Stephen wrote:
> 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.

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 :-)

I'm not sure any gun law would change the mentalities or solve this kind 
of problem overnight either. However, there is something I'd like to 
point out. I believe some said that a gun law would not help because you 
would still be able to buy firearms illegally. I do think this makes 
quite a difference, because you have to step out from legality earlier 
and probably some time before the fact. It takes a new level of planning 
and premeditation, in a way.

I'm not too clear on the laws in the United States or on the specific 
reglementations on campuses etc. When are the actions of someone 
behaving like that becoming illegal exactly? Wouldn't a law give them a 
chance of realizing they are doing something wrong earlier?

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:47b6deb9@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

> > Same thing happens in all kinds of media coverage. How many people go
> > missing in USA per year? But if one white, wealthy, attractive, young
woman
> > goes missing, it busies the headlines for weeks and months.

>   I somewhat agree with this. While cases like
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_McCann
> are terrible, the media attention *this* one case got is way out of
> proportion IMO.

And one of the longest articles on Wiki - some country entries have shorter
and less researched content! So it's not just the mainstream commercial
media that fuels the fire. Does it have any encyclopaedic value at all?

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 05:15:01 -0700, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:47b61208$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> I don't know that there is any more or less than there used to be, but
>> there certainly is more media coverage of these terrible events.
> 
> True. There are, what, 17000 murders per year in USA, which means ~47
> people got murdered the day the shooting happened, but because it's a
> school, it makes the headline news. The other 42 don't.

Yup.

> objectively. *Shootings* are the problem. But school shootings get an
> inordinate amount of media attention.

No disagreement here.

> Same thing happens in all kinds of media coverage. How many people go
> missing in USA per year? But if one white, wealthy, attractive, young
> woman goes missing, it busies the headlines for weeks and months.

Yes, and that drives me out of my mind.  While I'm sure glad Elizabeth 
Smart got home safely, there was nothing else in the news here in Utah 
for *months*.

> We waste way too much time and effort with the inconsequential and miss
> the forest for the trees.

This is very true.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:57:42 +0100, Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:

> I'm not too clear on the laws in the United States or on the specific
> reglementations on campuses etc. When are the actions of someone
> behaving like that becoming illegal exactly? Wouldn't a law give them a
> chance of realizing they are doing something wrong earlier?

Not necessarily, because those who break the law do so generally with the 
intention of not getting caught.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws, but we have to be realistic 
about the application of laws.  Nobody takes (say) a gun into a church 
when it's against the law thinking "well, today's my day to get caught 
breaking the law".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> Increased reporting, indeed. 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 :)

Violence is schools started by the 1970's.  How about trusting in documented
evidence (or lack of) rather than personal memories (which are always betraying
us)?

Unless gory details were suppressed by the press in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's
and the lisergic 60's, I think the absence of violent acts like this is pretty
much non documented.  Not just the press:  I don't recall either movies or
books plots dealing about school shootings.  Pretty much all criminal TV shows
have had school shootings or civilian sharpshooters in their plots by now.

Things have been downhill for quite a while for those who have eyes to see.  I'm
not preaching Apocalypse, though.

Post a reply to this message

"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> It really doesn't matter if people get shot at a school or bus stop.
> *School* shootings is not the problem, and constitute a very minor risk and
> a very minor problem/disturbance in society, when one looks at it
> objectively. *Shootings* are the problem. But school shootings get an
> inordinate amount of media attention.

yes, I wonder why would it be that way.  Perhaps because those who are parents
can't get on with the idea that places previously thought safe for their kids
are not anymore!!

shootings are bad, alright.  But shootings in streets between drug dealers is
one thing, shootings in schools is another entirely.

what next will get media attention?  Shootings in hospitals, shootings in sports
stadiums, shootings in music conservatories?... People react to things they've
never seen before.  After that, they just think it's normal.  Perhaps the next
time a plane hits a building it'll not be that shocking anymore, just another
routine...

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:57:42 +0100, Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
> 
>> I'm not too clear on the laws in the United States or on the specific
>> reglementations on campuses etc. When are the actions of someone
>> behaving like that becoming illegal exactly? Wouldn't a law give them a
>> chance of realizing they are doing something wrong earlier?
> 
> Not necessarily, because those who break the law do so generally with the 
> intention of not getting caught.
> 

Ok, but my point was not that they would get caught earlier, but simply 
that they might realize that they are trying to do something wrong 
earlier, and possibly abandon the project. I don't know if it really 
works...

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message

Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
 > I'm not too clear on the laws in the United States or on the specific
> reglementations on campuses etc. When are the actions of someone
> behaving like that becoming illegal exactly? Wouldn't a law give them a
> chance of realizing they are doing something wrong earlier?
> 

Virginia Tech has a no weapon policy on it's campus. No weapon is
allowed on campus unless it is carried as part of a job. So, at least in
one case, owning the guns and keeping them in a dorm was already
illegal. Now, the 'illegal' part of it requires that someone else
notices and reports it. At that time, the person with the weapon is no
longer welcome and is trespassing.

I know Virginia also has state laws making it a big crime to bring a gun
of any kind within about 100 yards of a school. Grade schools and the
like, not colleges. I would suspect that other states have similar laws,
and that does not appear to be deterring these shooters.

Post a reply to this message

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:46:43 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Unless gory details were suppressed by the press in the 20's, 30's,
> 40's, 50's and the lisergic 60's, I think the absence of violent acts
> like this is pretty much non documented.  Not just the press:  I don't
> recall either movies or books plots dealing about school shootings. 
> Pretty much all criminal TV shows have had school shootings or civilian
> sharpshooters in their plots by now.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Jim

Post a reply to this message