Today is the eighth anniversary of the Columbine shootings, In light of the more recent and more destructive shootings at VT, I do think we are a more violent society now than we ever were.
The USA as a country has seemed to lose it's morals, ethics, and most of all self control. When I was in high school, if you had a problem with a student, you went behind the gym and fought it out, at the worst, it was a fist fight. The thought of the other guy having a gun, or taking a gun to school was never brought to mind.
We occasionaly had outdoor rec classes, and some students would bring their own shotguns for skeet shooting. I don't see this happening today, thank God I guess.
If a person who can't control his anger kills many, does this mean that those who can should have their freedoms taken away, to make society safe?
Originally posted by azalin76The "right to have guns and all that" is seriously outdated IMO. When that law was made it was relevant - now it's not.
It's been 8 years?
Wow. That's a little shocking actually.
America is fine the way it is. This is my opinion that cannot be swayed by anything anyone says/does. This may be a Blind Follower, but a Follower nonetheless.
But as I am not living there and am not a US citizen you would be right in saying it's none of my business.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by Ice ColdIt's too late now, the gun culture in the US is so entrenched it would near impossible to remove it now.
Today is the eighth anniversary of the Columbine shootings, In light of the more recent and more destructive shootings at VT, I do think we are a more violent society now than we ever were.
The USA as a country has seemed to lose it's morals, ethics, and most of all self control. When I was in high school, if you had a problem with a student, you went be ...[text shortened]... oes this mean that those who can should have their freedoms taken away, to make society safe?
But, I don't want anyone to say that we should have guns in Europe! We don't need them.
The gun lobbies over there go on about needing a gun to defend yourself, but how this can apply to Europe? You don't need a gun because no one else has one you need to defend yourself against.
Besides, you are less defended with guns, simply because with everyone having them, you are more likely to get killed anyway!
I don't understand the USA and their obsession with guns, but it is your country, I don't give a flying monkeys, but don't go on about how it is a fundamental right for everyone to be able to have them, implying we should have them. That will be bad for everyone here.
I remember the laughable and counterproductive demonising of certain (generally mischaracterised) segments of popular culture on the basis of a two-person sample size of consumers of those cultural elements, and a lot of handwringing about people who don't "fit in". The real problem is twofold: first, institutional or, more broadly, social membership puts some amount of stress on everyone involved (the "social contract" idea is basically a recognition that these stresses exist, but are less stressful than being a solitary hunter-gatherer), and second that some people, for whatever reason, tend to react to stresses in really crazyass ways.
I'd also suggest reading Paul Graham's theories on why high schools actually exist, and the sociological consequences of their existence (the title of the essay is "Why Nerds are Unpopular", but that's not a very good title -- the essay is neither as limited in scope or as whiny as its title would suggest). Also, in a very good book whose name I forget, Richard Hofstadter talks about the history of American secondary education. While it's not necessarily his thesis, this gives me the impression that schools and universities are bad environments for most people, and running them as they are run, in spite of this fact, tends to make it more true with time. This increases the social pressures on the individual, and since schools and universities cater to larger and larger segments of the population, the likelihood that someone who reacts crazyassily to (perceived) great stress grows.
Arts, the media, etc. are not to blame for such incidents. Social pressure on pre-disturbed psyches is. It's also basically a big waste of resources to try to prevent such incidents via security measures or misguided attempts to look for "warning signs" in individuals. Better would be to try to improve the social environment of such institutions in a more general way. I think reversal of the Blairian "50% of the population in university" idea, which is similar to a lot of notions popular in the States, would be a good start, as would the elimination of compulsory high school education, to be replaced with something like a much more varied and expansive version of the German system.
Finally, while such events are tragic, it's not sensible for any member of a school or university to worry about another occurence, since the prevalence is very low. Better is to contribute to making your institution into one which exists for the benefit of its individual members. This includes not becoming a university student if your only motivations are economic; I also encourage cutting class in high school if you have something to do which you can argue is a better use of time.
I'm not going to talk about gun control and this sort of incident, because I'm very conflicted about it. I do think owning a gun is strong evidence that one is an idiot; I think smoking crack is, too. However, I'd repeal drug prohibition in an instant, so I sort of have to agree with the Libertarian position on guns.
Originally posted by ChronicLeakyGuns make it possible to get better prices when buying crack. 😕
I remember the laughable and counterproductive demonising of certain (generally mischaracterised) segments of popular culture on the basis of a two-person sample size of consumers of those cultural elements, and a lot of handwringing about people who don't "fit in". The real problem is twofold: first, institutional or, more broadly, social membership p ...[text shortened]... n instant, so I sort of have to agree with the Libertarian position on guns.
Originally posted by azalin76As a liberal to the point of being a revolutionary (almost) when it comes to political issues, I have to say that I support every person's freedom to own any machine known to humankind. However your post does nothing for your argument.
=.=
Short sighted much?
We also don't need government or order.
But hey.
Not owning a gun is a far cry from not having a government, and the truth of the matter is that if you want to be far sighted about the whole thing, the best reason for owning a gun is because of government and "order" not despite it. When law and order fail, when law is taken out of the equation, when every man, woman, and child, truly is born equal - the only difference will be knowledge - whether that is knowledge about how to make everything work together without crushing anyone's spirit, or whether (more realistically) it is knowledge about how to survive against the people who would deny your basic right to freedom, that knowledge and the means to implement it is the most important thing. I was born on this planet the same as every other human being, therefore I own this world as much as the next person. Why should anyone tell me "no camping on the beach," "no loitering," "no smoking?!?" No government should have a greater power than the constituants. As the first-nations people used to say "Who can own the land?" This is the best and only reasonable reason to own firearms.