Myspace to blame for colorado shooting

FinsburyParkCarrots

reborncareerist wrote:

Illegal why, though? Because game populations are so low, or because of gun phobia?

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.

FinsburyParkCarrots

reborncareerist wrote:

I don't think we need to turn this into a discussion of vegetarianism.

Well, does he have to shoot it then? Why doesn't he challenge the deer to a boxing match?

thatgirl

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.

rebornFixer

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

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.

FinsburyParkCarrots

thatgirl wrote:

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.

There you go. The voice of reason. Now all we have to do is make guns psychoproof, and we're sorted.

rebornFixer

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

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.

rebornFixer

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

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.

Kann

miller8966 wrote:

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.

floyd1975

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Basically, a lot of people in Britain love animals, including game, and value their right to life.

A lot of people in America do too. I only dislike them when they try to push their whiny agenda on me.

edvedder913

Kann wrote:

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.

surferdude

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.

norm

miller8966 wrote:

..as is my 2nd amendment right to own a gun if im a law abiding citizen.

What militia are you a member of?

FinsburyParkCarrots

reborncareerist wrote:

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?

floyd1975

reborncareerist wrote:

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.

rebornFixer

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

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.

rebornFixer

zstillings wrote:

Hunters are actually some of the most ardent environmentalists and conservationists in America.

And in Canada as well. We still have wetlands because people hunt ducks.

even flow?

thatgirl wrote:

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.

even flow?

zstillings wrote:

Hunters are actually some of the most ardent environmentalists and conservationists in America.

Have they switched from lead pellets yet?

rebornFixer

even flow? wrote:

Have they switched from lead pellets yet?

Here they have. Steel is mandatory.

floyd1975

even flow? wrote:

Have they switched from lead pellets yet?

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.