Columbine....10 years after.

Columbine....10 years after. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

slvemike4u -> Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 10:14:50 AM)
Perhaps its the masochist in me,perhaps I just love to stir up shit...but the following opinion peice appeared in todays N.Y.Times(i know that bastion of liberal thinking ....yada yada yada)Opinions Please...and for the sake of Mod 11 could we keep this gun thread civil. Published: April 8, 2009 It is impossible to view last week’s killing of 13 people in Binghamton, N.Y., in isolation. It will soon be the 10th anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School and the second anniversary of the mass shootings at Virginia Tech. In the last month, multiple shootings have claimed the lives of more than 50 Americans. if (acm.rc) acm.rc.write(); In this historical context, Binghamton is yet another reminder of America’s terrible gun problem and a summons to lawmakers to insist on common-sense gun laws. Yet Congress responds with a collective shrug. There was a moment, after Columbine, when the nation engaged in a promising conversation about gun violence, and it briefly seemed as though Congress might rise above the extremists at the National Rifle Association. In May 1999, the N.R.A. lost a showdown in the Senate over closing the loophole that allows unqualified buyers to purchase weapons at gun shows without a background check. That victory was illusory; the gun show measure died in conference in the House, and the post-Columbine urge to do something meaningful evaporated. The Virginia Tech massacre eight years later reawakened some Congressional interest. Even the N.R.A. had to support a measure making it harder for someone with a record of serious mental illness to obtain a gun. Still, Congress merely nibbled at the problem, and today the idea of closing the gun-show loophole and taking other steps that would help save lives without violating the Second Amendment is not even seriously on the table. Inside Washington’s bubble, it is as if the shootings in Binghamton and elsewhere never took place. The N.R.A.’s ability to intimidate grown men and women in the House and Senate remains undiminished, despite its poor record in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. So far, the Obama White House has not been a profile in courage either. Witness the chilly reception to recent calls by Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to reimpose an assault weapons ban to make it harder for American gun traffickers to arm the Mexican drug cartels. Congress actually seems to be moving backward. Last month, the N.R.A. persuaded the Senate to attach an amendment that would repeal the District of Columbia’s gun laws to a bill giving the district a voting member in Congress. This amendment would permit sniper rifles that can pierce armor up to a mile away to be possessed in unlimited quantity in the nation’s capital. The district’s current representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, is fighting to get the House to pass a clean version of the bill, without the amendment, but her prospects are cloudy. If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer cannot muster the votes, President Obama should intervene. He should also rescind a dangerous regulation from the Bush years allowing concealed loaded guns in national parks. More broadly, he should place the immense persuasive powers of his office behind an across-the-board, badly overdue push for sensible gun control.

kittinSol -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 10:22:54 AM)
How many shooting incidents/massacres have there been in the past ten days? It's time to stop treating the subject of guns as sacrilegeous and to wake the hell up.

slvemike4u -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 10:52:52 AM)
Kittin,you think its the word Columbine in the tittle that's keeping them away? Or the "lousy" reputation of the OP?

sirsholly -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 10:54:16 AM)
wow...ten years...i can still see the live images on TV [:(]

slvemike4u -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 10:57:50 AM)
I can't hear Nirvana's "I'm Still Alive" without tearing up....can still remember driving down the LIE when the local radio station cut to a live broadcast of the first day back at school after the tragedy.The survivors were asked to choose a song to walk back into that school to .They chose well...I bawled my eyes out driving down that highway. Edited to add.I get my Seattle bands mixed up, is it Pearl Jam's I'm Sill Alive....can't keep those two seperate no matter how many times my son yells at me.

slaveboy291 -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 11:09:08 AM)
Yes, lets look at the real issues of Columbine and ingnore the idiotic rhetoric of people like Jack Thompson and others of that ilk who use tragedies to further their own agendas(i.e blaming music, movies and videogames) Guns is part of it. School bullying and administrations willingly turning a blind eye to it because the Harris and Klebold were "outsiders" is also another issue. This is nothing new, but I think back to when I was in high school and I was bullied and people said I would end up doing this. I didn't of course, and the worst that ever happened was somebody got stabbed. The reason was so obvious as to why this happened, I guess it's a case of not seeing the tree for the forest. Or as I said you get clowns like Thompson who don't give a rats ass about the victims, but just exploit tragedies for their own purposes. I mean, how many people played Doom, listened to Manson, and all the other stuff that was blamed for the tragedy and haven't killed a single person? What videogames was Hitler playing? Enough with trying to create scapegoats and look at the real issues. The 2 were bullied, you think maybe just maybe that might've been the cause? Seems more plausible than saying Manson caused it. Espeically since the 2 guys hated Manson. But you know people like that don't let facts get in the way of posturing.

slvemike4u -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 11:11:59 AM)
And what did you think of the editorial,after all that is the subject of the thread...not school bullying.

sirsholly -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 11:16:06 AM)
quote: The 2 were bullied, you think maybe just maybe that might've been the cause? No

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 11:24:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Kittin,you think its the word Columbine in the tittle that's keeping them away? Or the "lousy" reputation of the OP? Well, i don't know what there is to say. It's an editorial, and clearly a biased, uninformed one as well. As an avid gun-owner and target shooter, with numerous rifles, handguns, and shotguns, and an assault-style rifle on order, I recognize and accept that more stringent regulation of firearms ownership is inevitable - and not only do I accept the inevitability of it, in principle i support it as well. Depending on what it looks like. And there's the rub - I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that airheaded pie-in-the-sky liberals like Nancy Pelosi, who wouldn't know the difference between a deer rifle and an AK-47, could write a gun control law that would effectively address the fundamental problem they're trying to fix without unduly infringing on the rights of ordinary gun owners and unfairly penalizing them. I would expect that the current congressional leadership will completely fuck up any attempt to write a sensible, effective gun control bill for the simple reason that they don't know jack shit about guns other than what they hear other people who don't know jack shit about guns say on NPR (or what they read from similarly ignorant NY Times editorialists), and I don't fully trust Obama to know the difference between a good bill and a bad bill for largely the same reason. I would lay money that in their complete ignorance, they'll wind up banning the wrong weapons while leaving the real problems completely untouched. You get the right bipartisan input into this process, and we may see something come out of it that I can support, but I'm not holding my breath expecting that to happen and until they at least put it on paper, there's not much to discuss. Do we need better gun control laws? Yes, absolutely. No disagreement there. What would constitute a better gun control law, have an actual impact on gun crime without underming my Second Amendment rights? That's where the disagreement will lie as this issue moves forward over the next year or so. Let's see what substantive proposals come forth from congress before we start debating, because having a discussion based on the ignorant pontifications of some editorial writer who's probably never been in the same room with a firearm is pointless.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 11:42:51 AM)
"I knew a man with a son Who bought him a gun And learned shorty just how to use it Taught him hunting and skining Right from the begining Built himself a mighty fine killer But shorty got picked on Beat on and kicked on And all his classmates wanna punk him So with tears in his eye He read catcher in the rye And told his old man he went hunting And he felt so free Like his destiny Lay somewhere out on the horizon His heart went cold He felt a hundred years old And started pulling back on the trigger" Everlast - So Long

slvemike4u -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 11:44:21 AM)
Well Panda,other than a whole shitload of assumptions (mainly dealing with the intelligence of the writer...lol)you said some things in that post that are reasonable and in my experience rare on a gun thread.First off you are a gun"enthusiast"(if I may use that phrase) who admits the need of some sort of legislation.That in and of itself is refreshing. So let me ask you what sort of legislation would you like to see passed.?What about the "gun show" loophole ?...would closing that infringe on your rights.Will it take a constitutional ammendment to pass a real national gun law ?...instead of all the differing state laws,which in the final analyisis serve little purpose .

slaveboy291 -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 11:45:57 AM)
quote: And what did you think of the editorial,after all that is the subject of the thread...not school bullying. The articles deals with Columbine and guns, I'm saying there's more too what happened imo than just guns. quote: No Then what do you think caused it then? Bowling?

slvemike4u -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 11:50:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboy291 quote: And what did you think of the editorial,after all that is the subject of the thread...not school bullying. The articles deals with Columbine and guns, I'm saying there's more too what happened imo than just guns. quote: No Then what do you think caused it then? Bowling? Well geeez are those the only choices....seriously the psychosis of those two killers went far beyond a lousy social life at school.Hell if intense,even over the line bullying was all it took to turn 2 kids into mass murderers...we better start home schooling all our children.Kids are cruel to each other,they allways have been. And really the aticle deals with far more than just Columbine and guns...it deals with a nations inability,or refusal, to fashion some sort of national responce to this and other similiar tragedy's and that is the issue right there.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 12:18:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Well Panda,other than a whole shitload of assumptions (mainly dealing with the intelligence of the writer...lol)you said some things in that post that are reasonable and in my experience rare on a gun thread.First off you are a gun"enthusiast"(if I may use that phrase) who admits the need of some sort of legislation.That in and of itself is refreshing. So let me ask you what sort of legislation would you like to see passed.?What about the "gun show" loophole ?...would closing that infringe on your rights.Will it take a constitutional ammendment to pass a real national gun law ?...instead of all the differing state laws,which in the final analyisis serve little purpose . Well first of all, I'm not questioning the writer's intelligence. He's probably a pretty bright guy, or he wouldn't be where he is. I'm saying he's biased, ignorant, and uninformed. As far as this issue is concerned. As someone who does a hell of a lot of hiking and camping in bear country, his comment about carrying handguns in national parks was all I needed to see to dismiss his credibility. As far as the gun show loophole is concerned, it's a weak link that I can live with. In order to fully close that loophole, you'd have to require all private owners of firearms to register both themselves and their weapons in order to legally sell them to another private party. The rights of law-abiding individuals to own and sell guns to one another is important enough to me that I'm not willing to let it go for the extremely small effect it might have on gun crime. Sorry, it's just not a tradeoff I'm willing to make. I personally don't have a problem with the loophole as it stands, for several reasons - first of all, less than half the states in the country even allow private parties to sell guns at gun shows to begin with, and as far as I'm concerned individual states are already doing an effective job of addressing the issue as they see fit - as it should be. The DOJ's own studies show that only a tiny fraction of guns used in crimes have any connection to gun shows, and in that sense requiring private gunowners to register themselves and their weapons would, indeed, constitute an unacceptable infiringment of my 2nd Amendment rights as far as I'm concerned. IMO, it's absolutely none of the Federal Government's business what firearms I own or how many of them I own. If individual states feel it's appropriate to ban private parties from selling weapons at gun shows, I have no problem with that at all. More power to them. In fact, I would probably be inclined to support such an effort on a state-government level. And as for the issue of a constitutional amendment, whether it's necessary or not isn't even an issue, IMO. Because it will never happen. There's no way at all that in my lifetime, such an amendmnet would ever pass. I believe a national gun law that falls short of an actual amendent is not only possible, but probably the best possible solution to the problem because it would require the kind of bipartisan compromise that's necessary to craft a truly rational bill. Edit: And oh yeah, you may certainly call me an enthusiast. I love 'em. I love the precision of the machine, I love the zen-like focus required to put a handgun round on target from 50 or 100 meters away, I love the discipline and the practice that are required to become proficient at using them, and I love the sense of satisfaction I get from drilling a bullseye with a .45 or a .357 magnum at 50 meters. Yes, you could call me enthusiastic.

sirsholly -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 12:25:16 PM)
quote: Then what do you think caused it then? Bowling? blaming their actions on one issue is not going to fly. Were they bullied? I do think so, but i do not think that was the reason behind that massacre. It has been debated over and over and over (and will be again, i am sure)...everything from lack of parental supervision, gun control, foods fed to them in preschool, satanic practices...yadayadayada. Everyone has their own opinion.

rulemylife -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 12:29:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol How many shooting incidents/massacres have there been in the past ten days? It's time to stop treating the subject of guns as sacrilegeous and to wake the hell up. Or the last month: In Last Month, Mass Shootings Claim 53 Lives - ABC NewsApr 5, 2009 ... In last month alone, mass shootings have claimed 53 lives ... 'We Are Stricken With Grief': 14 Dead in N.Y. Shooting Spree · Gun Sales Up in Binghamton, Across U.S. ... Why? The Alarming Leap in Mass Murders ..

rulemylife -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 12:36:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Well, i don't know what there is to say. It's an editorial, and clearly a biased, uninformed one as well. As an avid gun-owner and target shooter, with numerous rifles, handguns, and shotguns, and an assault-style rifle on order, I recognize and accept that more stringent regulation of firearms ownership is inevitable - and not only do I accept the inevitability of it, in principle i support it as well. Depending on what it looks like. And there's the rub - I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that airheaded pie-in-the-sky liberals like Nancy Pelosi, who wouldn't know the difference between a deer rifle and an AK-47, could write a gun control law that would effectively address the fundamental problem they're trying to fix without unduly infringing on the rights of ordinary gun owners and unfairly penalizing them. I would expect that the current congressional leadership will completely fuck up any attempt to write a sensible, effective gun control bill for the simple reason that they don't know jack shit about guns other than what they hear other people who don't know jack shit about guns say on NPR (or what they read from similarly ignorant NY Times editorialists), and I don't fully trust Obama to know the difference between a good bill and a bad bill for largely the same reason. I would lay money that in their complete ignorance, they'll wind up banning the wrong weapons while leaving the real problems completely untouched. You get the right bipartisan input into this process, and we may see something come out of it that I can support, but I'm not holding my breath expecting that to happen and until they at least put it on paper, there's not much to discuss. Do we need better gun control laws? Yes, absolutely. No disagreement there. What would constitute a better gun control law, have an actual impact on gun crime without underming my Second Amendment rights? That's where the disagreement will lie as this issue moves forward over the next year or so. Let's see what substantive proposals come forth from congress before we start debating, because having a discussion based on the ignorant pontifications of some editorial writer who's probably never been in the same room with a firearm is pointless. Now that you've said all that, what exactly are you proposing? What is a sensible gun control law and what are the real problems you referred to?

slvemike4u -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 12:43:09 PM)
Panda ,how does a national law governing or controlling guns somewhat stand up to a lawsuit if you don't ammend the constitution.( by the way I agree wholeheartedly with your prognosis for the chance of that happening in our lifetime...a snowball in hell has a better chance) With that in mind I would echo Rule...just what sort of legislation do you think is a)possible and b) likely to have a positive effect on what is IMO a national disgrace.

kittinSol -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 1:26:14 PM)
There needs to be a radical reform from deep within society. Education, education, education. Kids don't have to be taught that it is their God-given right to own a firearm (even if the second amendment remains... unamended). This is a deeply paranoid society, and I'm not sure how to lift this veil of fear and paranoia, but it's obvious that the gun nuttery taps deep into it - no offense to Panda, who's obviously a benevolent fanatic. There are obviously too many people out there who own guns and who are completely irresponsible with them.

couldbemage -> RE: Columbine....10 years after. (4/9/2009 1:47:06 PM)
The only thing I took away from the columbine shooting was that rich people are newsworthy and poor people aren't. ...and 9 out of 10 drug dealers agree; guns are easier to buy in mexico than in the US. Victimless crime is concept abhorrent to anyone that values freedom. Period. No exceptions.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125