On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:17:02 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

> 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, 

None taken.  My comment about the 2nd amendment was in the form usually 
cited by members of the NRA and gun owners.  They *do* conveniently leave 
out the rest of it.

> 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.

Here's the funny thing about it (and it just struck me) - the same people 
who say that the 2nd amendment allows them to own guns "just in case the 
government gets out of control" are the SAME people who say they have 
nothing to hide from the government, so of course we should let them tap 
our phones in order to catch "the terrorists".

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:49:44 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> 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.

Good, we've found something to agree on.

> 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.

Well, I don't know how long it took for the stories about Jack the Ripper 
to spread - do you?

Keep also in mind that JtR's targets were in a large city - more rural 
areas would have had much less coverage.  If Laura Ingals Wilder had shot 
up her schoolyard, we might well not have heard of it, partly because it 
was a rural area, and partly because small towns tended to not talk about 
serious things like this happening with outsiders.

> 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...

Yes, I think that's probably the case.  After all, before I mentioned the 
shooting in Wisconsin, had you even heard of it?  Or the one in Scotland?

Yet you know the names Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold - but not Barry 
Loukaitis.

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

Well, for some people, that's certainly the case.  But I think the 
majority (if not the overwhelming majority) does have a healthy respect 
and value for life.

The thing is, we - as a people - tend to overreact to things, especially 
here in the US.  One crazy guy fails to blow up a plane using a shoe bomb 
(which some have argued couldn't have worked regardless), and now 
everyone who boards a plane has to take their shoes off.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:02:05 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

> 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?

Weapons purchased prior to their diagnosis is what I was talking about.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:17:02 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>

> Here's the funny thing about it (and it just struck me) - the same people
> who say that the 2nd amendment allows them to own guns "just in case the
> government gets out of control" are the SAME people who say they have
> nothing to hide from the government, so of course we should let them tap
> our phones in order to catch "the terrorists".
>
> Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
>
> Jim

I think they refer to it as "logical bi-location".  Once you've been conditioned
to believe in miracles you can believe ANYTHING.

With Best Wishes for progress toward a sane and rational world,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yes, I think that's probably the case.  After all, before I mentioned the 
> shooting in Wisconsin, had you even heard of it?  Or the one in Scotland?

so many shootings.  I only really remember the Columbine one.  I 
remember though that since then it's become quite routine.  Like I said 
before, people adapt to such horror situations and let their hearts go 
cold:  oh, so what, another shooting?

The first time it's shocking, the others not so.

> The thing is, we - as a people - tend to overreact to things, especially 
> here in the US.  One crazy guy fails to blow up a plane using a shoe bomb 
> (which some have argued couldn't have worked regardless), and now 
> everyone who boards a plane has to take their shoes off.

well, that's news to me.  So, no one dies from a bomb anymore, just for 
smelly feet?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:55:31 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>
>> But violence is not. Especially amongst the young.
>
>I blame these Mods and Rockers, they should be banned.
>

Before my time, just :)

>>>> 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?

The second "I don't" was for the  independent press :)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:46:29 -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.
>
Naturally, you usually do, I think. 

>> 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
>
Part of the artical reminds me of a story I heard years ago when I was working
for the Daily Record (I was young in those days). The Sunday Post printed a
story about a baby who woke up his parents during the night and they found that
the house was on fire. "Hero Baby Saves Family". The Record sent a reporter
round to the house to do a follow up. When he arrived and asked the young father
about it, he said that he was the baby and the story was twenty years old. 
If it sells then print it.


Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Feb 2008 13:29:58 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>Here's the funny thing about it (and it just struck me) - the same people 
>who say that the 2nd amendment allows them to own guns "just in case the 
>government gets out of control" 

I thought that it was in case those Brit visitors aren't really tourists :)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Feb 2008 13:38:02 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>Well, I don't know how long it took for the stories about Jack the Ripper 
>to spread - do you?

Fast in London, I believe

>Keep also in mind that JtR's targets were in a large city - more rural 
>areas would have had much less coverage.  If Laura Ingals Wilder had shot 
>up her schoolyard, we might well not have heard of it, partly because it 
>was a rural area, and partly because small towns tended to not talk about 
>serious things like this happening with outsiders.



Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:36:40 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:

>
>Hmm, I thought the observation was that it is too late. Or the
>observation of the facts that lead to you having that belief.
>

No it is only an opinion (I have a black belt in nitpicking :)


>> 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.
>> 
>
>Is that the demise of the family with regard to single parents and
>non-traditional families, or the other movement to return to large
>extended families?
>
 nuclear family = traditional extended families

>100$ an hour seems to be the going rate here. 

That is almost as much as I make :)
And I don't mess peoples minds :)

>Insurance companies can
>dictate what they will pay, but make doctors charge the same thing to
>everyone and therefor dictate what the uninsured pay too. Screwed up
>system. 100$ a month for a one hour session, or the latest 45$ a month
>pill, or an older pill at 8$ a month?
>

And our NHS is going private. Thanks for the warning

>No argument from me on the first part. It would be a lot cheaper for
>society. The second one, though . . .
>
>I don't think counseling is about getting a person 'over' an event or an
>issue. When you have a tough math problem, that you have no idea how to
>solve, you don't 'get over it.' You study, learn what the notation
>means, figure out how the problem is expressed, and then work through it
>step by step. What do you do with a problem in life that you have no
>frame of reference for how to solve?

I wonder if we are talking about the same thing? Maybe my understanding of
counsellors is different from yours. (Two countries separated by a common
language and all that.) I am talking about non medical people i.e. not
psychiatrists. I don't think that you can really compare mental health problems
with maths problems. But then I see the world as a simple place, things happen
and a lot of them are bad. Life goes on or else it doesn't. But then I've never
been clinically depressed only very dumped so maybe I'm lucky or just don't have
enough imagination.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message