Connecticut School Massacre - pass the ammunition

[bus2bondi]

hey that last guy, yeah, this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP0CBaW9FEI

looks like a pretty easy target eh? but don't. don't hurt him and his family. he is the victim.

[thedoc]

Do you also advocate the legalisation of all other drugs?

Yes, years ago they were legal and avalable at the local chemist, and I don't remember history recording a mass epidemic of drug use. If drugs were legalized the Gov. could regulate them and collect taxes on thier sale, the Gov. would be collecting money insted of spending money on a fools errand. After prohibition ended many of the bootlegers were simply given licenses and became legal businesmen. The same thing could happen with the drug trade and the former criminals would not need to resort to violence to protect their markets.

[bus2bondi]

i think we are all victims of the past and present and its time to move on, it might take 1,000 years, but really, that's not that very long, and i think it's quite a possible goal

[thedoc]

Actually I'm in favor of making everything avalable, and legal, and if the gov. feels that strongly, put warning lables on it. If someone is that stupid, as to use a toxic substance, it should be their problem, not everyone elses. The Gov's job is to protect me from everyone else, but not from myself. Give me the information and let me make the decision for myself.

And before you say something stupid, If a person drinks poison, that will just eliminate those stupid genes from the human gene pool.

[Gee]

What I would like to know, is what changed? And what caused this change? What change(s) would improve the situation? Because we can never go back to the way it used to be--as that is a hopeless romanticism.

So when did guns go from being personal protection to power? I think that this started in the 70's, not long after the US stopped the draft. We stopped training all men in weaponry at the same time that weaponry was enhance to very efficient killing machines. Is this what caused the change in attitude? I think that it is only a partial explanation. From this point on, people gravitated in one of two directions; either they found guns frightening, or they were initiated into the idea of guns from the military or from family--that may or may not have been properly trained. So in the 70's we have people in one of two categories, either frightened or potentially dangerous--not good. This is the reason that I support the NRA (National Rifleman Association) as they seem to be the only organization that teaches responsible gun ownership.

Also in the 70's the media went to war. Not like the war correspondents in the old days, no this media had full access and coverage to show what war actually is. It is not like the John Wayne movies where there are good guys, who are always good, and bad guys, who are always bad--it is war--a chaotic, horrific, madness that has moments of heroism and kindness amid insanity and evil. People were shocked; war is not supposed to be like this. But war has always been like this. It would have been wonderful if those images from the media had convinced people to stop war, but that didn't happen.

So the government instead cleaned war up. They limited the media, and invented things like "smart" bombs. So "smart" bombs don't blow up little girls, who want to grow up to be ballerinas; "smart" bombs just blow up the bad guys--because they are "smart". Uh huh. We did not stop war; we sterilized it. We took the emotion and compassion out of the equation, so the moralizers would not be upset. How did we do this? By computer--with video games. Are you aware that the military uses video games to teach soldiers how to react before they can think? This is great because not even the soldiers have to deal with stress while they are killing people. It is all neat and clean, and saves us a bunch on post traumatic stress victims. As bad as war is, cleaning it up just makes it more disgusting to anyone with half a brain and a little imagination.

So many might say, why doesn't the US just stay out of war if it is such a problem. Well, we do. When my son was sent to Bosnia, that was not war--that was a police action. We do a lot of police action because the media and other countries like to point at us and say, "You are powerful. You should do something." And they also like to say, "You are powerful. You should stop doing that." -- as their moralizing requires. What is the solution to this problem? Control of the media. As Chaz is fond of saying, "People would rather die than think". So if we control the media, we control thinking and the moralizers.

Since WWI, America has had the dubious honor of being the one that is called when trouble comes. I don't like it. It is not an honor to be called to bleed on other shores. In the last few years, the policing has been done more by a coalition--an agreement between countries that this burden will be shared. I think that this is a good start, if for no other reason than it will be more difficult to control the media within many countries. I also think that public TV is vital for any truth to get out, and I always support PBS.

As long as there is war, there will be guns--or a new variation of weaponry. Banning guns will not work. I agree with Felasco that the media bears responsibility here, if for no other reason than their limited ability to relate any truth; and I agree with Bus2bondi that some of these weapons have gone beyond ridiculous. But I don't see these things as the core problem with mass shootings.

What I think is that 40 years ago, we stopped training men; we decided to lie about death and war; we sterilized something that is anything but sterile; we decided to control the media and protect our citizens from truth; then we trained our children to react before thinking. While doing this, we also divided our families into little boxes. Women live with children; men are estranged; aunts, uncles, and grandparents live away and then in nursing homes; old people die in nursing homes or hospitals; children don't learn about other generations, sickness, or death as it is removed from them. In short, we have replaced education with ignorance, family with isolation, and reality with illusion. Of course, kids don't understand; how could they?

Before Christmas, I kept seeing these advertisements for a new video game. It is interactive with the television and apparently the latest rage. You get these assault rifles and shoot at the bad guys on the TV screen. Don't worry, the assault rifles are plastic and they are white, so no one will think they are real--in deference to the moralizers. Anyway, this game has a twist because you also get this thing to attach to yourself so that it can monitor your heart rate. Apparently, you have to control your heart rate in order to get more points and win. So you have to teach yourself to shoot in cold blood. Wonderful! So where are the moralizers? Where is the outrage? Why isn't everyone clamoring for removal of this "toy"? Has everyone gone insane--or just to stupid to think?

Gee

[bobevenson]

If drugs were legalized the Gov. could regulate them and collect taxes on their sale.

A sales tax is improper and regulation oppressive.

[chaz wyman]

Do you also advocate the legalisation of all other drugs?

Yes, years ago they were legal and avalable at the local chemist, and I don't remember history recording a mass epidemic of drug use. If drugs were legalized the Gov. could regulate them and collect taxes on thier sale, the Gov. would be collecting money insted of spending money on a fools errand. After prohibition ended many of the bootlegers were simply given licenses and became legal businesmen. The same thing could happen with the drug trade and the former criminals would not need to resort to violence to protect their markets.

There is a lot to recommend this, but Opium addiction was a serious problem.
Read, "Confessions of an English Opium Eater". Heroine and Opium are just too nice. I would no more legalise them than give a razor blade to a child.
I would advocate legalisation of pot (maybe Cocaine too), as this would release police time for catching armed criminals, whilst at the same time, chilling people out a bit - maybe they would be more inclined to avoid alcohol whilst they were high too?
legalising drugs would disempower some of the worst criminals on earth that are presently causing an epidemic of murder, especially in Mexico.

[bobevenson]

Making anything illegal that does not directly affect other people is government at its oppressive worst.

[chaz wyman]

What I would like to know, is what changed? And what caused this change? What change(s) would improve the situation? Because we can never go back to the way it used to be--as that is a hopeless romanticism.

So when did guns go from being personal protection to power?

Gee

This is a puzzling question, much like, why do the lengths of skirts change. It has a lot to do with fashion.
I seem to remember in the 1970s it was the fashion to get on a roof with a long range telescopic sight and take pot shots. After the groundbreaking first one there were a series of copy-cat ones.
Today the automatic rifle is the must-have accessory for the disaffected youth.

[bobevenson]

Today the automatic rifle is the must-have accessory for the disaffected youth.

What do you base that on, your own vivid imagination???

[bus2bondi]

hi Gee, i know this may sound ridiculous, but 'emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'?

[bus2bondi]

i was reading last night about the wisky rebellion in america, i can't help it but i just couldn't understand, i just couldn't understand why the founders turned on its own people, and then quickly after a couple were charged with treason, and then after all that crap, a split second later, there was a new president and the laws were changed and none of that horror would've happened. for example, 'TODAY YOU ARE TREASON!!!' oh... well sorry for all the aftermath but tomorrow you are not.

wtf???

[bus2bondi]

well now, i'm going to go look for more uninspiring videos.

[Piltdownbrain]

I concluded likewise, but with molotovs, which just shows it's not the tool, but the society. And anyway, chaz forgot about all of the children who die from neglect, and that maybe nations making and hording surplus military hardware are actually the most criminally intent entities around these days. But for god's sake, if knives were ever banned, I would commit hari-kiri with a sharpened stick.

I never forget those children either, but in a discussion about gun control and the massacre i fail to see how that applies to the argument. I assume you think that its okay to massacre 20 children with an automatic because other kids are dying of neglect? Pretty poor argument if you ask me.

I agree it was poor wording and not meant as a personal attack. Instead of using 'forgot' I should have said something like

' argues about the implements of murder, whereas I think these mass murders are a systemic symptom of an aggressive cultural tendency and would even consider the imbalance between rich militarist nations and underdeveloped ones as a type of murder.
Considering mortality, whether it comes naturally and peacefully on the one hand, or on the other by a deliberate policy of induced starvation and poverty, what are the degrees by which we call to account those who willingly allow the death of starving children?'

[chaz wyman]

I concluded likewise, but with molotovs, which just shows it's not the tool, but the society. And anyway, chaz forgot about all of the children who die from neglect, and that maybe nations making and hording surplus military hardware are actually the most criminally intent entities around these days. But for god's sake, if knives were ever banned, I would commit hari-kiri with a sharpened stick.

I never forget those children either, but in a discussion about gun control and the massacre i fail to see how that applies to the argument. I assume you think that its okay to massacre 20 children with an automatic because other kids are dying of neglect? Pretty poor argument if you ask me.

I agree it was poor wording and not meant as a personal attack. Instead of using 'forgot' I should have said something like

' argues about the implements of murder, whereas I think these mass murders are a systemic symptom of an aggressive cultural tendency and would even consider the imbalance between rich militarist nations and underdeveloped ones as a type of murder.
Considering mortality, whether it comes naturally and peacefully on the one hand, or on the other by a deliberate policy of induced starvation and poverty, what are the degrees by which we call to account those who willingly allow the death of starving children?'

We are all participating in these deaths.
Mainly by allowing free inter-national competition by elites in our own countries, to outweigh the needs of the many, and by allowing places like Switzerland, and Monaco to shelter those that are grabbing land from traditional farmers and truing them into wage-slaves for short term profit, and placing them at the mercy of international markets for bulk goods.