Jack
Forum
Well there must be some point or we wouldn't all be doing it.
>>By Flagg (Friday, 27 Apr 2007 21:02)
Does anyone have a topic suggestion that may be of interest to all? I have a suggestion....the Democratic presidential wannabees in America. Their recent debate was hilarious (as in Hillary being the root of hilarious). But, again, this may be of little interest (at this early date) to you. Any ideas?
>>By lv2read (Sunday, 29 Apr 2007 23:25)
I know that you moderates are out there.....we want to hear from you also. If we aren't more careful the impression will be given that ALL Brits believe that American leadership is BAD---far worse than leadership in Al Quaida, or Iran...etc. I have been contacted off this site so I NOW you are there. You have nothing to fear on this board. I extend a welcome to each of you. Before you decide whether or not to joim us, pls take time and read A N Y of the Planet Ear, BIAM cimments herein.
>>By lv2read (Monday, 30 Apr 2007 15:55)
This should be funny ;)
>>By planet ear (Monday, 30 Apr 2007 16:33)
The call has gone out. If it was a cartoon we would now see L2R sitting at his computer, glancing at his watch now and then as the hours and days tick past...
>>By Flagg (Monday, 30 Apr 2007 21:46)
Flagg:
Do you have a better suggestion?? Don't hold back...please. Name a topic .....go on.
>>By lv2read (Monday, 30 Apr 2007 22:35)
LOL Nope I think we should wait a while longer yet. See if there really are legions of "moderates" :)))
>>By planet ear (Monday, 30 Apr 2007 23:41)
I named a perfectly good topic: school shootings.
Marylin Manson? Violent video games? Gun laws? Sensationalism in the media?
No wait, I have an awesome topic to discuss: In reviews of films and albums, precisely what should each number of stars signify, and should there be a limit to the number of films or albums released each month that can be given five stars?
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 1 May 2007 11:12)
Who establishes the ratings?
>>By lv2read (Tuesday, 1 May 2007 12:32)
The magazine journalists reviewing them.
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 1 May 2007 14:36)
America/Britain & Marylin Manson, Violent Video Games, Gun Laws & Sensationalism in the Media
By law guns are illegal to the general public. We don't have the Gun aisle in our supermarkets. When there is a major gun crime - it is received in shock. Over ten years ago the small Scottish town of Dunblane suffered from one of the most tragic gun crimes in britain. A man stormed into a primary school (age group 5-12 years) and proceeded in shooting children as young as 5 and teachers. That overhauled the whole security factor in schools. Most installed new electronic entry systems and CCTV. Compared with us, America is very experienced with this sort of incident.
Violent Video Games - well I don't play much *violent* games, but I do enjoy the highly controversial GTA series. After playing I do not feel the need to go out & hijack a car or reinact scenes from the game - with my dad's gun. Sure there are kids who really can't handle this sort of thing - but the vast majority of us can cope with the fundamental difference between reality & imagination.
Marylin Manson. Well make-up, clothes & music aside - the guy is a very intelligent man who does not condone violence - and CERTAINLY is resentful for his music being blamed for countless teenage shootings.
Switzerland - you can buy machine guns there, play violent video games, listen to Marylin Manson or any death metal band you want - how much gun crime do they experience? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but it certainly doesn't scream to me *Gun Central*.
People blame problems with society on scapegoats that are easy targets - music they don't approve of, games they think are dangerous, things they don't understand, when the reality of the problem lies in society & the instability of "family".
>>By Tchock (Tuesday, 1 May 2007 17:28)
Guns
Coincidentally, I heard this the other day.....If guns kill, then it was my pencil which misspelled the words on my exam. The US Constitution protects the right to bear arms....and upheld by numerous Supreme Court rulings. I don't own them, don't like them, never been to a firing (shooting) range, but many, many, many members of my societh are responsible gun owners.
Violent Video Games
Never played one unles you consider Pac Man a candidaye.
Marilyn Manson
His lyrics represenr 'intelligence?' Whose definition?
>>By lv2read (Tuesday, 1 May 2007 18:54)
No one mentioned his lyrics. Interviews with him seem to suggest he's quite intelligent.
My stance is: I don't think any new legislation is needed. With the case a couple of weeks ago the failure was on the part of the school counselor the guy was sent to, who didn't think he was dangerous. It was a failure of psychology, not legislation.
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 1 May 2007 22:55)
Who can really tell whether someone is capable of murdering 30 people or not?
You can write graphically violent plays or short stories - as he did - but that doesn't really mean you can judge if he's really a killer or not. It's not a failure on anyone's part - I don't think this could have been prevented unless he openly admitted his intentions before hand. Even the two murders he committed prior to the rampage - how were police to deduce his next movements in that short a time??
Guns.
Yeah - a gun won't load itself, aim & shoot at random. Responsible people might be able to cope with it. But how can you know who is responsible if you let everyone have the right to own one. Let's face it - most of the population of this earth are too stupid & irresponsible to be let near a gun. Even in the military !!! Sure many keep a gun in the house in case of burglars who might have guns themselves, which is fair enough but if the burglar's didn't find it so easy to obtain the gun in the first place.....
All I'm saying is that it's probably best to assume everyone's too irresponsible & not intelligent enough to own a gun & it would save a whole lot of bother later on.
>>By Tchock (Wednesday, 2 May 2007 02:16)
Ok, good point, my stance is now: if it *could* have been prevented then it would have been by the counselor. I don't like to say 'if you have a culture that loves guns and idolises people who use them then mishaps are gonna happen, nothing anyone can do', but maybe that's the case.
But not everyone has the right to own a gun. It's easier to get hold of one in some parts of America than in others, but there are always safeguards. Ok, they don't always work, but what does?
>>By Flagg (Wednesday, 2 May 2007 02:35)
The vast majority of gun owners are responsible individuals. The minute numbers which use guns for criminal purposes will always be able to acquire weapons regardkess of legal safeguards. In a perfect world there would be no criminals, or jails necessary to house them..... However-------enough said.
>>By lv2read (Wednesday, 2 May 2007 11:51)
In 2004 66% of all homicides in America were caused by a gunshot, while in 2005 the number rose to 75%. In 2004 36.5% admitted owning a gun.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ffo98.pdf
On page 10, it details how inmates of prisons obtain guns. 35% came from a family member while just 9% were bought on the blackmarket.
Who is responsible & who isn't?
A well groomed white male banker from the nice part of town could easily go into a gun store buy a gun & then shoot someone within a week. We don't know what people are capable of because we're all capable of everything.
>>By Tchock (Wednesday, 2 May 2007 14:11)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1 /hi/world/americas/ 6613861.stm
remove spaces, obviously
>>By Tchock (Wednesday, 2 May 2007 18:09)
I find it sort of depressing that someone could write so much and say nothing that doesn't go without saying. And get paid for it, presumably.
>>By Flagg (Wednesday, 2 May 2007 18:16)
Who is responsible & who isn't?
A well groomed white male banker from the nice part of town could easily go into a gun store buy a gun & then shoot someone within a week. We don't know what people are capable of because we're all capable of everything.>>>>>
BUT what we do know from numbers alone is that the VAST VAST majority of gun owners are responsible with their gun usage. It may be true that 6 out of 7 inhabitants if cell block whatever may have used a gun in a crime, but what is also a fact is that 99% of the residents of Newport Beack, or any other city for that matter, will NOT use a gun to commit a crime. Pls do not distort the facts.
>>By lv2read (Wednesday, 2 May 2007 19:02)
When there's a school shooting, no one ever comes out and says 'the country is going to hell, everyone's killing eachother' and no one is saying that now. A school shooting is an isolated incident. The number of people who get killed in armed robberies or gang warfare or whatever, has nothing to do with it.
But yes l2r, I am mostly of the opinion that making guns illegal simply means criminals are the only people allowed to use them. So if they were illegal, screwed up teenagers like Cho whatever his name is might not have access to them, but gangs will - and what kind of person is responsible for more murders, on the whole?
>>By Flagg (Wednesday, 2 May 2007 19:07)
In a country of 320,000,000+ people you'll have crime issues, i.e. murders and everything down to petty theft. In the American society we assume all to be responsible. When other behavior is observed, some rights of that person are limited. Nothing very complicated about that.
We're not going to assume that someone will break the law, but if you are a repeat offender, your punishment will be extended.
>>By lv2read (Thursday, 3 May 2007 01:19)
Yes.
I don't think we're arguing, we all seem to agree.
Want to choose another topic?
>>By Flagg (Thursday, 3 May 2007 09:23)
What about accidents in the home - children getting shot by the family gun accidentally. The easier access you have to guns the more damage it's going to cause. I'm not saying it's inevitable - but you know if you don't have a gun in the first place you're less likely to have an accident with it.
Besides having guns readily available to whoever just fuels the crime......... & what about gun-shops themselves?? I heard of one in San Francisco Bay Area that had NO background checks on their customers before selling their guns.
In the words of Louis Theroux in conversation with a *gun nut*...
"Hell having no guns in America is like having no tea in England!"
LT :"Oh god - is it that bad?"
>>By Tchock (Thursday, 3 May 2007 12:42)
Having no tea in England would be a wonderful thing.
>>By Flagg (Thursday, 3 May 2007 14:06)
& the webpage report thing by Mat Frei of the BBC. Well yes, it was pointing out the obvious - who knows why he actually needed to be financed go over there to come to those conclusions. But it highlighted what lv2read has failed to recognise - the whole "Anti-American" thing...
>>By Tchock (Friday, 4 May 2007 00:44)
Fail to realize????? Anti-American thing?? I'll tell you what I fail to understand is why USA Presidents for years have given billions and billions of dollars to ungrateful countries, many of which are avowed enemies of ours. Perhaps we should take a lesson from pre Cold War adversaaries like the Soviet Union and divy out money with strings attached. I'd like to discuss the anti-American thing after a decade of such frugality.
>>By lv2read (Tuesday, 8 May 2007 18:42)
Uhhh... you do "divy out money with strings attached." Albeit, there is some geniune people out there who do actually want to help poorer countries develop.
By the way, you're making an argument out of nothing.
>>By Tchock (Wednesday, 9 May 2007 01:07)
Yes funny that... giving billions for poor countries to develop and take billions and billions worth of raw materials right back out. Really benefits the poor habitants. Not.
>>By Lynn (Wednesday, 9 May 2007 14:34)
Yes funny that... giving billions for poor countries to develop and take billions and billions worth of raw materials right back out. Really benefits the poor habitants. Not.>>>>>
If what you are saying is true, why do third world countries fight for US dollars. Let me see if I understand, it is wrong for the US to purchase goods and services on the open market?
Again:
Perhaps we (the United States) should take a lesson from pre Cold War adversaaries like the Soviet Union and divy out money with strings attached. I'd like to discuss the anti-American thing after a decade of such frugality.
Better yet....perhaps the American people should decide if they want their tax dollars to go to ungrateful, unappreciative peoples anywhere.
I think this 'anti-American' thing should be brought out more in the open.......don't you? Especially if it is so trivial.... I wonder how strong or how weak the resentment is if in fact Ameerican dollars are at stake.
>>By lv2read (Wednesday, 9 May 2007 16:28)
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW BOOKS