the nuclear
family plays a part.

>> As for depression and drugs; it would probably be better (IMO) if drugs were
>> used as a last resort if at all. But then you would have to put more effort into
>> helping people which would not be as profitable to the established money makers.
>
>You haven't seen what counselors charge by the hour, have you? The drugs
>are common because they are the cheap answer, cheap enough to be
>available to the people who really should be getting counseling but
>can't afford it.

No I've got no idea at all. But surely it is cheaper for society to pay for it
than pay for the outcome. (Yes I am a socialist). Having said that I also
question the beneficial effect of counselling. In fact I think that in a lot of
cases it makes things worse. I makes people dwell on things too much. I also
think that "closure" is over rated as well. What is wrong with being sad and
letting time cure your ails rather than forcing an end to your problems.

>Or worse, is convinced that anyone who gets counseling is already too
>far gone to be helped.
>
>> "Drugs" are both fashionable and a dirty word. The easy way out until you have
>> to pay the final price and it looks like judgement day is getting closer.
>> If it is of any interest to anyone other than myself. I have turned down two job
>> opportunities to work across the pond because I don't want to put myself through
>> the hassle of living the life I see over there. Now this is not to say that I
>> haven't met many fine people from the land of the free, I have. Some of them
>> here on this newsgroup, a lot at work, some as visitors to my country etc. but
>> it seems like a society that is best experienced from a distance. 
>> 
>> Regards
>> 	Stephen
>
>Eh, it's quite fun here on a day to day basis. Lots of us don't even own
>guns, we have pets we care about, and we don't eat babies. Often.

I know, I know. Most of my working life has been working for multi national
companies. Unfortunately a lot of them were oil companies (read rednecks). I
have met and liked lots of Americans as people. As far as eating babies goes
have you tried them with sweet and sour sauce? 

>Besides that, I think there is still some hope. The violence is a
>symptom, not the problem that needs to be solved.

Good keep on trucking :)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:57:42 +0100, Vincent Le Chevalier
<gal### [at] libertyALLsurfSPAMfr> wrote:

>
>On the other hand, gun laws have to start at some point in time. If we 
>have to wait until there are no guns to ban them, it might take some 
>time indeed :-)

True.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:37:59 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:

>
>So the violence has been there for at least 30 years. That's not what's
>changed.

I suspect it is violence in the home. Not domestic violence but violence on TV
and the movies. Bang, bang you are dead. Click! You are alive again. It doesn't
hurt.


Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:03:14 EST, "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
>> No I won't. My memories may be getting on a bit but I still trust them. Do you
>> know the term "media panic"?
>
>If it's so good to get public attention, why wasn't the practice of documenting
>such school shootings as widespread in the first half of the XX's?
>
>I'll reiterate:  there's no evidence that shootings in schools happened or were
>not isolated incidents before becoming widespread after the 1990's... we're
>definitely witnessing something new here.  Some may want to live in denial,
>others have an urge to talk about it and try to do something about it.

Did I say somewhere that there always has been school shootings?
I think that you are right. It is a new phenomenon. 
But violence is not. Especially amongst the young.

>> As for documentation ha! All I will say is 45
>> minutes to mass destruction.
>
>don't trust the government, trust independent press.
>
>
I don't - I don't.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> I suspect it is violence in the home. Not domestic violence but violence on TV
> and the movies. Bang, bang you are dead. Click! You are alive again. It doesn't
> hurt.

Our grandparents and parents seemed unaffected by years of exposure to Warner
Bros. cartoons, first in the movie theaters, then in saturday morning TV.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I think that you are right. It is a new phenomenon. 

thank you.  I was beginning to question my sanity or memories...

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:38:08 EST, "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
>> I suspect it is violence in the home. Not domestic violence but violence on TV
>> and the movies. Bang, bang you are dead. Click! You are alive again. It doesn't
>> hurt.
>
>Our grandparents and parents seemed unaffected by years of exposure to Warner
>Bros. cartoons, first in the movie theaters, then in saturday morning TV.
>
>
That could be because no one could mistake bugs bunny or Popeye for real life.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:38:08 EST, "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
>>> I suspect it is violence in the home. Not domestic violence but violence on TV
>>> and the movies. Bang, bang you are dead. Click! You are alive again. It doesn't
>>> hurt.
>> Our grandparents and parents seemed unaffected by years of exposure to Warner
>> Bros. cartoons, first in the movie theaters, then in saturday morning TV.
>>
>>
> That could be because no one could mistake bugs bunny or Popeye for real life.

but they seemingly can mistake Doom or Quake monsters for other people...

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:00:05 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] nospamgmailcom>
wrote:

>> That could be because no one could mistake bugs bunny or Popeye for real life.
>
>but they seemingly can mistake Doom or Quake monsters for other people...

Could that be because they are interactive and cartoons are passive? IDK just a
guess.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

From: "John Walters, White House drug czar"
To: alp### [at] earthlinknet
Subject: Don't help the Marijuana Policy Project.



Dear alphaQuad:


the gauntlet.

I'm concerned. Last year, you and MPP made my life difficult by making Rhode

law in Vermont.



card pledge to MPP  to support the following state lobbying activities this
year.

MPP has retained professional lobbyists to pass medical marijuana bills in


coalition of medical marijuana supporters are working to pass legislation that
would prevent local and state law enforcement officials from cooperating with
the DEA in its raids on medical marijuana patients and providers.

Worse yet, MPP is spending your money to pass marijuana decriminalization bills
in New Hampshire and Vermont. Local press reports have been favorable  to the

bill by a 4-1 vote just five days ago!

In Ohio and Kansas, recipients of MPP grant money are working to pass medical
marijuana bills in both states.


bills are also pending or imminent in Missouri, Illinois, and Tennessee.





Wtih no love at all,
John Walters


with a cold heart" in his interview with the Austin Chronicle
<http://control.mpp.org/site/R?i=vO9lDycQZKaE-Z4AEbh5Wg..> in August. Who the
heck does Mr. Kampia think he is?



From: alp### [at] earthlinknet"
To: "John Walters, White House drug czar"
Subject: making your life difficult

Dear John Walters,

May you suffer to the extent you have caused others to suffer. I'll be donating
$50,000 this year. You are not only an "ugly man with a cold DEAD heart" but
the source of suffering for millions due to your insane greed.

Sincerely,
alphaQuad


Now Jim, you said you are doing something to make a difference. Try doing
something that will really make a difference. Like I am.

Post a reply to this message