Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:19:35 EST, "alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet>
> wrote:
> 
>> Do something! Don’t just sit there like a bump on a log. Write your reps since
>> that is about the only non-violent act that can be done.
> 
> No one mention your gun laws yet?
> 
> Regards
> 	Stephen

Let's go one step further, and ban anyone who's ever had a psychiatric
exam from attending college.

Last year, I heard every argument about preventing violent events talked
about over and over on the local news. How guns should be outlawed, how
concealed carry permits should be allowed on campus, how people who are
slightly depressed should be instantly institutionalized, or how anyone
who was ever depressed should be kicked out of school.

It was disturbing, hearing the people on TV going on about how
depression was serious and anyone depressed should be removed from their
school before they hurt someone, all while seeing daily announcements to
students that anyone 'upset by recent events' could get counseling from
the school. Then hearing about how no one who was ever depressed should
be able to own a fire arm, and how medical records should be opened up
so anyone could know if someone was ever depressed. I never before saw
blame get shifted so much, it seemed that everyone wanted to blame
someone else. Sure, they prefaced everything with 'but of course this
one time it was the shooters fault, but we must do something!' It was
sick, seeing all of this blame being doled out by people who thought
they had a better idea on how to prevent shootings.

To your point, though, gun laws wouldn't help. Even this country raised
city-dweller knows where you buy illegal firearms. Same place you buy
moonshine. Gun laws may prevent a spur of the moment shooting, or
someone bringing a gun in just as a threat, but it won't prevent someone
who is dedicated to killing someone else.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:50:24 -0000, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did  
spake, saying:

>> Nope, however you do require a Shotgun or Firearm Certificate from the  
>> police first; they're the ones who do the 'sanity checking'.
>>
>>> And I assume also they wouldn't sell a gun to a school kid?
>>
>> As an under-17 wouldn't be able to get a certificate that would be a  
>> correct assumption.
>
> So I still wonder about my original thoughts, all these shootings you  
> hear about in the US, where do they get the guns from?  Parents?  
> Friends? Bought illegally? Stolen from a shop?

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.

At least here in the UK part of getting that certificate requires you to  
have a secure gun cabinet or similar. Sure it won't help in a prolonged  
burglary, but at least it's a bit more difficult then being in a drawer or  
on top of the wardrobe.

-- 
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

Tim Cook wrote:
> Woohoo!  I went to school there!
> 
> *ahem*
> 
> What I find interesting is how different articles about this kind of
> thing word things in the headline:  was it a shooting, an incident, a
> massacre?  Were the people shot, killed, murdered, or are they merely
> dead at such-and-such location?  If the killer committed suicide, are
> they listed in the death count, or separately?  Does the headline count
> injured?  Is the event fact, or alleged?
> 

You can tell a lot about the person who wrote the headline by those words.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:19:50 -0000, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at  
vtSPAM.edu"> did spake, saying:

> alphaQuad wrote:
>> If you cant realize that these drugs should have never been approved,  
>> then I
>> waste my breath and time on you.
>>
>> Do this or you become partially responsible for all future shootings.  
>> Ignoring
>> this suggestion will be noticed by everyone watching all that goes on  
>> here and
>> it will not be forgotten how scared and spineless you were to do what  
>> is right.
>
> Psychiatric drugs are prescribed for a reason, and some how I don't
> believe that every doctor writing those prescriptions is some how in the
> pocket of the drug companies trying to get another person hooked on them
> and profiting.

Well put, from the point of view of the doctors it's got FDA-approved on  
it and that's that.

> Besides, simple economics will tell you that in most
> cases, you don't sell stuff that kills the user.[1]

Depends on the return and numbers of potential victi... customers.

> And, you might check
> your facts in your webpage, I don't believe Cho was on Prozac.
>
> Secondly, don't start blaming everyone else. Why is this the fault of
> someone in a completely different state and town, and not the fault of
> some butterfly in China?

You know one of these days we're going to have to track down this damn  
butterfly, first hurricanes now drug-crazed gun crime.

> The blame for these events rests in one person,
> the one who pulled the trigger. We can all scream and rant about how
> everyone else could have stopped them, how someone could have told the
> police the day before if only they had noticed something, or how just
> one detail different could have made the whole event not happen. But
> that doesn't change any of it. One person pulled the trigger.

I'm going to have to slightly disagree with you here, 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? The same could be said for giving  
someone a drug you know has side-effects that might exasperate the  
paitent's condition.

-- 
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 <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:27:20 -0500, Tim Cook wrote:
>
> > ...on another note, placing blame for an event on others who are totally
> > unrelated to that event and have no power over it is pretty silly.
>
> Agreed.  There is *always* personal responsibility, something that many
> people are quick to give up by looking for someone else to blame for
> their problems.
>
> It doesn't do a cause much good to say "you are part of the problem if
> you don't write to someone".

I like you Jim, but that is not what I said. What I said was generated by a
previous comment that "it's distractive" meaning the post itself.

Try again,


also part of the problem." (if you don't like the post, TS)

There is problem that requires attention. I agree sending emails is probably
fairly ineffective. But if enough people wrote ... ah what's the point?

If you feel you need to do something, then do something. But there are too many
sitting on their hands burning stolen fuel in their cars while people are being
killed.

Now if it is found that this shooter had been given these pesticides, given all
the previous facts, its not a far stretch of imagination as to what really
happened. That's why its called pesticide, because it kills by destroying the
nervous system. Put some phenothiazine on a bug. What happens? It quivers to
death. The same would happen to a human if given the same amount by weight
proportions. Small amounts do it slowly.

In all the school shootings to this point there is a common thread and this one
should be no different. They had been given these fluoride "antidepressants"
and "antipsychotics". They cause more the very symptoms they allegedly treat.

So Jim, read carefully and don't put words in my mouth, as that wont get us very
far.

aQ

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:27:20 -0500, Tim Cook wrote:
>

> Agreed.  There is *always* personal responsibility, something that many
> people are quick to give up by looking for someone else to blame for
> their problems.


What are you talking about? The lack of people taking personal responsibility
for their government?

By not voting?
I vote.
Do you?

By not taking to the streets in mass when election fraud occurs?
I was there.
Were you?

These kind of vague comments are confusing the issue and I wonder if that is not
your intent.

aQ

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:08:56 +0100, scott wrote:

> These seem like previously "normal" people before they do these
> shootings, where do they get the guns from?

Gun stores, typically.  It's not difficult to purchase a gun in the US.

We don't own any guns here, but my father-in-law and his son have 
several.  I've also been out shooting (at a range) a few times and have 
also been skeet shooting.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:09:22 -0500, alphaQuad wrote:

> I like you Jim, but that is not what I said. What I said was generated
> by a previous comment that "it's distractive" meaning the post itself.
> 
> Try again,
> 
> "This post is goddamn important so if any of you don’t like it, TS, then
> you are also part of the problem." (if you don't like the post, TS)

What that says to me is "if you don't like what I say, then you are part 
of the problem" - where "the problem" is the shootings, the drugs 
involved, whatever.  I didn't honestly understand what you were saying in 
total, and stopped reading at the point where it came across as "if you 
don't do something, you're part of the problem".

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, and if what I read isn't what 
you meant, then my apologies.  It honestly looked like you were blaming 
those who opt for inaction for these shootings (or events like them).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:30:17 -0500, alphaQuad wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:27:20 -0500, Tim Cook wrote:
>>
>>
>> Agreed.  There is *always* personal responsibility, something that many
>> people are quick to give up by looking for someone else to blame for
>> their problems.
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? The lack of people taking personal
> responsibility for their government?

The lack of people placing the blame for a shooting where it belongs - on 
the shooter.

It's a larger issue than just shootings.  For example, take the famous 
Stella case - she blamed McDonald's for her burns, yet *she* is the one 
who placed the hot cup of coffee between her legs *in her car* rather 
than in a cupholder.

But was it her fault?  Not in her view - it was McDonald's fault for 
giving her coffee that was too hot.

> By not voting?
> I vote.
> Do you?

You'd better believe it.  My wife was slated to be a poll judge in the 
primaries.  I vote in every election, even though on a national level my 
vote doesn't count so much (I live in Utah; I'm a liberal.  Utah 
overwhelmingly votes conservative Republican on a national level).

> By not taking to the streets in mass when election fraud occurs? I was
> there.
> Were you?

I didn't picket, because that isn't what helps.  I got involved in ways 
that can make a difference.

> These kind of vague comments are confusing the issue and I wonder if
> that is not your intent.

No, I'm simply saying that in today's society, people are loathe to take 
personal responsibility for their own actions, and are quick to blame 
"the system" rather than put the blame on the shoulders of the perp, 
where it absolutely lies.

Jim

Post a reply to this message