I fucking well hope not. But can't he eat something else, from the store? I hear they do a nice line of vegetarian chilli, these days. He could even hunt for his own recipes, on Myspace. You don't need a gun for that.
I would never force somebody to eat what I saw fit for them but then I like to see people free to make their own choices.
I'm a gun owner too, and I don't favor a total ban, but I do think there should be much tighter restrictions than there are now. There should be more thorough background checks, the gun show loophole should be closed, there should be a paper trail of where every gun goes, and you should have to demonstrate that you know how to handle a gun and that you have an appropriate place to store it.
We keep much better track of our cars, which actually have a purpose other than killing things, than we do our guns, and that's just crazy.
This sounds fairly reasonable. In fact, your proposal looks much like current laws here in Canada, except that ours go a bit too far. Keeping track of individual guns is less important than keeping track of owners themselves.
This sounds fairly reasonable. In fact, your proposal looks much like current laws here in Canada, except that ours go a bit too far. Keeping track of individual guns is less important than keeping track of owners themselves.
Well, that's why it's important to keep track of the guns. I can legally sell my guns to any Ohio citizen over the age of 18, without doing a background check, and I don't have to keep any kind of records. Can't keep track of the owners if we don't know who they are, can we? Huge numbers of weapons enter the black market this way. My husband has bought guns at gun shows ... perfectly legal, but no one knows we have them. So if something snaps inside my head and I start hearing voices, there's no database my psychiatrist can tap into and say "Oh dear, this lunatic is armed to the teeth! Better get someone out to her house right away!"
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
If we just banned computer monitors, I think it would solve this problem.
But then nobody could read what you've just typed, and therefore we would have made no dialogue, and no dialectical thought process would be occuring on this message board, so that we would eventually revert to the level of chimpanzees with base animal instincts and the urge to stab, shoot, and eat each other! :eek:
True ... And neither did a gun. Choice of weapon is indeed significant here. But not for legality reasons. Banning said weapons would not likely have changed that much, which I think is miller's point.
I'd venture that the choice of victim/venue, and the means of extracting information regarding that victim, is a variable end result of a psychopathological fantasy. However, I would ask you as someone who has training in the field of the mind, whether the gun is merely an outlet for that fantasy, or a crucial part of the fantasy itself? In American popular culture, having a gun has always been portrayed as a symbol of social and sexual status. (Just think of the cowboy or bounty hunter in all sorts of westerns through the decades, who asserts himself through killing, and gets lots of women, one way or another.) If the obsession with guns could be argued convincingly to be part of the illness, rather than the means through which the illness is manifested most violently, can it not be said that guns constitute cause rather than means of realising the effect?
Well, that's why it's important to keep track of the guns. I can legally sell my guns to any Ohio citizen over the age of 18, without doing a background check, and I don't have to keep any kind of records. Can't keep track of the owners if we don't know who they are, can we? Huge numbers of weapons enter the black market this way. My husband has bought guns at gun shows ... perfectly legal, but no one knows we have them. So if something snaps inside my head and I start hearing voices, there's no database my psychiatrist can tap into and say "Oh dear, this lunatic is armed to the teeth! Better get someone out to her house right away!"
So I think the solution would be to do a background check, no matter the nature of the transaction (private seller to private seller, purchasing from a gun show) ... Knowledge of what guns are where could be useful under some circumstances, but it should not dictate police responses, which should be cautious no matter what the call ... Doing a check on what guns are in a possible offender's home should not make police lazy and less cautious if said check indicates "no guns". Too much tracking and bookkeeping starts to give negative returns after a while. I think a more effective approach would be to do as many background checks and psyc. evals as needed, whenever a weapon is sold.
I'd venture that the choice of victim/venue, and the means of extracting information regarding that victim, is a variable end result of a psychopathological fantasy. However, I would ask you as someone who has training in the field of the mind, whether the gun is merely an outlet for that fantasy, or a crucial part of the fantasy itself? In American popular culture, having a gun has always been portrayed as a symbol of social and sexual status. (Just think of the cowboy or bounty hunter in all sorts of westerns through the decades, who asserts himself through killing, and gets lots of women, one way or another.) If the obsession with guns could be argued convincingly to be part of the illness, rather than the means through which the illness is manifested most violently, can it not be said that guns constitute cause rather than means of realising the effect?
But that's the thing ... I do not believe that gun fascination is a cause of anything. I believe it to be a symptom. American culture does have a violent undercurrent, and gun use by some individuals is a manifestation of that. We have a correlation-causation problem here ... Does liking guns cause murderous rage, or do people with murderous rage often like guns? To me, the latter makes more sense, given that many people (myself included) own guns but experience no great urge to shoot another person.
Looser gun laws could be one manifestation of a violent culture, but looser laws are a symptom or indicator ... They are not an ultimate cause. I am all for treating symptoms, but in a non-invasive and helpful way. Certain gun laws are needed and beneficial. Others are not.
Well, does he have to shoot it then? Why doesn't he challenge the deer to a boxing match?
Because he shouldn't have to risk getting an antler through the guts just to eat?
Some hunt for "sport". Others hunt for food, or just to experience the outdoors.
Well, a lot of hunting was done with hounds, which was considered even more cruel than shooting.
Basically, a lot of people in Britain love animals, including game, and value their right to life.
One can value the outdoors and nature, but still hunt. In fact, I occasionally hunt, yet still consider myself an animal lover. Maybe that's a contradiction, but then again, we are all laden with contradictions.
No logic at all...without myspace and the internet the killer wouldnt have been able to find the identity of the school children...hence stopping the whole crime. He could have killed the children with a knife instead as long as he had their myspace remembered
I'm sorry but your point doesn't make any sense :
You and I have access to myspace. But that does not mean we will feel the urge to find girls who post there and molest/kill them. The shooter on the other hand may (and certainly had) a bit of a mental problem. I honestly think that allowing that man to have access to guns would have ended in tragedy with or without myspace.
I honestly think that allowing that man to have access to guns would have ended in tragedy with or without myspace.
eaxctly. but it would have been a different set of girls most likely. w/o myspace he still remains a molestor.
but i just need to say - i HATE myspace and do think it is a candy store to child molestors. and i have seen 12-18 year old girls put up completely inappropriate and sexual pictures. i would never allow my child on that website. too many predators on there.
Why do we seem to feel that every tragedy has to have a logical reason behind?
There seems to be such a need to place blame on the environment, while obsolving personal responsibility. I think this is such a dangerous mindset. It creates a witch hunting type political mindset, further entrenching partisan politics.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Because he shouldn't have to risk getting an antler through the guts just to eat?
Some hunt for "sport". Others hunt for food, or just to experience the outdoors.
I think the problem here is in that, though it irks me to say it, the second amendment needs clarifying. (I know the consequences of "clarification": once you start clarifying, well, the whole thing's wide open.) What is the nature of one's right to own a gun now? For protection against the East India Company, as it was in the late eighteenth century? That would be a right of defence. But having a gun now, in most cases, is a right of offence, a privilege masquerading as a right. A gun offers more freedom to maim, than protection against maiming, perhaps?
So, should one have the right to hunt with a gun, for "sport", or for something to eat (when one isn't in a developing nation and has plenty of access to lots of different kinds of food), or for the chance to experience the outdoors?
One can value the outdoors and nature, but still hunt. In fact, I occasionally hunt, yet still consider myself an animal lover. Maybe that's a contradiction, but then again, we are all laden with contradictions.
Hunters are actually some of the most ardent environmentalists and conservationists in America.
I think the problem here, is in that though it irks me to say it, the second amendment needs clarifying. (I know the consequences of "clarification", once you start.) What is the nature of one's right to own a gun now? For protection against the East India Company, as it was in the late eighteenth century? That would be a right of defence. But having a gun now, in most cases, is a right of offence, a privilege masquerading as a right. A gun offers more freedom to maim, than protection against maiming, perhaps?
So, should one have the right to hunt with a gun, for "sport", or for something to eat (when one isn't in a developing nation and has plenty of access to lots of different kinds of food), or for the chance to experience the outdoors?
Yes, I believe that one should, assuming that said person has been shown (in an admittedly imperfect way) to be capable of handling the responsibilities that come along with gun ownership. I see no reason to curtail a person's freedoms if said person has not demonstrated to society any reason to be concerned. I will agree with you, in that gun ownership should probably not have special status as any sort of fundamental human right. Clearly it is not on par with things like the right to reasonable privacy, or the right not to be tortured. Nevertheless, gun ownership is a freedom issue. All freedoms have reasonable restrictions on them, and maybe gun ownership requires more than most.
you can set your myspace profile to private so that you dont have psychostalkers looking up your information.
thats how my profile is set.
i dont need anyone but people i know looking there.
And if these people didn't trust their parents or thought they were too cool for guidance. They sure learned their lesson. Don't put private stuff in cyber space. Easy rule. Unfortunately, some people have to learn the hard way. Pity those fools.
Probably not but they are the only environmentalists I have ever met who think that they can do good by living the way that the annoing ones only preach.
The vast majority of people who constantly preach about how environmentally aware they are really are nothing but hypocrites.
Comments
I would never force somebody to eat what I saw fit for them but then I like to see people free to make their own choices.
This sounds fairly reasonable. In fact, your proposal looks much like current laws here in Canada, except that ours go a bit too far. Keeping track of individual guns is less important than keeping track of owners themselves.
Yeah, but you can't strangle people with no fingers. Just as you can't walk without toes.
But then nobody could read what you've just typed, and therefore we would have made no dialogue, and no dialectical thought process would be occuring on this message board, so that we would eventually revert to the level of chimpanzees with base animal instincts and the urge to stab, shoot, and eat each other! :eek:
I'd venture that the choice of victim/venue, and the means of extracting information regarding that victim, is a variable end result of a psychopathological fantasy. However, I would ask you as someone who has training in the field of the mind, whether the gun is merely an outlet for that fantasy, or a crucial part of the fantasy itself? In American popular culture, having a gun has always been portrayed as a symbol of social and sexual status. (Just think of the cowboy or bounty hunter in all sorts of westerns through the decades, who asserts himself through killing, and gets lots of women, one way or another.) If the obsession with guns could be argued convincingly to be part of the illness, rather than the means through which the illness is manifested most violently, can it not be said that guns constitute cause rather than means of realising the effect?
By killing it?
So I think the solution would be to do a background check, no matter the nature of the transaction (private seller to private seller, purchasing from a gun show) ... Knowledge of what guns are where could be useful under some circumstances, but it should not dictate police responses, which should be cautious no matter what the call ... Doing a check on what guns are in a possible offender's home should not make police lazy and less cautious if said check indicates "no guns". Too much tracking and bookkeeping starts to give negative returns after a while. I think a more effective approach would be to do as many background checks and psyc. evals as needed, whenever a weapon is sold.
I don't think we need to turn this into a discussion of vegetarianism.
Well, a lot of hunting was done with hounds, which was considered even more cruel than shooting.
Basically, a lot of people in Britain love animals, including game, and value their right to life.
Well, does he have to shoot it then? Why doesn't he challenge the deer to a boxing match?
thats how my profile is set.
i dont need anyone but people i know looking there.
But that's the thing ... I do not believe that gun fascination is a cause of anything. I believe it to be a symptom. American culture does have a violent undercurrent, and gun use by some individuals is a manifestation of that. We have a correlation-causation problem here ... Does liking guns cause murderous rage, or do people with murderous rage often like guns? To me, the latter makes more sense, given that many people (myself included) own guns but experience no great urge to shoot another person.
Looser gun laws could be one manifestation of a violent culture, but looser laws are a symptom or indicator ... They are not an ultimate cause. I am all for treating symptoms, but in a non-invasive and helpful way. Certain gun laws are needed and beneficial. Others are not.
There you go. The voice of reason. Now all we have to do is make guns psychoproof, and we're sorted.
Because he shouldn't have to risk getting an antler through the guts just to eat?
Some hunt for "sport". Others hunt for food, or just to experience the outdoors.
One can value the outdoors and nature, but still hunt. In fact, I occasionally hunt, yet still consider myself an animal lover. Maybe that's a contradiction, but then again, we are all laden with contradictions.
I'm sorry but your point doesn't make any sense :
You and I have access to myspace. But that does not mean we will feel the urge to find girls who post there and molest/kill them. The shooter on the other hand may (and certainly had) a bit of a mental problem. I honestly think that allowing that man to have access to guns would have ended in tragedy with or without myspace.
A lot of people in America do too. I only dislike them when they try to push their whiny agenda on me.
eaxctly. but it would have been a different set of girls most likely. w/o myspace he still remains a molestor.
but i just need to say - i HATE myspace and do think it is a candy store to child molestors. and i have seen 12-18 year old girls put up completely inappropriate and sexual pictures. i would never allow my child on that website. too many predators on there.
There seems to be such a need to place blame on the environment, while obsolving personal responsibility. I think this is such a dangerous mindset. It creates a witch hunting type political mindset, further entrenching partisan politics.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I think the problem here is in that, though it irks me to say it, the second amendment needs clarifying. (I know the consequences of "clarification": once you start clarifying, well, the whole thing's wide open.) What is the nature of one's right to own a gun now? For protection against the East India Company, as it was in the late eighteenth century? That would be a right of defence. But having a gun now, in most cases, is a right of offence, a privilege masquerading as a right. A gun offers more freedom to maim, than protection against maiming, perhaps?
So, should one have the right to hunt with a gun, for "sport", or for something to eat (when one isn't in a developing nation and has plenty of access to lots of different kinds of food), or for the chance to experience the outdoors?
Hunters are actually some of the most ardent environmentalists and conservationists in America.
Yes, I believe that one should, assuming that said person has been shown (in an admittedly imperfect way) to be capable of handling the responsibilities that come along with gun ownership. I see no reason to curtail a person's freedoms if said person has not demonstrated to society any reason to be concerned. I will agree with you, in that gun ownership should probably not have special status as any sort of fundamental human right. Clearly it is not on par with things like the right to reasonable privacy, or the right not to be tortured. Nevertheless, gun ownership is a freedom issue. All freedoms have reasonable restrictions on them, and maybe gun ownership requires more than most.
And in Canada as well. We still have wetlands because people hunt ducks.
And if these people didn't trust their parents or thought they were too cool for guidance. They sure learned their lesson. Don't put private stuff in cyber space. Easy rule. Unfortunately, some people have to learn the hard way. Pity those fools.
Have they switched from lead pellets yet?
Here they have. Steel is mandatory.
Probably not but they are the only environmentalists I have ever met who think that they can do good by living the way that the annoing ones only preach.
The vast majority of people who constantly preach about how environmentally aware they are really are nothing but hypocrites.