> As Sabrina says some of them are over-17, but for the under's I'll be 
> betting on a family gun or some such. Was it Michael Moore who pointed out 
> that the majority of guns 'on the streets' in America were stolen from 
> those who purchased them legally.

I heard a lot of Americans say that they own (and sometimes carry) a gun to 
protect themselves.  But in reality, when an attacker starts shooting, how 
many members of the public are really going to get out their gun and try to 
battle with the attacker?  And do they propose that children carry guns too 
to protect themselves?

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:52:00 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:58:36 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> if I give a known
>> psychotic the means to go on a rampage in the full knowledge that's what
>> he'll do is it still all his fault?
>
> Suppose that psychotic purchased the weapon prior to their break?
>
> Or they decided not to take their medications?

OOC error, but I'll still answer. If it's the case that someone taking  
medicine is safe to own a firearm, but isn't safe if they stop taking  
their medication then the question becomes 'what's the likelihood of that  
happening?'. Think of Asimov's The Naked Sun of the three intelligences  
involved who was the real murderer?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:26:22 -0000, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did  
spake, saying:

>> As Sabrina says some of them are over-17, but for the under's I'll be  
>> betting on a family gun or some such. Was it Michael Moore who pointed  
>> out that the majority of guns 'on the streets' in America were stolen  
>> from those who purchased them legally.
>
> I heard a lot of Americans say that they own (and sometimes carry) a gun  
> to protect themselves.  But in reality, when an attacker starts  
> shooting, how many members of the public are really going to get out  
> their gun and try to battle with the attacker?

I think the 'protect' bit refers more to home defence I'm sure most States  
require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, which implies that carrying  
a non-concealed weapon is hunky-dory.

> And do they propose that children carry guns too to protect themselves?

Start 'em young. Everyone knows that the best thing for a high-pressure,  
clique-ridden situation that is found in a school is to add weapons to the  
mix.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:39:22 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:40:27 +0100, scott wrote:
>
>>> Gunshops.
>>
>> Never seen one before, I presume even if I did find one they wouldn't
>> sell one to me without me first doing some training and sanity-checking?
>
> There's a background check that's done, and a waiting period.  I don't
> believe any state has a training requirement.
>
>>  And I assume also they wouldn't sell a gun to a school kid?
>
> Parents purchase guns, parents don't lock them up properly.  Kid gets the
> gun.

Except if the purpose of the gun is home defence doesn't locking it up  
defeat part of the objective?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:02:32 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:15:50 -0000, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> Oo ar well I be in the country so we get a lot of shotguns and the odd
>> rifle. No handguns of course since the ban. Incidently we seem to be
>> getting increased reporting of stabbing incidents.
>
> Increased reporting, indeed.

Yes I chose my phrasing carefully.

> But I see little difference from when I was young.
> The media loves a panic it gives them a greater audience. Oo ar, Oo ar,  
> Oo ar :)

http://www.septicisle.info/2008/02/book-review-flat-earth-news-by-nick.html

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:36:16 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> 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.

The question of course is why? Is it a cultural shift in attitude or  
simply that such weapons are more available? Perhaps the underlying  
'panic' in the US has resulted in more people buying guns that are then  
used by their children or stolen and sold on?

> But violence is not. Especially amongst the young.

I blame these Mods and Rockers, they should be banned.

>>> 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.

Except what bias is the independent press pushing?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:53:25 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:35:40 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> it's NOBODY'S fault but the SHOOTER'S.
>>
>> yes, it's nobody's fault that a fucktwit can buy guns and get stoned to
>> death and start shooting people.  It's not his parents' fault, nor his
>> neighbors' and colleagues' fault, nor it is fault of the society he's
>> been raised in.  Let alone the government permitting fucktwits to buy
>> legal drugs and guns is at fault here.
>
> Well, we do happen to have this thing called the second amendment to the
> constitution.  You know, the one about the right to bear arms?

No disrespect aimed at Jim, but perhaps we can start a small movement such  
that the second amendment is always quoted in full rather then just a  
latter part of it

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,  
the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I know that Jim already knows the full text and I'm sure most others here  
do to, but if we all got into the habit perhaps it'll spread to the  
"fuckwits" that don't.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:18:00 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> 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.

Perhaps a study could be done into the numbers of people who emulated a  
stunt after watching Jackass compared to those playing Jackass the game.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:25:46 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>> Someone, somewhere, would make a
>> big noise out of it, make such horrid news spread.  Unless there are no
>> survivors to tell the tale...
> 
> The reach was not as great in the past as it is now.

yes, I was ready to consider that argument:  the much wider news reach 
thanks to faster technology.  I think it's a valid one.

Just consider this, though:  if a well-known serial killer like Jack the 
Ripper, who slaughtered prostitutes, was so well known, wouldn't the 
slaughter of school students make for a much wider shock?  My point is 
that criminals shooting each other or serial killers reports are 
well-documented in news and fiction even in old times, while the 
possibly much more shocking news of students being shot were not.

But I agree with you in that news were a lot less widespread then.  It 
may also be that only a few reports are memorable enough to make it 
through the ages, like Jack the Ripper or the Columbine massacre...

My gut feeling, though, is that we live in a far more cynical society 
and life is worth almost nothing.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:44:20 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

>> Parents purchase guns, parents don't lock them up properly.  Kid gets
>> the gun.
> 
> Except if the purpose of the gun is home defence doesn't locking it up
> defeat part of the objective?

Well, you would think so.  At least that's the argument that some people 
make.  Child safety locks are another option as well.

And of course storing the gun unloaded is probably a wise move as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message