RE: Bored in Oklahoma

RE: Bored in Oklahoma (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/21/2013 8:05:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD True, they could have run him over, they had the car Sure. That's how that honeymooning Italian chick got it on the Venice (California) boardwalk a few weeks ago. Surely, we need to be banning automobiles... Or they could have gotten out of the car and used meat cleavers, like those fine examples of young Britain a couple months back.

tazzygirl -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/21/2013 8:18:23 PM)
Which is why you are missing out on a lot of what people are trying to explain. Its not that you have difficulty, its that you dont want too because it wont agree with your argument.

DesFIP -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/21/2013 8:38:31 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb Just to put it in historical perspective.

Winterapple -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/21/2013 8:58:46 PM)
FR You beat me to it, Des. Neither Leopold Loe had a gun. Those boys in Liverpool a few years ago who kidnapped and killed a toddler from a mall didn't need one either. And there are countless other examples down through history. This was a thrill killing. Did having access to a gun and a car make it easier? Of course. Would removing those things from the equation kept them from finding another victim? You can't know for sure but with the motive they had I'm going to say they were likely to have done it anyway. I don't really think this is about American gun culture, Americans being prone to violence or really much about America at all. I think it's about the darkness that lurks in the heart of mankind. And I say that as someone who doesn't love guns and would like to see stricter gun laws.

BamaD -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/21/2013 9:05:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Which is why you are missing out on a lot of what people are trying to explain. Its not that you have difficulty, its that you dont want too because it wont agree with your argument. You don't want to ban guns. The kids had the gun illegally. They had already committed a Federal offense before they even saw the Victim. When I was a programmer we had a saying. We can make things foolproof but we can't make them idiot proof. You want idiot proof.

BamaD -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/21/2013 9:08:54 PM)
Something to think about. wizbangblog.com

tazzygirl -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/21/2013 9:09:13 PM)
Not at all. There isnt a way to make these things idiot proof as long as idiots own guns.

MrRodgers -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/22/2013 1:24:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Of course there are other factors involved. Such as why do kids grow up with such a contemptuous attitude to human life? Why are their horizons so hopeless that murder seems like a fun way to pass a few idle moments...... But for goodness sake, stop deluding yourself that there is no relationship between availability of weapons and your horrendous murder rate If those idiots didn't have such easy access to lethal weapons, they most probably would have found something far less murderous to do. I don't get the impression that planning ways past sound security systems to obtain weapons is their forte. Well whatever we do, don't get bored and smoke some pot...now that's a real crime. Banning guns will work like...banning drugs hey ? America is a joke.

Kirata -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/22/2013 1:51:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Why do you assume this? Sure, the wide availability of guns doesn't cause most gun owners to kill - but what makes you take it so much for granted that it isn't a causal factor behind the murderous actions of the minority? How would that work, precisely? Maybe guns give off some kind of undetected radiation that they're susceptible to? K.

Politesub53 -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/22/2013 3:06:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD True, they could have run him over, they had the car Sure. That's how that honeymooning Italian chick got it on the Venice (California) boardwalk a few weeks ago. Surely, we need to be banning automobiles... Or they could have gotten out of the car and used meat cleavers, like those fine examples of young Britain a couple months back. The ignorance shown in equating terrorists with a few yobs in Oklahoma, is low, even for you. The whole point of your OP, seems to be to open up the gun/knife debate all over again, which again is low. Those of you who feel there is no link between guns and drive by shootings need a head shake. The fucking clue is in the term "Drive by"

Politesub53 -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/22/2013 3:08:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Why do you assume this? Sure, the wide availability of guns doesn't cause most gun owners to kill - but what makes you take it so much for granted that it isn't a causal factor behind the murderous actions of the minority? How would that work, precisely? Maybe guns give off some kind of undetected radiation that they're susceptible to? K. Because the ability not to have to get up close and personal, as well as the advantage of firepower, is an enabling factor. Of course, you wont spot that, as it doesnt suit your blinkered argument.

PeonForHer -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/22/2013 3:56:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Why do you assume this? Sure, the wide availability of guns doesn't cause most gun owners to kill - but what makes you take it so much for granted that it isn't a causal factor behind the murderous actions of the minority? How would that work, precisely? Maybe guns give off some kind of undetected radiation that they're susceptible to? K. Please strive not to be a plonker, old chap. [;)] No, it works because people are a) able to see guns b) buy them and c) given lots of ideas about the fun they could have with them from numerous sources. Anti social feelings, aggression, the desire to hurt . . . get channelled and focused in a particular way - towards guns. The fantasy of killing - which, maybe, is present in many minds at many times - is egged towards a reality. Seriously, is this really so difficult to grasp?

Zonie63 -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/22/2013 4:51:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I'm not sure that it's a non-reaction in the USA, since this incident is being covered in the press and discussed. The sad fact is, most murders in this country tend to go unnoticed. Perhaps they might get a blurb in the local press but hardly a national issue, unless it's something outrageous or infamous or something that would get good ratings for the media. Actually, the reason a lot of murders go un/under reported in the US is because so many of them are related to (drug trade-funded) gang activity, and the gang-bangers love seeing their exploits on the news. Coverage only encourages more of the same. Something like this quite obviously breaks out of the mold, and a murder in Oklahoma made it promptly into my news feed out in California. Yeah, I can understand that. Generally, murders are usually covered by local news outlets in whatever area they happen, so the gangs will still see their exploits on the news regardless. I'm not certain that they actually love to see their exploits on the news or that they're encouraged by more coverage, especially if they're in the drug trade, where they would be inclined to try to avoid attention wherever possible. In any case, I'm not sure that giving them less coverage is the answer, as it is said that if you turn the light on, the cockroaches go running for cover. On the other hand, I can see where a newspaper filled with nothing but murder stories could be bad for an area's image and reputation, could scare away tourists or businesses thinking of relocating to an area.

Kirata -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/22/2013 5:19:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer No, it works because people are a) able to see guns b) buy them and c) given lots of ideas about the fun they could have with them from numerous sources. Anti social feelings, aggression, the desire to hurt . . . get channelled and focused in a particular way - towards guns. The fantasy of killing - which, maybe, is present in many minds at many times - is egged towards a reality. Seriously, is this really so difficult to grasp? What's difficult is how you leap from the above to guns as a causative factor. Does seeing a gun cause the desire to hurt? Do guns transmit ideas into people's heads by some mysterious means? Seriously, is this really so difficult to grasp? K.

PeonForHer -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/22/2013 5:51:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata What's difficult is how you leap from the above to guns as a causitive factor. Does seeing a gun cause the desire to hurt? Do guns transmit ideas into people's heads by some mysterious means? Seriously, is this really so difficult to grasp? There's nothing mysterious about it, K. This is one of those things, it seems, that is difficult to grasp not because it's so abstruse but because it's so basic. (I don't mean that in any sarcastic way: plenty of things fit into that category.) I'm guessing that you're referring to the 'guns don't kill, people do' argument. That doesn't relate here, unless you want me to concede that it's not guns that make themselves widely available, it's people that do that - something I'm happy to concede. Aggression, anger, the desire to cause damage, I'm arguing, starts off unchannelled. I may want to hurt somebody or some thing, and that might translate into swinging a punch. I can do this because I've seen punches swung and can relate to the feeling and I have a fist, readily available, at the end of my arm. It's an instant feeling, second nature. Angry at man, boom, swing a punch at him. Now suppose that a gun is not so very far away from being like a fist. I can pick up a gun from the shop I pass in the high street. I've seen guns used on the TV and learned to relate to the feeling. A gun is a cool way to be aggressive, just as is a John Wayne haymaker type of punch. The means are in place - the 'training' that TV gunfights provide; the shops that sell guns: the means help to cause the desire to shoot a gun. So I use a gun. But at the beginning, all I had was the aggression and the desire to hurt someone. I don't use a knuckle duster or razor (some of the favourite weapons of 1950s England) - things that articulated aggression, then, but things that don't generally kill the victim. If you want a simpler example still: I like doing DIY. It never occurred to me, though, to do something as radical and as big as to make a hole in a wall - until I discovered angle grinders and bought one. I watched videos on their use on the internet. Nowadays, I see a wall and can 'see' a window in it. And angle grinders are big, heavy, powerful things and I like to handle big, heavy powerful things. And so on.

tweakabelle -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/22/2013 5:55:23 AM)
quote: What's difficult is how you leap from the above to guns as a causitive factor. Does seeing a gun cause the desire to hurt? Do guns transmit ideas into people's heads by some mysterious means? Seriously, is this really so difficult to grasp? equalizer, equaliser [ˈiːkwəˌlaɪzə] n 1. a person or thing that equalizes, esp a device to counterbalance opposing forces 2. (Engineering / Electrical Engineering) an electronic network introduced into a transmission circuit to alter its response, esp to reduce distortion by equalizing its response over a specified frequency range 3. (Team Sports, other than specified) Sport a goal, point, etc., that levels the score 4. US slang a weapon, esp a gun http://www.thefreedictionary.com/equalizer Commonly people have reported a feeling of power when handling a weapon. 'Small man + gun > Big Man' is a cliche. Possession of a weapon enables or, if you prefer, deludes lesser individuals to feel more powerful. Some speculate that sense of power is the attraction, the fascination underlying the popularity of firearms with certain males - it's one way of compensating ('equalising') for those uncomfortable feelings of inadequacy or inferiority that many men find so difficult to deal with. It is not difficult to grasp that guns 'equalise' things in such minds. This notion is so common that it has worked its way into US slang (street language). Nothing too difficult to grasp there, is there?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/22/2013 6:00:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata What's difficult is how you leap from the above to guns as a causitive factor. Does seeing a gun cause the desire to hurt? Do guns transmit ideas into people's heads by some mysterious means? Seriously, is this really so difficult to grasp? There's nothing mysterious about it, K. This is one of those things, it seems, that is difficult to grasp not because it's so abstruse but because it's so basic. (I don't mean that in any sarcastic way: plenty of things fit into that category.) I'm guessing that you're referring to the 'guns don't kill, people do' argument. That doesn't relate here, unless you want me to concede that it's not guns that make themselves widely available, it's people that do that - something I'm happy to concede. Aggression, anger, the desire to cause damage, I'm arguing, starts off unchannelled. I may want to hurt somebody or some thing, and that might translate into swinging a punch. I can do this because I've seen punches swung and can relate to the feeling and I have a fist, readily available, at the end of my arm. It's an instant feeling, second nature. Angry at man, boom, swing a punch at him. Now suppose that a gun is not so very far away from being like a fist. I can pick up a gun from the shop I pass in the high street. I've seen guns used on the TV and learned to relate to the feeling. A gun is a cool way to be aggressive, just as is a John Wayne haymaker type of punch. The means are in place - the 'training' that TV gunfights provide; the shops that sell guns: the means help to cause the desire to shoot a gun. So I use a gun. But at the beginning, all I had was the aggression and the desire to hurt someone. I don't use a knuckle duster or razor (some of the favourite weapons of 1950s England) - things that articulated aggression, then, but things that don't generally kill the victim. If you want a simpler example still: I like doing DIY. It never occurred to me, though, to do something as radical and as big as to make a hole in a wall - until I discovered angle grinders and bought one. Lack of proper tool (sledge hammers, roto-zips and recip saws banned over there, too? [:D]) doesn't stop the mindset. These kids were fucking bored. To break their boredom up, they chose to shoot another human being. They could have chosen to set up a target shoot the gun. Instead, they extinguished a human life. That mindset needs to be corrected. That truly is the bigger issue in this situation.

PeonForHer -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/22/2013 6:15:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Lack of proper tool (sledge hammers, roto-zips and recip saws banned over there, too? [:D]) doesn't stop the mindset. These kids were fucking bored. To break their boredom up, they chose to shoot another human being. They could have chosen to set up a target shoot the gun. Instead, they extinguished a human life. That mindset needs to be corrected. That truly is the bigger issue in this situation. Sledge hammers, especially, are fun. I've used them and very aggressively, too. It's fun to smash things. They're not so good for smashing people, though - unwieldy, slow and not easy to conceal. Yes, those kids may well have been 'fucking bored' and no doubt there's a mindset that needs to be corrected. The availability of guns in the context of these kids shooting people, and the pervasive hip-culture of guns, is a part of that mindset, though. Is there no viability at all the concept of 'channelling aggression productively'?

Zonie63 -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/22/2013 6:16:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Why do you assume this? Sure, the wide availability of guns doesn't cause most gun owners to kill - but what makes you take it so much for granted that it isn't a causal factor behind the murderous actions of the minority? How would that work, precisely? Maybe guns give off some kind of undetected radiation that they're susceptible to? K. Please strive not to be a plonker, old chap. [;)] No, it works because people are a) able to see guns b) buy them and c) given lots of ideas about the fun they could have with them from numerous sources. Anti social feelings, aggression, the desire to hurt . . . get channelled and focused in a particular way - towards guns. The fantasy of killing - which, maybe, is present in many minds at many times - is egged towards a reality. Seriously, is this really so difficult to grasp? Speaking personally, I've never killed anyone, so I can't really grasp the concept on that basis. To me, the gun is just an inanimate object. It's just a tool - a tool for killing, yes, but a tool nevertheless. I'm not really against the idea of gun control in theory, although I've seen this debate played out in the media and public forums all my life, and both sides are at an impasse. It's a dead-end argument, a merry-go-round that goes nowhere. I have somewhat mixed feelings about the issue, since I can see both sides and understand the arguments they're making. But I also see that there's a lot of political footballing going on which doesn't seem very conducive to finding any practical solutions. Realistically, I don't think guns are ever going to go away. It's too heavily ingrained in our history, our culture, our political/social perceptions. To try to challenge or restrict that in any way is like banging one's head against a brick wall. It doesn't matter if you feel you're absolutely right, it's a no-win situation. I think that there might be a potential compromise towards finding a practicable solution to the problem, but that might involve taking the focus off of the "the gun" as the be all and end all of the argument. From a practical standpoint, there are so many guns in circulation right now that no matter what laws are passed, it would be very difficult to put that genie back in its bottle. The larger issue is crime itself and what can society do to stop it. Crime has actually gone down in recent decades, although that may not be saying much since it's really just a reduction from the huge crime waves of the 1970s and 80s. There's still a problem, as events like this clearly demonstrate. I remember when liberals used to commonly argue that "society is to blame," although I don't really hear that as much as I used to. That argument seems to have morphed into "guns are to blame," but both positions seem somewhat oversimplified to me; even though I can see that there some merit to both positions, I don't think it presents a balanced picture of what's going on. I don't think that anyone can come with a clear answer as to what causes crime, even after countless sociologists, criminologists, psychologists, doctors, and many other learned professionals have grappled with this problem for centuries. Sure, I think we've come a long way from the time when we thought that criminals were possessed by demons, but I still think we have to yet to come up with any definitive solution (which may not ever be).

DesideriScuri -> RE: Bored in Oklahoma (8/22/2013 6:25:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Lack of proper tool (sledge hammers, roto-zips and recip saws banned over there, too? [:D]) doesn't stop the mindset. These kids were fucking bored. To break their boredom up, they chose to shoot another human being. They could have chosen to set up a target shoot the gun. Instead, they extinguished a human life. That mindset needs to be corrected. That truly is the bigger issue in this situation. Sledge hammers, especially, are fun. I've used them and very aggressively, too. It's fun to smash things. They're not so good for smashing people, though - unwieldy, slow and not easy to conceal. I would never have thought about using them on people (zombies, maybe). I was commenting on your not thinking of making a hole in a wall until you got an angle grinder. quote: Yes, those kids may well have been 'fucking bored' and no doubt there's a mindset that needs to be corrected. The availability of guns in the context of these kids shooting people, and the pervasive hip-culture of guns, is a part of that mindset, though. Is there no viability at all the concept of 'channelling aggression productively'? Certainly the concept of productively channeling aggression is here. It isn't embraced at all times by everyone, though. And, unless the kids didn't get the gun until they were on their way, it was present beforehand... and they hadn't shot anyone with it. Change the mindset of people who think it's acceptable or okay to kill another human being and you'll have a stronger impact on reducing homicides across the spectrum of weapons.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875