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

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:31:36 -0500, Warp wrote:

> alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>> This post is goddamn important so if any of you don?t like it, TS, then
>> you are also part of the problem.
> 
>   Even at the risk of sounding like a jerk, maybe you might not want to
> use that kind of expression.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma#Examples

That's a much more succinct way of saying what I was trying to say.

Thank you for your clarity. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

one more point here.

If that poor brain fried shooter has smoked a joint yesterday, he would have
stayed home. Absolutely!!!!!!!!!

http://home.earthlink.net/~beta-quadrant/Bill_Hicks-Mandatory.mp3


"THE ONE AND ONLY CORRECT ANSWER"

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:19:50 -0500, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

>  I don't believe Cho was on Prozac.

Ditto.  But even if she was, I have family members who have taken Prozac 
in the past, and they never went out and killed anyone.  It actually 
worked the way it was supposed to.

But people have different reactions to different drugs.  When I broke my 
leg, I was prescribed Hydrocodone for the pain.  I had an adverse 
reaction to it - it made me hallucinate.  I went for a week without any 
real sleep (I did rest, but after I was off of it and on something else, 
I realized that I'd been lying awake at night on the Hydrocodone).

My reaction is typical of < 0.1% of people who it is prescribed to.  That 
doesn't make it a bad drug, just bad for me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

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

Oh, and it's probably worth mentioning, you don't do your cause any good 
by assuming that those who don't agree with you have an axe to grind or 
another agenda.  This isn't the first time you've turned a discussion on 
its head by getting frustrated/angry/whatever with those who didn't agree 
with you.  It gets old.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:09:22 +0100, alphaQuad  
<alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 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.


"Now if you don't want to become partially responsible for that innocent  
girl
getting shot in the eye, then you must do the following."

How else is that to be interpreted?



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:33:02 +0100, Fredrik Eriksson wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:09:22 +0100, alphaQuad
> <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> 
> "Now if you don't want to become partially responsible for that innocent
> girl
> getting shot in the eye, then you must do the following."
> 
> How else is that to be interpreted?

Exactly. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message