Virginia Tech Massacre

[ITALIANO]

Yes Eric I am, trust me. I don't even know where I should begin. This is not about liking a bad movie - it's about stubbornly refusing to face the cultural roots of a society one lives in. This doesn't happen in the rest of the world, really.

[Eric]

From which planet do all of you come from? I'm speechless.

No you're not.

[ITALIANO]

From which planet do all of you come from? I'm speechless.

[Akash]

Sonic, perhaps I'm being liberal with my definition but it's a very well known fact that Columbia administrators alter their language depending on who they are talking to.

When they are trying to recruit inner city kids or kids interested in urban themes, they refer to Columbia as being "in the middle of Harlem." When talking to kids from the Midwest and so forth, they say "Morningside Heights." Of course the latter term is the name of the neighborhood but let's be real - Columbia is close enough to Harlem to be affected by its history, its diversity and yes its social problems. I'm not alone in this. Many professors here refer to Columbia as existing "in the middle of Harlem." Yes it may be a liberal definition but it's not completely without merit.

Fine then, I'll be more accurate. Columbia is only an ass-crack space away from Harlem so it doesn't make a frigging bit of difference. Better? I guess whatever magical borders you think exist there must be preventing those two worlds from spilling into each other and therefore making Columbia "completely safe to walk around" (are you serious? I have friends and incidents that would indicate otherwise)

And anyway I agree with you that Harlem is having a comeback. I only conflated the two to address your point about people feeling differently about guns in the city versus the suburbs.

[OscarGuy]

you're misinterpreting the intended definition of appropriate as opposed to your personal definition.

In the context of the sentence (which you point out in your own post), your story is out of date. It's not realistic in today's social climate.

I'm not discounting the situation nor the dire nature of it, I'm just saying that it's 25 years out of date. In 25 years, a great many things have changed. The kinds of people who go around in groups harrassing people are the kinds of people who have violent tendencies and thus are more likely to possess handguns than those who do not. It's not a 100% of the mob cases, but I'd wager that it's greater than 75%.

Do you think your friend should pull a gun on anyone today? With all the cases of road rage and other issues, do you really think the same result would occur? If you do, then I'm afraid you're looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, because I don't think we can reasonably assume that such a situation as you described would end with the same result as it would today.

[flipp525]

The police force and the government are corruptable, so I don't have an issue with gun control but not the elimination of guns...I won't ever own one and, sad to say this, flipp, but nowadays had your friend done that, at least one of the thugs chasing your friend would also have pulled out a gun, so that example is no longer appropriate.

Your assertion that today, one of the youths would've been carrying a gun is your opinion, not a fact. I don't think "appropriate" was the best word to use here. Frankly, I can't think of a more appropriate example to illustrate how the Second Amendment works for intended victims of violence. "Applicable", "germaine", any number of other words might've fit better but I'm a little put off by the notion that my story isn't appropriate for a thread that's veering into the general issue of gun violence.

The story I chose to share was my personal point of reference for my personal belief that citizens should still have the right to arm themselves, not the rock upon which I'm basing an entirely new way of thinking about fireams.



Edited By flipp525 on 1177002044

[Sonic Youth]

Sonic, I grew up in the suburbs in CT but I've also lived in NY for the past 4 years. Yes it's mostly been the dorms at Columbia but we're still practically in the middle of Harlem (despite Columbia's laughable redefinition) and I've still had to walk the streets of NY late many nights and I can honestly say I've never felt the need to own a gun.

????

Okay, I'm not going to ignore the rest of your post. I'll get to it later. But as someone who loves New York, this intrigued me. Columbia in the middle of Harlem? Columbia ain't in the middle of anything, if we want to be pedantic about it, since it's by the river. The Hudson's to the west, the Upper West Side is south. Harlem's to the northeast of Columbia, if memory serves me well. I've walked from Lincoln Center to Columbia before.

And what's the laughable redefinition? "Morningside Heights?" That's the name of the neighborhood. The only thing I can see laughable about it is that it's on the west side, the "evening" side.

Morningside Heights and Columbia is very safe to walk around, and Harlem is having something of a comeback, you know. It's nowhere near as dangerous as it used to be (if you don't count the east side.)

Sorry to sidetrack.

[Eric]

These days I force myself and watch CNN when I wake up to see how America deals with all this. It is SO depressingly superficial - all about the (conveniently foreign) killer and his sick psyche and nothing about the deepest cultural reasons why such facts happen in the "most beautiful country on Earth". But of course this is also the country of Oprah and Dr Phil, so I'm not surprised if the level of the discussion in the media is so unconsequential, so afraid of truly facing the problem. I should be, of course, a bit more surprised when the same happens on this board, mostly composed of well-meaning, educated, leftist Americans. But for several reasons, by now, I'm not.

I'm curious to hear more about how the event should be covered by the press. Or if it should be covered at all (at least the portions pertaining to a the suicide, since we're supposed to be in the business of not glamourizing suicides.)

[ITALIANO]

These days I force myself and watch CNN when I wake up to see how America deals with all this. It is SO depressingly superficial - all about the (conveniently foreign) killer and his sick psyche and nothing about the deepest cultural reasons why such facts happen in the "most beautiful country on Earth". But of course this is also the country of Oprah and Dr Phil, so I'm not surprised if the level of the discussion in the media is so unconsequential, so afraid of truly facing the problem. I should be, of course, a bit more surprised when the same happens on this board, mostly composed of well-meaning, educated, leftist Americans. But for several reasons, by now, I'm not.

[criddic3]

Obviously a terrible terrible tragedy. Very sad.

Personally I don't think it's necessary to say "Asian" either, but really, aren't you guys being a little too sensitive about that? It is a description of the man. He was crazy, anti-social and, yes -broadly perhaps- Asian. If I went on a rampage and killed 32 people, I wouldn't care if you said "Crazy Republican White Man Kills." Really, does it matter?

Anyway, he was crazy. All the evidence thus far seems to suggest that his condition slipped through the system, after psychiatrists and others made reports that he was a danger to people. Just so sad.

I don't personally like guns myself, but i do not object to law-abiding citizens owning them.

[Damien]

I've been mugged at gunpoint, and I despise people who go out and kill animals for pleasure (I suspect we're talking about a lot of small penises here). Still, I would never push for a complete ban on gun ownership, simply because firearms are such a part of the glorious American tradition that such a ban would never even remotely happen. (I don't know a single person who owns a gun, and I've never fired one -- not even a BB gun -- but I have a friend in Texas who told me that every husehold in his (well-heeled) suburban neighborhood has at least two.

But even playing Devil's Advocate and saying that the 2nd Amendment means more than the allowance of a militia (by the way, how come the right wing strict constructionalists have never fancied interpreting this Amendment in a strict manner?) and allows individual gun ownership, I don't see why gun nuts are so adament against every single restriction on gun ownership -- after all, there are well-established restrictions of First Amendment rights.

[Akash]

Sonic, I grew up in the suburbs in CT but I've also lived in NY for the past 4 years. Yes it's mostly been the dorms at Columbia but we're still practically in the middle of Harlem (despite Columbia's laughable redefinition) and I've still had to walk the streets of NY late many nights and I can honestly say I've never felt the need to own a gun.

I see the logic in your argument that gun toting does not necessarily equal unsafe. However, by your own admission, a country's particular social problems are more indicative of whether or not said country is safe or unsafe and - for the sake of this hypothesis - can we assume then that America's particular social problems or what have you, makes it "unsafe?" If so, perhaps the only short term solution (until we can solve America's social ills) is a ban on guns. It won't solve every problem but given how easily people are killed or hurt in our country by guns, I can't really see how a ban could possibly be bad. If it even reduces those numbers by 50% or even 25%, that's still something to be grateful for.

And I'll be frank, I could give a rat's ass about hunters or whatever stupid pleasure they get out of taking down a defenseless animal (I know that's not what you meant by bringing them up, I'm being tangential) - this is an issue that cannot easily be framed by other arguments because it involves the easy deaths of many innocent people. If there was ever a time when government should intervene strongly, it's here - not on illegal immigrants, not on gay TeleTubbies and not on Terry Schiavo. But guns? Yeah maybe they should be hard asses when it comes to guns.

This is not an issue like drug use as another poster suggested (I'm all for the legalization of any substance any individual wants to put into his or her own body). Drugs do not translate easily into the death of another innocent person - the analogy is facile because guns, unlike drugs or pills or stem cells or gay marriage or whatever - are designed to KILL.

I realize this is hard for many and in America's pathetic political "spectrum" it makes me a radical, but I'm actually ok with right wingers fearing a police state because of a gun ban. I'm all for anything resembling a quasi-Socialist state with strong government paternalism on issues like guns, healthcare, and the environment.

[Sonic Youth]

As for gun control Sonic, I'm actually against citizens outside of the police force owning any kind of gun at all. I should have stated that earlier.

Ah, well then we should define our terms. You mean a widespread gun "ban". Gun "control" means an emphasis on public safety, prevention of sale to criminals, extensive checks and balances, etc.

Switzerland is a major gun-toting country (thanks mostly to a mandatory conscription for military service for all able-bodied males) and the handgun murder rate is as low as any other European country. On the other hand, guns are also prevalent in African nations, and murder rates are very high. But Switzerland doesn't have the social problems Africa has, and Africa doesn't have the even distribution of arms the Swiss have.

I've found most left-leaning people who've grown up in big cities and have had first or second hand experience with violent crimes or muggings tend to be more lenient towards the issues of gun ownership - to them, this is being pragmatic - while left-leaning people who grew up in low-crime suburbs and towns are more willing to take everyone's guns away - to them, it's a matter of principle. Both are operating under different conditions they grew up/are now living under.

I'm now living in a 1,500 pop. town in Pennsylvania where people get special days off from work to go hunt every November. I'm sure every second household has a rack. And although I wouldn't want to hike in the woods during hunting season, I feel perfectly safe walking the streets despite a very high ratio of gun ownership. In any event, the rate of gun ownership doesn't tell us as much about the safety of a particular community as endemic crime and social problems do. And that's why these there's-no-solution-but-one pronouncements of moral sanction make me very uneasy.

Plus, it would be impossible to implement a gun ban. Maybe it was possible forty years ago, but to make such a thing work would take an effort that would confirm right-wingers fears of living in a police state.

[dws1982]

Did the NRA already have its panic meeting like it did after Columbine?

I'm no supporter of the NRA, but it's been pointed out several times that the NRA meeting in Denver had been scheduled well in advance of the Columbine. The NRA scaled back the activities of the national meeting after Columbine to the meeting--which had to take place, under New York State and Federal laws for the type of organization that the NRA is--and little else. I think that it absolutely was in very poor taste for them to continue plans to have their meeting in Denver, but the notion that it was a panic meeting is incorrect. Their National Meeting this year was last weekend in St. Louis.

To me one either has to embrace an absolute restriction or none at all.

I don't agree with this.

I don't hunt, don't own a gun, am not one to go on about how it's my "God given right" to own a gun...but I also don't think that an absolute restriction would do any more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals than drug prohibition does to keep drugs out of the hands of drug users.

[OscarGuy]

The police force and the government are corruptable, so I don't have an issue with gun control but not the elimination of guns...I won't ever own one and, sad to say this, flipp, but nowadays had your friend done that, at least one of the thugs chasing your friend would also have pulled out a gun, so that example is no longer appropriate.