# The shooting tragedy!



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

:x 

Now, this is not another anti-american rant, but I just don't get your laws on guns.

You can't smoke within a hundred yards of a populated building, you can't buy a beer unless you are of pensionable age (each a personal choice, with no harm to yourselves, unless you count passive smoking or drink driving - which of course are crimes), yet you are positively encouraged to buy guns! How does that work?

What a senseless, senseless tragedy. It's terrible. Makes me sad.


----------



## Cam (Dec 13, 2006)

Where I live has some of the toughest gun laws in the world, But if want a gun, I could buy one tomorrow, illegally.
If you want a gun you can get one, regardless of any gun laws.

But yes, it is a tragedy, so is the 200 hundred people that have been killed in suicide bombings in the last 2 days.

Oh yeah, that didnt happen in America so who gives a shit!


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

I'm usually the one at the forefront of the america-the-free ranters on here, so prepare thyself for a torrent of self-righteous abuse. Curious that no americans posted about it though. :?

But, saying that, perhaps some people have some sense of empathy. You never know, even in the land of the free. Those chaps are a different breed. In the nicest possible way.

Watch this space. I mean it, watch it VERY closely. Perpare thyself. Americans are fantatically patriotic, and any (deemed) slight against them will be admonished.

I mean, we only asked a question, didn't we? And a fairly reasonable one at that, I thought.


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

> Now, this is not another anti-american rant, but I just don't get your laws on guns.
> 
> You can't smoke within a hundred yards of a populated building, you can't buy a beer unless you are of pensionable age (each a personal choice, with no harm to yourselves, unless you count passive smoking or drink driving - which of course are crimes), yet you are positively encouraged to buy guns! How does that work?
> 
> What a senseless, senseless tragedy. It's terrible. Makes me sad.


This is what I've been saying about our gun laws for forever! I want to know why exactly we need guns. I don't know about anyone else but I personally have never needed a gun to protect myself from someone. If you have an intruder in your house and you need a gun for protection, the odds are you're gonna die anyway because he has a gun too which is the only reason you would need one in the first place. I want some statistics on the number of people hurt by guns in America verses the number that they have helped. Who here has EVER been helped by owning a handgun? Anyone? Personally, the people I know that own guns are the people that I would REALLY prefer not have one at their disposal 24/7. The people I know that do not have guns have never needed one nor will they ever need one because they don't involve themselves in sh*t that would ever require them to need a gun!

I'm usually in the middle on many political issues but I feel pretty strongly on this one. I know they say criminals will just get them illegally but if every Tom, Dick, and Harry couldn't go out and buy one legally, then maybe criminals would have a harder time getting their hands on one. And on the bullets to use them! Instead if you get the urge to kill someone you can just run out and stop by the store to pick up a gun or extra ammo for your spree. What the hell?


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I'm not going into a gun law debate. One can argue both sides equally.

Note: each individual STATE, and we have 50 of them (States) have different gun laws. W. Virginia has a particularly lax standard.

My beef is, bottom line, we have responsible people who purchase guns. They go through a 2 week security check. They make the effort to buy from reputable gun dealers and go by the law to obtain the gun.

Then there are "gun and knife" shows. These are for hunters and for people who are "gun afficionados". They like to go to shooting ranges. It is a sport.

Gun shows do not have regulations. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE TO ME. Also, there are a million loopholes on how to get around owning semi-automatic weapons, etc.

The thing is, this tragedy occured because the man who committed it was a pure sociopath. Someone without any capability to even see other people as human beings.

So at any rate, as someone stated above, yes we have a high rate of gun deaths, but again, we have a much greater population, so measure that against statistics.

ANYONE can get a gun on the black market, even if all guns were banned. What responsible people fear is the inability to defend themselves.

Also, I have to agree with the point about there are more deaths per second in other countries, such as Iraq, Africa, from violence, etc.

This does not take away from the tragedy. But I do not think anyone can stop someone like this young man, nor the kids at Columbine from carrying out such a plan.

I have mixed feelings about handguns.

Worse is the mental health system that lost track of this guy.
Also I hate hunting of any kind and live in a state where it is a great sport -- deer hunting. It also sickens me.

Again this isn't an easy debate. *Nothing is simple*
Bottom line they must have regulations on gun shows. (And this differs from state to state). Laws that were made 5 years ago expire and are not picked up again.

I do not own a gun. My husband does. It is registered. He has had a background check. Why does he have it? During the L.A. riots there were far from enough police. It was terrifying driving from the West side to our house in downtown. It took hours, and on the way, we drove past gangs destroying stores, throwing bricks at cars, and threatening people with weapons.

When back at the house, we saw on the news that firefighters were being shot at -- those guns were black market. Store owners, protecting their livelihood had to protect their own property from being destroyed. They stood on the roofs of their buildings with rifles they had also bought legally and defended themselves. I don't think one person was shot by someone defending their property.

Anytime there is a potential for anarchy. During the Northridge Earthquake it was again every man for himself. People were afraid of having no water, no food. People get violent. You have a right to defend your own property. I was terrified in that situation as well.

When you are in a free-for-all like that, it's every man for himself.

*NOT EVERY AMERICAN IN THIS COUNTRY OWNS A GUN. Many don't. The problem is criminals get ahold of them no matter what. From other countries -- shipped in illegally, or sold illegally.*

I don't know the answer. Again, not easy.

You are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon however. Hence the concept is to defend your home, or use it for target practice.

I know very few people who own guns. I don't socialize with hunters. Nothing in common.

Just 2 cents neither here nor there. The laws in different states are ridiculous. And Federal loopholes that are low on the list of priorities are not addressed in a timely fashion.

What still stuns me is that this guy was ill since a child. Or rather grew into a sociopath. There was much warning about his sinister behavior. But who can anticipate something like this? He could have also bombed the school with a homemade bomb.

Why he fell through the mental health cracks I don't know, but he was like a serial killer. Figure how to control such a person.

I am not excusing anything here. Again there are many ways to look at this. The debate here in America has been going on about this also for decades. *NOT EVERY AMERICAN BELIEVES WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS. Even rifles for hunting.*

Sad situation. That guy planned that massacre meticulously. In W. Virginia, background checks are lax, there was no waiting period. And this kid had been threatening people/stalking women/hospitalized I think for a very brief period, but none of these records were "public record", so every agency that tried to stop him, didn't have information from another agency.

That is called privacy. Priviledged information. I think that did more harm in leading up to this. If he didn't have a gun, he would have blown up a building. I have no doubt. One professor even said this, and said he could go on a shooting rampage.

The Columbine kids were the same. Outcasts, disturbed, out for revenge at any cost ... just like serial killers, pedophiles. O.J.Simpson is also a sociopath. He killed his wife and Ron Goldman with a large knife.

Hatred and violence is not logical. Go figure people using an airplane to destroy a building. Nothing can stop someone Hell bent on destruction and filled with hatred or seriously ill.
D


----------



## none (Dec 29, 2005)

//


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

I'm definitely NOT opposed to reforming gun laws in America, but...

It's oversimplication of the issue to blame it all on gun control legistlation. Instead of asking where they got the guns, I'm wondering why are there kids that feel the need to kill large quantities of people in the first place? And why is it often in a school setting? Those are the scarier questions to me.

I'm biased, I guess, because I'm a high school teacher. I think education needs to be reformed from top to bottom. It surely can't be a coincidence that all of this is going on in schools, can it? I won't get on my high horse about it, but there are so many aspects of the educational system that promote the loner/outcast time bomb.

To be honest, I've stopped giving my students any sort of journal response assignments, because I'm scared of what I'm going to see. It's my duty (legally _and_ morally, I think) to report problems or issues that I think are potentially dangerous. It got to the point where I was seeing the most devastating things, and was literally overwhelmed. Also, if we get involved on a personal level we run the risk of students becoming overly attached because we're one of the only positive influences in their lives. At the risk of sounding as old as Methusala...the world just seems to be so complicated these days!

In the past, when I've raised concerns with school personnel, I haven't been given much (if any support). Schools tend to push this kind of stuff back on teachers...and we have NO (absolutely NO) training to handle it. There's one school psychologist for 2,000 kids....I don't know what the solution is exactly, but it seems like something has to be done.

It's just a sad state of affairs when as part of our teacher training, we have SWAT teams come into talk to us...


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

halfaperson said:


> It's oversimplication of the issue to blame it all on gun control legistlation. Instead of asking where they got the guns, I'm wondering why are there kids that feel the need to kill large quantities of people in the first place? And why is it often in a school setting? Those are the scarier questions to me.


Dear Half,

Being a teacher, well you're on the front lines as are some of my friends. I know two teachers. You have one of the most important jobs in the country and receive no respect, are underpaid, and are woefully overburdened in the classroom.

Firstly, someone above said Kleibold and ... the other kid in Columbine were not ill. Think of it, they shot up a school. Your average kid who is not disturbed does not do that.

What is happening, and I still think it is reflected in the political swing to the Right which happened last election, is kids as a whole have no respect for authority. My one high-school teacher friend indicates that he is no longer a teacher, but a babysitter. The problem starts at home.

You cannot legislate morality however. I don't what the Hell is wrong with most parents today.

Also, there is the backlash of babyboomers letting their kids grow up "free" "as they please", they are "friends to their children", they do not act like parents. Kids feel entitled these days. Have no respect for authority. And TEACHERS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE ... I agree with that ... the culture as a whole has gotten out of hand.

And here's a debate -- video games and rap for one -- they are exceptionally violent and are geared towards young people. I don't think videos and the media cause this type of behavior, but everyone seems to think it's acceptable to have games where kids shoot people all day or blow women up, or call (as in our latest debacle with Don Imus) the Rutgers girls basketball team "nappy ho's" on the air. He's white. He's been fired. But there are CDs where black men call women worse things and regularly talk about raping and killing them.

I have an article from the killings in 1966 at Austin where a sniper on a clock tower picked off a large number of students. 1966. This is not unusual. This happens when young people are of a vulnerable age -- this guy finally broke, and was at an age where instead of inciting a bullying riot in a playground had to the ability to take this out on others.

Also, this has happened in other countries. Even in Russia, or a Slavic country recently? Children are horriblly innocent targets. The innocent.

There are 8 million reasons why this happened. I'll post the article by an education specialist who wrote a book on the Austin shootings, where he found no one to blame.

Ah, in Israel, Jewish teachers are being allowed to carry and use firearms in the classroom. In the event of terrorist attacks. Israel is hardline on all of this stuff. You can hate them, but they are more hated than the US, and are also targets and have been forever.

Too much to write about. Should be a discussion.

Best,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

*One* I have to refresh my memory on Columbine, but I believe those two kids felt they were "different", of a "special group" etc. I'll have to look this up.

Here is a great article where there is really no place we can place blame:

*Opinion: The Legacy of the Texas Tower Sniper
By GARY LAVERGNE

From The Chronicle of Higher Education
Wednesday, April 18, 2007*

*"On August 1, 1966, Charles Joseph Whitman ascended the University of Texas Tower, in Austin, and in 96 minutes fired 150 high-powered rounds of ammunition down upon an unsuspecting university family. Students, faculty and staff members, and visitors heard "strange noises" and thought nothing of it until they saw bodies and blood on the sidewalks. The shooter killed or wounded nearly 50 people that day.*

The Whitman story is enduring because it was our introduction to public mass murder and school shootings. It also preys on our worst fear: A stranger aims and kills you because he wants to -- and he doesn't give a damn that he, too, is about to die.

I researched and wrote A Sniper in the Tower from 1995 through 1997. The university-press trade paperback is in its fifth printing, and the tragedy at Virginia Tech will most likely push it into a sixth. One reason the story of this crew-cut, blond, blue-eyed, "all-American" boy will not go away is that it encompasses many of the salient psychological and criminal-justice issues we debate today. Like the tower tragedy, the Virginia Tech incident will see passionate discussion about whether or not violence is the result of organic disease. Is the killer's brain different from ours? Did drugs influence his actions? Was he taught to kill by the military? By his father? Did his situation push him to do what he did? Why wasn't this young man helped?

*Within a week of the Texas shootings, Travis County officials announced that a brain tumor had been discovered during Whitman's autopsy. Some claim that it had to have produced a seizure of sorts, which overrode his ability to both control himself and discern the difference between right and wrong. Other Whitman disciples (yes, he has disciples) advance the "amphetamine psychosis" theory: that his abuse of Dexedrine brought about a chemically induced psychotic episode. Then there are those who advance his prior military indoctrination as the culprit: He had been trained as a Marine to kill. Other "explanations" include the fact that he was broke and had no immediate prospects of success; his parents were separated; his own marriage was in shambles; he was taking too heavy a schedule at Austin; and during childhood he had been spanked often by an overbearing and dangerously surly father.*

Anyone with common decency would not wish those things upon anyone, and, indeed, it is our mission in higher education to investigate and determine, as best we can, if there are "dots" to be connected. But during our inquiry we should not delude ourselves or ignore the obvious. A detailed account of his actions shows that Charles Whitman was fully conscious of what he was doing. He could not have done what he did otherwise.

So what does this have to do with Virginia Tech? The details are sketchy, but initial reports are that the gunman had appropriate ammunition and weapons designed for efficient killing. Reports of chained doors to prevent escape and of the gunman's purposeful behavior to inflict the greatest possible damage on his victims are consistent with what Charles Whitman did in Austin in 1966. Unless I see strong evidence to the contrary, the man in Blacksburg, Va., who broke our hearts was a cold-blooded murderer, in the Whitman mold.

In Sniper in the Tower I concluded, and later the FBI's premier profiler, John Douglas, in his book Anatomy of Motive would agree, that "[Whitman's] actions speak for themselves." *Any cause-and-effect theory, whether organic (brain tumor), chemical (amphetamine psychosis), or psychological (military training or child abuse), embracing the idea that Charles Whitman's judgment or free will was impaired, is not consistent with what he did. He carefully planned every move and detail, and he succeeded in doing what he set out to do -- murdering people and getting himself killed in spectacular fashion. The Whitman case taught me that sometimes our zeal to champion causes important to us or to explain the unexplainable and be "enlightened" blinds us to the obvious.

Charles Whitman was a murderer; he killed innocent people. We should not forget that.*

In Virginia we appear to have a Whitman-like character. It is vitally important for all to remember that there is only one person responsible for what happened in Blacksburg, and that is the man who pulled the trigger. But in Virginia the diversions have already begun. As I write this, less than a half-day since the senseless killing of nearly three dozen innocent people, Web headlines on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC read: "Did Virginia Tech's Response Cost Lives?" "Parents Demand Firing of Virginia Tech President, Police Chief Over Handling," "Students Wonder About Police Response." Ironically, those headlines are juxtaposed with pictures of law-enforcement officers administering medical treatment and hauling wounded students to safety. Next to those pictures are videos of Virginia Tech's president and chief of police, in pain and in the midst of a nightmare, bombarded with sensational questions from irresponsible reporters.

Of course there are lessons we can learn. We can look back to Austin, 1966, and recall the obvious: The university had no real police department -- only a few unarmed men who spent most of their time issuing parking permits. The Austin Police Department was utterly unprepared and caught off guard, and the disturbing truth was that at the time no similarly situated police department in the United States could have done much better. Today we have real university police departments and SWAT teams.

Before we identify and learn the lessons of Blacksburg, we must begin with the obvious: More than four dozen innocent people were gunned down by a murderer who is completely responsible for what happened. No one died for lack of text messages or an alarm system. They died of gunshot wounds. *While we painfully learn our lessons, we must not treat each other as if we are responsible for the deaths that occurred. We must come together and be respectful and kind. This is not a time for us to torture ourselves or to seek comfort by finding someone to blame. Maybe as a result of the tragedy we will figure out how to more effectively use e-mail and text messages as emergency tools for warning large populations. We may come up with a plan that successfully clears a large area, with a population density of a midsize city, in less than two hours. Maybe universities will find a way to install surveillance cameras and convince students and faculty members that they are being monitored for their own safety and not for gathering domestic intelligence. All of those steps might be helpful in avoiding and reducing the carnage of any future incidents. But as long as we value living in a free society, we will be vulnerable to those who do harm -- because they want to and know how to do it.*

If Virginia Tech's next 40 years resemble Austin's experience since 1966, the university will struggle with how to memorialize the victims and remember what happened. Until recently the University of Texas had no plaque or historical marker reminding people of what happened on August 1, 1966, and perhaps that was best. Charles Whitman should not be allowed to turn the University of Texas Tower and South Mall, where entering freshmen dance and commencement ceremonies are held, into an area that reminds us of murder. Critics accused the university of insensitivity toward the victims and even of institutional denial. University leaders and administrators continue to struggle with questions about how to remember such events without romanticizing those who perpetrate them. That is not an insignificant challenge Virginia Tech faces.

Time will not erase the horror witnessed on the Blacksburg campus. But in time the university will return to its work of granting degrees to thousands of individuals who lead us to better lives. That, after all, is what magnificent institutions like the University of Texas at Austin and Virginia Tech do.

What is Charles Whitman or Cho Seung-Hui compared with that?
----------------------------
*Gary Lavergne is director of admissions research at the University of Texas at Austin and author of A Sniper in the Tower: The Charles Whitman Murders, published by the University of North Texas Press (1997).*


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/

About the Columbine killers:

"The Depressive and the Psychopath"

Too long to copy and paste. These kids had so many problems. This was inevitable. There are certain people who are bound to end up doing this sort of thing. No matter what we do.

Unless we have a totalitarian State that watches the move of every person, dictates what every move each person does, says, etc., then we will have control -- maybe.

Yes, I'd say the US needs to clean up its act in many ways, but again, so do all people in this world. And some people are beyond help.

Again, I do not have high hopes re: the goodness of people. And those who are like this are not stoppable.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

A brief snippet about Columbine. The motives/goals of these kids were even bigger than the shooting. I forgot they had also rigged the school to be blown up ....

From the article:
---------------------------------------------------
"School shooters tend to act impulsively and attack the targets of their rage: students and faculty. But Harris and Klebold planned for a year and dreamed much bigger. The school served as means to a grander end, to terrorize the entire nation by attacking a symbol of American life. Their slaughter was aimed at students and teachers, but it was not motivated by resentment of them in particular. Students and teachers were just convenient quarry, what Timothy McVeigh described as "collateral damage."

The killers, in fact, laughed at petty school shooters. They bragged about dwarfing the carnage of the Oklahoma City bombing and originally scheduled their bloody performance for its anniversary. Klebold boasted on video about inflicting "the most deaths in U.S. history." Columbine was intended not primarily as a shooting at all, but as a bombing on a massive scale.

*If they hadn't been so bad at wiring the timers, the propane bombs they set in the cafeteria would have wiped out 600 people. After those bombs went off, they planned to gun down fleeing survivors. An explosive third act would follow, when their cars, packed with still more bombs, would rip through still more crowds, presumably of survivors, rescue workers, and reporters. The climax would be captured on live television. It wasn't just "fame" they were after?Agent Fuselier bristles at that trivializing term?they were gunning for devastating infamy on the historical scale of an Attila the Hun. Their vision was to create a nightmare so devastating and apocalyptic that the entire world would shudder at their power.*

...............

Great article......... much longer.....


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

Dreamer said:


> Being a teacher, well you're on the front lines as are some of my friends. I know two teachers. You have one of the most important jobs in the country and receive no respect, are underpaid, and are woefully overburdened in the classroom.


Thanks. Incidentally, I'm one of only a handful in my teaching program that are still actually in the classroom. Many headed for the hills after a year or two. And I definitely agree...



Dreamer said:


> The problem starts at home.
> 
> You cannot legislate morality however. I don't what the Hell is wrong with most parents today.
> 
> Also, there is the backlash of babyboomers letting their kids grow up "free" "as they please", they are "friends to their children", they do not act like parents. Kids feel entitled these days. Have no respect for authority. And TEACHERS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE ... I agree with that ... the culture as a whole has gotten out of hand.


There is lack of respect in all forms--no true values that kids feel compelled to live by. I'm not even that old for goodness sake, but high school is a completely different beast than when I was there myself. Instead of viewing education as a privilege, kids feel justified in believing it is oppression. They're jaded and cynical, and even combatitive. Of course not all...but many.

Everything is always someone else's fault. There is little personal accountability in most students. But the school system itself backs them up on this. They're socially promoted when the don't do the work, they're slapped on the wrist when they tell teachers to f-off. Sigh. But, again you're right....


Dreamer said:


> Too much to write about. Should be a discussion.


Cheers...thanks for the moral support.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

HalfaPerson, you deserve to win the lottery and a Congressional Medal of Honor for being a teacher. I'm sayin' it like it is. How do you deal with all of this and DP as well? :shock:

Bless you.

I was the LUCKIEST person in the world. To go to a private school, from Pre-K through 12, Class of 1976, where the teachers were given the highest respect. Indeed it was a PRIVILEGE SP? LOL, to receive an education.

My school saved my life. Was my home. The teachers were 500% dedicated to our education, and if we were not interested, we were thrown out of school. Simple when your parents are paying for your schooling and when there are 175 more students who want your place in that school. I was DAMNED lucky.

Yup, a very, very, very different place from schools today. I continue to contribute money to my private school as an alumni. One of my few key charities.

It is so sad.
Thank you for hanging in there, but I almost want to tell you, GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN, it is a rat race of "entitlement".

Take Care,
D


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

Dreamer said:


> HalfaPerson, you deserve to win the lottery and a Congressional Medal of Honor for being a teacher. I'm sayin' it like it is. How do you deal with all of this and DP as well? :shock:
> 
> Bless you.


 :lol: :lol: No...bless YOU! Thankfully, I'm good at disassociating (wait, did I just say that?), or I'd never be able to do it. But, it is a lot to handle (playing a tiny violin for myself).

I went to Catholic school until 8th grade, and God if I hadn't, I can only imagine how much more screwed up I'd be today. School was my source of escape, too. I was "smart" and teachers paid attention to me when I didn't get much attention at home.



Dreamer said:


> Thank you for hanging in there, but I almost want to tell you, GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN, it is a rat race of "entitlement".


Oh, believe me, I think about running often...but somebody's got to do it, don't they? I've got a lot of patience on my side, and I do passionately believe in education. Ah well.


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

P.S. Apologies to Martin for high-jacking the thread.


----------



## none (Dec 29, 2005)

//


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> A lot of that article is true except for the whole Eric being a psychopath. "A psychopath is defined as a person having no concerns for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation." They base this on his actions on 4/20 alone, but someone can not be diagnosed just because of that. Evidence tells us (in his journal and the Basement Tapes) that he did have remorse but wished he didn't so it would be easier. About the possible 600 victims in the cafeteria, I also find this hard to believe. They were only propane bombs and weren't that powerful. People would also say that the bombs would bring down the library, (that was directly above the cafeteria) which wasn't really possible. Before the attack started, they used one of their timed bombs to blow up in a field miles away to distract police. Coincidently, none of their other propane bombs went off in the cafeteria while their distraction bomb did.
> 
> This whole case is actually really interesting, I've researched for about 2 years.


Dear *One*

I'm horrible recalling details, and you obviously have done a lot of research on this. My only only understanding is this is one of those things like "In Cold Blood" where two troubled people unfortunately get together at the right time and cause havoc. That is, neither individual coulld have carried this off alone, but together they made a pair who could support the other.

My understanding, and I'm tired now, is that these kids had plots for quite some time, as did Cho. Planning like that, to hurt others in such a malicous way, I would think would indicate complete lack of value for human life. I can't remember who was depressed and who was the psychopath, OY my mind... but that would indicate psychopathic behavior.

That type of behavior is theoretically untreatable. Depression is. Cho's personality fits the psychopath profile to the best of my understanding and he wasn't hospitalized though it was recommended and he didn't follow up on outpatient treatment.

And here's another question, the rights of the mentally ill. Do you release these records? To whom? Should a person who has ever been to a counsellor EVER in his/her entire life be prohibited from purchasing a gun or rifle -- even for sport? This gets too complicated.

At any rate, all of these individuals were murderers, and they can't be considered mentally incompetent in the sense that ALL of them knew right from wrong. I have no doubt about that. These crimes were not "spur of the moment" but truly meticulously planned, "organized" as profilers would say. (Damn I wish I'd studied at Quantico!)

So, I can't debate this now, I'm exhausted. I did find another interesting article about how screwed up our country is in terms of protecting itself. Another testament to why things went completely haywire on 9/11. Poor communications we can only learn from.

I'll post it below.

I can only say at the mo, that I just don't know enough about either case. However, I recall you enjoyed "Zodiac" as I did. I LOVE profiling. I'm fascinated by the criminal mind, first inspired by John Douglas.

Even with Zodiac, and the media has simply fed into this in this age of "immediate information" -- TV, internet, etc. is *we are giving these people, Cho, etc. the "glory" they wanted. What it seems is these types of individuals feel impotent/incompetent in real life. They wish to prove they are something hugely important. By broadcasting their every move ... I'm SO tired of this sort of broadcasting on TV especially and speculation .... we give them exactly what they want.

This sadly also fuels misunderstandings about mental illness. These guys are in a different league ... they are ... missing any concept for the value of human life.

Best,
D
Fellow true crime fanatic

:shock:*


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Was Eric the depressed one? Again, if the kid who was depressed hadn't hooked up with the one who was the psychopath, he could have gotten help.

I'm sorry. I have to go to bed. This is all rather depressing.

But here is the mess up in State and Federal law that CONTRIBUTED to this, but as one article says, in the end, these people are murderers and are responsible for everything that happened. And they commit suicide, so it is "going out in a blaze of glory."

Here's one problem. The laws are screwed up among other things. But I don't think this would have kept Cho from killing people one way or another. What an odd series of misadventures in this!

Again this is the miscommunication between State, Local, Federal governments, something that led up to the WTC disaster, and yet no one could anticipate something like that. Something new, something inconceivable. Each time I hear about these things ... I am astonished, and yet not. The world isn't such a nice place ... it can be, but ...

From the AP wire
------------------------------------------------------
*Rules Should Have Barred Weapon Purchase
Updated 9:51 PM ET April 19, 2007

By MATTHEW BARAKAT

McLEAN, Va. (AP) - A judge's ruling on Cho Seung-Hui's mental health should have barred him from purchasing the handguns he used in the Virginia Tech massacre, according to federal regulations. But it was unclear Thursday whether anybody had an obligation to inform federal authorities about Cho's mental status because of loopholes in the law that governs background checks.*

Cho purchased two handguns in February and March, and was subject to federal and state background checks both times. The checks turned up no problems, despite a judge's ruling in December 2005 that Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."

"On the face of it, he should have been blocked under federal law," said Denis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The 23-year-old South Korean immigrant was evaluated by a psychiatric hospital after he was accused of stalking two women and photographing female students in class with his cell phone. His violence-filled writings were so disturbing that professors begged him to get counseling.

The language of the ruling by Special Justice Paul M. Barnett almost identically tracks federal regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Those rules bar the sale of guns to individuals who have been "adjudicated mentally defective."

The definition outlined in the regulations is "a determination by a court ... or other lawful authority that a person as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness ... is a danger to himself or to others."

Virginia State Police send information on prohibited buyers to the federal government. They maintain that the sale was legal under state law and would have been barred only if the justice had committed Cho to a psychiatric hospital. Barnett ordered outpatient treatment instead.

The Virginia attorney general's office declined to discuss the application of gun laws to Cho's case. Barnett also declined to comment.

*The state uses a slightly different standard than the federal government, barring sales to individuals who have been judged "mentally incapacitated."

George Burke, a spokesman for Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York, said millions of criminal and mental-health records are not accessible to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, mostly because state and local governments lack the money to submit the records.*

[Dreamer's comment -- the idiocy of government red tape!!!!!]

McCarthy has sponsored legislation since 2002 that would close loopholes in the national background check system for gun purchases.

Initially states were required to provide all relevant information to federal authorities when the instant background checks were enacted, but a U.S. Supreme Court ruling relieved them of that obligation.

*"The law is very confused about this," said Richard Bonnie, a professor of law and psychiatry at the University of Virginia who heads a state commission on mental-health reform. "The source of the confusion is the relation between federal and state law."*

Also Thursday, the owner of an Internet gun store based in Green Bay, Wis., told The Associated Press that Cho used his Web site to purchase one of the weapons used in the shootings. Cho paid $268 for the gun.

Eric Thompson, who runs http://www.thegunsource.com, said the Walther .22-caliber handgun was then shipped to a Virginia pawnbroker so Cho could pick it up.

Thompson said he had no idea his business was involved until he was contacted Tuesday by ATF agents.

"I just feel absolutely terrible that this tragedy even happened in the first place," he said.

___

*Associated Press writers Matt Apuzzo in Blacksburg and Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., contributed to this report.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.*


----------



## none (Dec 29, 2005)

//


----------



## none (Dec 29, 2005)

//


----------



## none (Dec 29, 2005)

//


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

```
P.S. Apologies to Martin for high-jacking the thread.
```
No apologies are needed. I wanted to start a debate. And I especially look forward to reading Dreamer's novellas. :wink:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Martinelv said:


> ```
> P.S. Apologies to Martin for high-jacking the thread.
> ```
> No apologies are needed. I wanted to start a debate. And I especially look forward to reading Dreamer's novellas. :wink:


Devil Man, LOLOLOL. I was waiting for that.



One said:


> don't understand what people mean exactly though. If they think the evidence shouldn't be released at all or if they are just tired of the over shown material. Personally, I think evidence in these situations are way too useful to be withheld.


Oh, I feel FACTS should be revealed, absolutely, we are entitled to know what's going on. What I resent is speculation -- programs that repeat the same crap, and MISINFORMATION over and over and over. Second guessing the cops at the first killing, all sorts of guessing by some idiot psychologists, etc. what the motive is, etc. And as noted, this sort of individual, and I believe Eric (Columbine) had a similar mindset -- "we're going to outdo the Oklahoma City bombing).

I mean it should be breaking news. But consider, in an age BEFORE mass media, this news wouldn't get to people immediately -- those not directly involved. Such as the Clutter family killings (In Cold Blood) - 1959. Have you seen "Capote" with Philip Seymour Hoffman? Brilliant portrayal of the interaction of the two -- Perry and Capote. It is confusing as both are sympathetic characters the murderer and the writer, and yet both are very manipulative. But Perry WAS a sociopath.

Also, serial killers, they love sticking it to law enforcement ... like the Zodiac. It gives them a tremendous sense of power. And this weird thing about showing up at funerals of victims ... showing they are right there in front of the noses of the cops. "Hiding in plain sight" like ... was it John Wayne Gacy?

What is spooky is that Cho had problems when he was living in Korea, as a child. Had a speech impediment, etc. (I hear John Douglas/profiler guessing this before hearing about it. Cho was a disaster waiting to happen.)

*I can only say, I appreciate your article recommendation, I will read that. I am fascinated by this. My only response again is even expressing remorse in a video as Eric did, only indicated he clearly knew right from wrong, yet continued to plan and carry out a hideous event. To shoot down your fellow students is a blatant quality of a psychopath/sociopath, especially when you aren't psychotic, or this is spur of the moment. But you have done more research. I have to read about this.

As noted, many serial killers had horrible upbringings. Some were very troubled from the beginning, from childhood. This does not excuse murder. But how do we deal with these exceptionally dangerous people who "hide in plain sight.*

Recall the deadly triad -- hurting animals, bedwetting, fire-setting. This was the typical Jeffrey Dahmer profile. It began as a child. Dahmer, those seriously disturbed, knew right from wrong. And no one seems to be able to categorize him in any logical category save sociopath/psychopath -- someone with a literal INCAPACITY to connect socially with others and to see no value or meaning in life -- the life of animals or humans.

Thank you for the leads. I am REALLY fascinated by this.

*Sorry, I also have gone off from the gun debate. I honestly don't know that much about it. I see both sides to a degree. And am furious at gun shows. But I read in the Wall Street Journal today info re: the arguement this has brought to the surface again. The staistics pro and con are faulty -- both sides.

It's true America has the greatest number of murders by guns in the developed Western World (I THINK this has to do with the effort to give freedom to individuals and expect responsibility from people; the mistake in my mind, is many people are NOT innately good.) This is why I'm not a Libertarian -- I do not trust us or anyone else to "police themselves", live as they would like, have no goverment. Anarchist Libertarianism. Makes no sense.

However the article did note that if you add other countries such as Latin America, Mexico, and many other countries I don't recall, their murder rates equal or exceed ours. Guns and all. The article offered no solution, just reported the facts. One reason I appreciate the Wall Street Journal to any other paper. Just the facts.

I don't know the history of guns in America. I think of the West -- the "wild wild west". Cowboys and such. Building a frontier, defending ones self. Again, old ways of a new country, a different time, that spill over into the present.

Cheers.
D*


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

*Last thing about Cho. I want to know more about his family. All I know is had they not moved to the US (and he was a LEGAL immigrant), they had lived here for quite some time, my guess is he could have shot of a mass of people in Korea.

Again, there was something wrong with him from childhood. We don't know what he might have done in S. Korea.*

I'm awful, I want to see this movie "Fracture" with Anthony Hopkins. Supposed to be quite good. Sir Tony (my LOVE) pulls something of a Hannibal Lecter out of the hat again, but it is apparently an intellectual thriller, like Zodiac, like Capote.

I'm sorry, but there is something about Anthony Hopkins that slays me. He can go overboard and chew the scenery. But when he pulls back, and rests upon the power of his expressions, the power of his quieter voice and inflections, he is quite brilliant.

And Martin will puke, but I could have a roll in the hay with Sir Anthony anytime, LOL.

OMG 8)


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

OK, I was partially correct. It is again a cultural symbol, the gun. And again "the right to bear arms" that stems back to early frontier days.

This is from Wikipedia which always has errors:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*"In a seminal article, America as a Gun Culture[7], the noted historian Richard Hofstadter popularized the phrase gun culture to describe America's long affection for the gun, embracing and celebrating the association of guns and America's heritage. Regardless of one's political opinion about guns, the gun culture is an undeniable component of the gun debate.*

The American gun culture as it exists today springs from a long and sentimental attachment to two major historical fundamental values, the Hunting/Sporting ethos and the Militia/Frontier ethos.[2]

The Hunting/Sporting ethos has come from a time when America was an agrarian, subsistence nation where hunting was a vital source of food for settlers, and also a key protection from animal predators.

A connection between shooting skills and survival among early American boys was a nearly universal 'rite of passage' for entering manhood. Today, hunting survives as a central sentimental component of the gun culture regardless of the modern trend away from subsistence hunting and rural living.[2]

The Militia/Frontier ethos derives from an *early American dependence on wits and skill to protect themselves from hostile Indians and foreign armies. Survival depended upon everyone capable carrying a weapon (excluding Blacks, and in a large part, women).*

*In the Eighteenth Century there was neither budget or manpower to maintain a full time army, therefore the armed citizen soldier carried the responsibility. Service in militia, including providing your own ammunition and weapons, was mandatory for all adult males.*

Yet, as early as the 1790s, the mandatory universal militia duty gave way to voluntary militia units and a reliance on a regular army, with a decline of the importance of militia trend continuing throughout the Nineteenth Century.[2]

Closely related to the militia tradition was the frontier tradition, with the westward movement closely associated with weaponry. In the Nineteenth Century firearms were closely associated with the westward expansion.

To a large extent this perception that guns won the West springs from a mythology, and ignores the role of homesteaders, ranchers, miners, tradespeople and businessmen. *In fact the so-called taming of the West was attributable to ranchers and farmers, not gun-slinging cowboys. Regardless, today, there remains a powerful central elevation of the gun associated with the Hunting/Sporting and Militia/Frontier ethos among the American Gun Culture.[2]*

-------------------------------------
Pease remember *militia* -- were don't have "militias" anymore as the government provides the MILITARY. Again, we're talking about a frontier that spread out westward from the colonies on the East Coast.

*I can't recall when the last State entered the Union - The United States ... was it Hawaii? That was literally in the 1900s. I think? Don't quote me. We are a young country. We haven't gone through the extremely long history of Europe. Also, somewhere I read, gunpowder was invented by the Chinese? in the 1700s? OY my mind.*

At any rate, there is always history that evolves. This country is young, and full of great things, and full of messes.

*One* I printed out that BOOK on the Columbine mess. Looks great.
Thank you.
D


----------



## mind^partizan (Nov 11, 2006)

why so many guns in US? Because arms industry is powerful and they pressure the politicians to pass certain laws which would make it easy and attractive to get a gun.

According to statistics, there are 90 guns for 100 civilians in US. The second place is Yemen, with 61 guns for 100 people... Think for yourself.


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

mind^partizan said:


> According to statistics, there are 90 guns for 100 civilians in US. The second place is Yemen, with 61 guns for 100 people... Think for yourself.


That sounds like an outlandishly exaggerated statistic...90 out of 100??


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

HalfAPerson said:


> mind^partizan said:
> 
> 
> > According to statistics, there are 90 guns for 100 civilians in US. The second place is Yemen, with 61 guns for 100 people... Think for yourself.
> ...


I agree. I don't know the statistics but that is WAAAAAAAY off.

Oddly enough the only person I know who owns a gun is my husband (separated) in CA. It is kept locked in the house in the event of similar catastrophes we went through -- the Rodney King riots and the Northridge Earthquake, in both scenarios there were not enough police to defend 8 million people. Gangs roamed free/armed, setting fires, throwing rocks at cars trying to get home.

I know NO OTHER PERSON -- and I mean no one amongst my friends who owns a gun. I have even talked about these things over the years with people such as my dentist, the lady I sat with in the coffee shop this morning (no seats, but it was nice to have a sane conversation, LOL). I do not own a gun.

That statistic is WAAAAY off. I'll try to get it.

I will say, I lived in another area here in the Detroit area. It started getting really scary there. Much cheaper but I had to move. Drug dealing! I still knew no one with a gun (personally), but I'd bet many who were dealing had black market guns.

The only guns I know of that are popular in the State, which is a sporting state -- "The Winter, Water Wonderland" -- are rifles for shooting deer. As noted before, I hate that sport.

Let me see if I can get statistics.

Oh, I know of people who had killed themselves -- my friend did (not with a gun) and attended a suicide support group so I heard everyone's miserable story. Seriously depressed -- everyone that killed him/herself. Usually it's men who use guns, and not all of them do. Women do not usually use guns to kill themselves. Again, the men/young men as well purchase the gun well in advance, and plan carefully what they are doing, and kill themselves -- the gun is used for no other purpose.

Sad.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

OK, this is from a recent BBC News online report:
Q&A since the Virginia Tech Massacre

*How does the US compare with other countries around the world?*

*Accurate figures on firearms are scarce, but there are an estimated 200 million guns in circulation in the US, a country with a population of about 300 million.*

According to a Harris poll conducted in 2001, approximately 39% of all American households own at least one gun. EDIT: household could mean a group of five people. Hence one gun to a "household." The kids don't have their own guns for example. So it is not one to one in that statistic.

*The risk of being killed by a firearm in the US is higher than in any other Western nation. Of countries outside war zones, the risk is greatest in South Africa, according to a United Nations report.*

-------------------------------------------------------------------

There are some important words in here. And again, I have no particular stance on the debate, I'm just trying to understand all of this. *I do believe that the Swiss are all armed if I'm not mistaken. Is that true?* I'll have to look that up. And that confuses me.

*OK, they note that "accurate numbers are scarce" and that 200 million guns are in circulation. Now, what does "in circulation mean?" -- it could mean that includes police officers, sportsmen, gun collectors, gang members, etc. So if they're mixing an unknown number of untraceable illegal weapons in there (which they must be) that does NOT mean every American has a gun. And this can include sporting guns.

It could also mean that these guns "in circulation" -- a great number of them -- are CIRCULATING in the black market amongst criminals and EDIT: there can be 1,000 guns stored in a warehouse here, another there. Are they counting these?*

It notes that 39% of all American households own a gun. That sounds about correct. That is these individuals have purchased these guns legally and are registered ... it could include again sporting rifles.

The statistics are very difficult to understand. These numbers tell me nothing other than about 40% of the US population has at least one gun in the house. We are not allowed to carry concealed weapons.

What is disgusting to me is when people don't take hand gunn lessons which are required in many states to GET the gun, they forget to lock the gun up and some kid "plays with it" and gets shot. That is parental negligence.

I'm not sure what's going on in South Africa. I know that racial strife is at the root of it. Many white South Africans arm themselves against gangs. They put barbed wire around their homes. We're getting into a whole other mess there.

On that one *marginalized people get angry -- I don't care what race, color, creed they are* -- that also doesn't justify murder and mayhem, but it is part of its core.

DISCLAIMER AGAIN. I AM FOR RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP. I AM FOR BANNING ALL AUTOMATIC RIFLES WHICH NO ONE NEEDS. I AM FOR BANNING GUN AND KNIFE SHOWS. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GET
MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL WEAPONS OFF THE STREETS. I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN ANY OF THIS. I AM AS CONFUSED AS ANYONE ELSE HERE.


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2007)

*TDI Kriss Super V? submachine gun (USA)*



















Caliber .45 ACP

I haven't lived.... 

My favorite site: http://world.guns.ru


----------



## suz (Mar 26, 2007)

Don't be sick Darren


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I have no idea what to make of this, and I need to look further into this. I don't know how reputable this site is, but it had statistics.

But 90% of Americans do not own handguns... about 40% do......

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

*Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder.
Fact: Switzerland also has strict gun control laws. *

Summary

*Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws. Even so, Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership and handgun murders in the industrialized world, after the U.S.*

Argument

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization.

Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities.

As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on carrying handguns.

*Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world. A review of the statistics:*

Percent of households with a handgun, 1991 (1)

United States 29%
Switzerland 14
Finland 7
Germany 7
Belgium 6
France 6
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Australia 2
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1

Handgun murders (1992) (2)

The table doesn't work well, HELL. (See the link)

Handgun 1992 Handgun Murder

Country---------Murders------------ Population--------Rate (per 100,000)
_____________________________________________________
United States_____ 13,429______ 254,521,000________5.28

Switzerland_________97________6,828,023___________1.42

Canada___________128________27,351,509__________0.47

Sweden___________36_________ 8,602,157____________0.42

Australia__________13__________17,576,354___________0.07

United Kingdom____33___________57,797,514_________0.06

Japan____________60____________124,460,481________0.05

*By contrast, Germany, France, Canada, Great Britain and Japan have virtually banned handguns and assault weapons.*

-------------------------------------------------------

Interesting statistics. Both the US and Switzerland, both armed, one with better regulations have the highest handgun murder rate.

The US definitely needs more hand gun regulation. No doubt.

The one thing however is this proves ONE point I have. It is obvious that human beings are not all "good". If one uses the argument that the US and the Swiss are "gun toters", then in countries where handguns are completely banned, that means the government has decided that people are not trustworthy enough to own weapons.

I agree. We do not live in Utopia. Hence the question is ... more government control of all human activity, or not? I do not believe we are all good peaceful people. We never have been. We are imperfect humans. And war, as common as dirt.

*I don't know the answer.*
Fascinating debate.
EDIT:

Note also the population statistics. * Aside from Canada which is vast, the US has the largest population of all on the list -- the population of Switzerland is @ equal than of the population of Los Angeles ALONE or NYC. And we are less homogeneous, coming from more cultures, from all over the world.*


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2007)

Well i can't say much to that Suz. Guess i'm tired.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

siouxsie said:


> Don't be sick Darren


Agreed. Also, that is a site in Russia. Easy to order a gun from there. :?


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2007)

Dreamer said:


> siouxsie said:
> 
> 
> > Don't be sick Darren
> ...


Did the .ru give it away? Easy if you're from Russia... not so easy to import to the UK.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

One HUGE problem we have in the US is crime in general. That is a cultural problem, and a truly screwed up regulation system MAINLY BECAUSE WE ARE DIVIDED INTO 50 DIFFERENT STATES WITH DIFFERENT LAWS.

Something simple: Here in my state we can now drive 70 miles per hour. That has changed about a million times.

One State over you can drive 60 mph maximum, etc.

Age limits on sexual activity, definition of rape, etc. depend on States. The reason behind that is we don't want complete Federal intervention in our personal lives.

Ah, it's a mess


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2007)

Confusion is fun"... :roll:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Emulated Puppet}eer said:


> Dreamer said:
> 
> 
> > siouxsie said:
> ...


Easier to guard the borders in Britain than in the U.S. This is a huge problem we have. Here in Detroit it used to be that Ontario folk and US folk could cross the bridge or tunnel (in the good old days) without thinking about it) ... we have people in the US working in Ontario and vice versa, always have.

After 9/11 you now need a passport ... soon ... to get back into the US from Canada which in my state is 15 minutes across the river. Meantime, more inspections have yielded more drugs than anyone ever imagined! Going both ways!

Things have changed. Again, there used to be no internet. The world was so much smaller when I was a kid. We also only had 3 TV stations, LOL. ABC, NBC, and CBS oh, and we used to get CBC too.

"Wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then."


----------



## suz (Mar 26, 2007)

Emulated Puppet}eer said:


> Well i can't say much to that Suz. Guess i'm tired.


I'm tired too, I'm not judging you. You've been my guiding light...


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

mind^partizan said:


> According to statistics, there are 90 guns for 100 civilians in US. The second place is Yemen, with 61 guns for 100 people... Think for yourself.


Even giving that statistic the benefit of the doubt, and assuming it means is that the TOTAL number of guns in the U.S. equals 90 for every 100 civilians (not that 90 out of 100 people own them), that still seems like a very high number.

Sure, there are gun nuts that own 100+, but the only people I know of (off the top of my head) that own even one are police officers...so they wouldn't even be factored into the civilian stats.

Hmm...maybe all of my friends and family are hiding their gun collections from me...


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear Half,
See my stats. That number was way off, and misleading. As you say, I don't know who they're counting. Illegal arms "in circulation" in the hands of criminals, police, FBI, etc. I have no idea.
D
Done with my research tonight! Exhausting but fascinating stuff.


----------



## PPPP (Nov 26, 2006)

Gun control isn't just a sticky issue in the US because of the gun lobby, It's tied up alot in our history, as Dreamer said, and in state's rights.
American states have always had a great deal of autonomy and americans traditionally don't like to have the federal government poking their noses into the laws of the individual states.
In some ways the US is more like the EU than like a homogenous country, esp. before this century.

In my home state there are still lots of people who use guns to get food for the dinner table. My best friend's family in eastern kentucky often hunt rabbit, deer and other animals for food.
I'm all for stricter gun controls but I think that it should be done in a way that doesn't mess with the constitution. There are valid reason for owning a gun.

Personally, I think we should have laws for gun ownership just like we do for driving a car. To get a car license in my state you need to have something like 60 + hours of training and experience, classes, pass a written and a practical test etc. The process takes about a year.
Why don't we have something like that for guns? 
Although I'm sure random person A. could kill a few folks with a car if they were of a mind to, they could kill a whole lot more people and more anonymously with a gun. 
So why is it so much easier to get a gun than a driver's license?
I just don't know.

I think it's easy to look in from the outside and wonder how we can let these things happen but much harder to actually solve the problem.


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

Jeez, the US are one of the most violent countries in the world. Why be surprised about this shooting?

10.000 people are killed by guns a year divided by 365 = 27 a day. This shooting is more of an average.
And are the Americans crazy to allow weapons to be for sale at every corner? Amazing. In my country, it is unthinkable.

Where was the 'community' when the shooter showed signs of disturbance? 
Is anyone concerned about how it was possible for a person to commit such a devastating crime? Anyone?

I do sympathize with the shooter in a way, although I realize that is not a popular thing to mention. But seriously, where were the people to really reach out to him?

I know, I saw some pictures and video shootings and he scared the hell of out of me. But where is the community, and the responsiblity and care of the community to help out a fellow citizen?

His own grandmother called him 'stupid'. I wonder what this guy had to go through in his life? There was mention he had been sexually abused and so forth. Aren't we also responsible for our fellow citizens?

I wonder how much this guy had to take in order to commit such atrocities. Anyone?

I work with children. The ones that are most disturbed and challenged, are the ones most in need of guidance, understanding and care. And I give it to them. Where was everyone to help him out? Let us think about that for a while.

Saddened by all of this.

And saddened that a country can be so hypocrite. If weapons are available for any citizen, do not be surprised such tragedies take place. The US gives the opportunity, which I think is sick, so these things are bound to happen. Violence is glorified. Something is seriously wrong in/with American culture.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

> And Martin will puke, but I could have a roll in the hay with Sir Anthony anytime,


No, I can see the appeal.

And, goddamit woman, I will reply to your emails when I have a spare month or two!! :wink: Interesting though, hairball.
[/quote]


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Levi said:


> Jeez, the US are one of the most violent countries in the world. Why be surprised about this shooting?


Have you forgotten all the war torn countries. To say the US is the most violent is truly ... not a well thought out statement. Levi, I wish you would read the whole thread.

We know that in the Middle East now, individuals *blow themselves up, blow their own children up* to terrorize people. In countries like Africa there is so much violence (certaiin countries), people cannot go out into the street. People cannot conduct normal business, children cannot get to school.

I'll get the statistics on the most violent countries. Believe it or not the US is not included. I don't know if I bookmarked that. Damnit. I find it.

But truly, you are saying that for instance Israel isn't considered violent? Palestine? Jordan? All over religious/political disagreements. I wouldn't go to any of these countries, though I would love to as it would be more likely I would die there than here!

Violence is not new. It never has been. But to accuse the US of being the most violent country is simply not true. Are you saying that a sick individual's actions is the same as someone flying a plane into the WTC, several planes for the love of God and killing 3,000 people.

I don't mean to single out Middle Easterners right now, but it's the most recent catastrophe. Gang violence occurs everywhere as well. Here, in Europe, etc., etc.

Let me see if I can find that statistic.

*Martin, don't worry, you don't need to get back to my emails ASAP. When you have a chance! Glad you agree with my attraction to Sir Anthony. God I love that guy.*

D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

*From BBC News - Odd to say the least ?????
Scotland worst for violence - UN

The report claims there are 2,000 attacks per week
Scotland has been named the most violent country in the developed world by a United Nations report.
The study found that, excluding murder, Scots were almost three times as likely to be assaulted as Americans.*

Victims of crime in 21 countries were interviewed by the UN, but senior Scots police officers criticised the study.

*The survey concluded that 2,000 Scots were attacked every week. That figure is 10 times the number recorded in official police figures.*

'Upward trend'

The figure for Scotland dwarfs that of other developed nations such as Japan, where people are 30 times less likely to be attacked.

The study, based on telephone interviews conducted between 1991 and 2000, said 3% of people in Scotland had suffered an assault, while the figure for England and Wales was second highest at 2.8%.

*Both Australia and New Zealand had the next highest proportion of assaults among their population at 2.4%, exactly double the level reported for the United States.*

Jan Van Dijk, head of analysis at the UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, said Scotland had seen "a clear and upward trend" in the number of assaults since 1996 when the proportion was 1.9%.

However, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (Acpos), Peter Wilson, said that the "general picture" of Scotland around the world was "not one of a violent country".

While violent crime has decreased recently in Scotland, people are still the victims of violence, especially knife crime 
A Scottish Executive spokesman

He said: "I would question the compatibility of figures and the methods used in this particular survey because it must be near impossible to compare assault figures from one country to the next based on phone calls.

"We have been doing extensive research into violent crime in Scotland for some years now and these have shown that in the vast majority of cases, victims of violent crime are known to each other."

*A Scottish Executive spokesman added: "While violent crime has decreased recently in Scotland, people are still the victims of violence, especially knife crime.

"That's why we will address the culture of violence by doubling the maximum penalty for carrying a knife to four years, by strengthening police powers of arrest for people suspected of carrying a knife, and by raising the age at which a person can buy a non-domestic knife from 16 to 18.

"We are also reforming Scotland's drinking laws to help reduce the connection between alcohol and violent crime." *
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dreamer's comment -- so ban all alcohol in Scotland? and all knives?
----------------------------------------------------------------

Murders Per Capita. The US, I'm not proud of it, is #25 ...

http://www.aneki.com/index.html (great site for all sorts of World Statistics)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita

#1 Colombia:	0.617847 per 1,000 people 
#2 South Africa:	0.496008 per 1,000 people 
#3 Jamaica:	0.324196 per 1,000 people 
#4 Venezuela:	0.316138 per 1,000 people 
#5 Russia:	0.201534 per 1,000 people 
#6 Mexico:	0.130213 per 1,000 people 
#7 Estonia:	0.107277 per 1,000 people 
#8 Latvia:	0.10393 per 1,000 people 
#9 Lithuania:	0.102863 per 1,000 people 
#10 Belarus:	0.0983495 per 1,000 people 
#11 Ukraine:	0.094006 per 1,000 people 
#12 Papua New Guinea:	0.0838593 per 1,000 people 
#13 Kyrgyzstan:	0.0802565 per 1,000 people 
#14 Thailand:	0.0800798 per 1,000 people 
#15 Moldova:	0.0781145 per 1,000 people 
#16 Zimbabwe:	0.0749938 per 1,000 people 
#17 Seychelles:	0.0739025 per 1,000 people 
#18 Zambia:	0.070769 per 1,000 people 
#19 Costa Rica:	0.061006 per 1,000 people 
#20 Poland:	0.0562789 per 1,000 people 
#21 Georgia:	0.0511011 per 1,000 people 
#22 Uruguay:	0.045082 per 1,000 people 
#23 Bulgaria:	0.0445638 per 1,000 people 
#24 United States:	0.042802 per 1,000 people 
#25 Armenia:	0.0425746 per 1,000 people 
#26 India:	0.0344083 per 1,000 people 
#27 Yemen:	0.0336276 per 1,000 people 
#28 Dominica:	0.0289733 per 1,000 people 
#29 Azerbaijan:	0.0285642 per 1,000 people 
#30 Finland:	0.0283362 per 1,000 people 
#31 Slovakia:	0.0263303 per 1,000 people 
#32 Romania:	0.0250784 per 1,000 people 
#33 Portugal:	0.0233769 per 1,000 people 
#34 Malaysia:	0.0230034 per 1,000 people 
#35 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of:	0.0229829 per 1,000 people 
#36 Mauritius:	0.021121 per 1,000 people 
#37 Hungary:	0.0204857 per 1,000 people 
#38 Korea, South:	0.0196336 per 1,000 people 
#39 Slovenia:	0.0179015 per 1,000 people 
#40 France:	0.0173272 per 1,000 people 
#41 Czech Republic:	0.0169905 per 1,000 people 
#42 Iceland:	0.0168499 per 1,000 people 
#43 Australia:	0.0150324 per 1,000 people 
#44 Canada:	0.0149063 per 1,000 people 
#45 Chile:	0.014705 per 1,000 people 
#46 United Kingdom:	0.0140633 per 1,000 people 
#47 Italy:	0.0128393 per 1,000 people 
#48 Spain:	0.0122456 per 1,000 people 
#49 Germany:	0.0116461 per 1,000 people 
#50 Tunisia:	0.0112159 per 1,000 people 
#51 Netherlands:	0.0111538 per 1,000 people 
#52 New Zealand:	0.0111524 per 1,000 people 
#53 Denmark:	0.0106775 per 1,000 people 
#54 Norway:	0.0106684 per 1,000 people 
#55 Ireland:	0.00946215 per 1,000 people 
#56 Switzerland:	0.00921351 per 1,000 people 
#57 Indonesia:	0.00910842 per 1,000 people 
#58 Greece:	0.0075928 per 1,000 people 
#59 Hong Kong:	0.00550804 per 1,000 people 
#60 Japan:	0.00499933 per 1,000 people 
#61 Saudi Arabia:	0.00397456 per 1,000 people 
#62 Qatar:	0.00115868 per 1,000 people 
Weighted average:	0.1 per 1,000 people


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I am only finding statistics from sites. I am making no judgement other than the US is NOT the most violent country in the world. And I could research further why this is stated by European countries. No we are not liked, but we are NOT the most violent.

I found it astounding, but had read this before that Scotland is a mess -- and alchol is to blame. We are talking assaults, knives, etc.

If one doesn't have a gun, one can kill someone with anything handy.

I do not feel sorry for anyone who murders anyone else.

Interesting, in MANY cases here, murders occur within families. Frequently spouses kill each other. You can do that any number of ways. Yes it is easier with a gun.

The world is a violent place. THE WORLD.


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

Interesting statistics about violence, Dreamer...

According to Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research:

In 2001, there were 29,573 gun-related deaths in the United States?or about 80 deaths per day. Firearm deaths represent 1 of every 5 injury deaths in the U.S.

In 2001, *57% (16,869) of all gun deaths were suicides* and 38% (11,348) were homicides.

About 3% of firearm fatalities in 2001 were unintentional.

However, recent research indicates that death certificate data such as these are unreliable due to *substantial undercounts of accidental shooting deaths*. A comparison of a sample of deaths coded by police as unintentional shootings with the matching medical examiner records found that 75% of the medical examiners had coded the deaths as homicides and only 23% as accidental shootings.


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

Dreamer said:


> Levi said:
> 
> 
> > Jeez, the US are one of the most violent countries in the world. Why be surprised about this shooting?
> ...


Well, I did read the whole thread and forgot to add the word 'western'>>'the US are one of the most violent [western] countries in the world'. And according to the statistics list you posted, it is a correct conclusion.
And I didnt say 'most violent', I said 'ONE of the most violent'.

According to HalfAPerson's post and numbers I found, there are about 11000 people killed a year by guns in the US. Wouldnt one think if you'd take the guns away, there would be less casualties (and yes, even when people start using knifes instead of guns). Guns are the most deadly weapons. I do not understand anyone defending the use of guns is ok.


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

I know it?s fun to take a poke at Americans. I understand that. I?ve been involved with two people from the UK and at some point my American-ness would inevitably cause arguments. When the poking is in jest, I can have a laugh. But when it comes from ignorance, or hypocrisy, my patriotic feathers get ruffled.

I grew up with a loaded gun in my household. My dad was a police officer. He?d come home from work, take his gun out of the holster, and put it on top of the hutch. It would have been easy for me to stand on a chair and get my hands on it. It never once, in my wildest dreams, occurred to me to do that. I was taught _not to touch it_. I knew it was dangerous and would not go near it. Granted, I?m a girl, and maybe if I?d ever expressed an interest any it, my dad would have locked it up. Maybe not, who knows.

One guy I was involved with just loved this story. He called my dad John Wayne and would use it as cocktail party conversation starters about the ridiculousness of America. He found it amusing to no end that my dad always had a loaded gun on him, even in his civilian clothes. I?d start out laughing, but it often seemed to get out of hand. Sometimes I?d roll my eyes and grit my teeth. Sometimes we'd squabble. My dad never once shot anyone in over twenty years on the police force. He didn?t wave it about at people on the street for crissakes.

It was staggering to me that a person born and raised in Belfast found room to be so judgmental about America?s ?gun obsession? and miscellaneous other American ?atrocities?. I went to a school where a number of teachers (and my principal) were from Belfast and moved to America to escape The Troubles, I was involved with a person who was unspeakably traumatized by his experiences there, and I?ve done quite a bit of reading on the issue. Yet I feel I have no business making casual statements of judgment about it. I was not there. I have never experienced it first-hand. As much as I do know about it, it could never be enough to understand the issue completely. I feel that saying anything about something so complex would be out of line. And believe me, if I had even begun to spout my opinions, I would have (justifiably, I think) unleashed the fury of those who were directly involved, and who continue to be to this day.

I suppose I wish people from other countries would take a similar attitude about America. It?s so easy to be smug from afar and spout out things that sound good.

My ex-husband is Welsh. He looooved to stir the pot, and made very few friends in the process (particularly in my family). He would say the most ridiculous things about America and Americans in general. He and his British friends would sit around the local pub and go on (and on) about Yanks. I suppose it was fun to do. I?d often sit there seething and think, if you all truly believe America is so ridiculous THEN GO HOME! When I?d speak up about it they?d laugh and patronize me for being offended. When he and I argued, about any given topic under the sun, he?d invariably revert to his old standard, ?I moved here to be with YOU!? He?d start in with his Welsh pride, get tears in his eyes, and thump his chest a bit. But when all was said and done, he?d fly his family out here to show off how great he had it. He had a much better standard of life here (by his own admission). And incidentally the weather really is amazing, and we do actually say ?Have a nice day? a lot and generally mean it.

Despite ?loathing? America so much, despite us having separated and divorced several years ago, HE?S STILL HERE.

When people say things like America is the most violent country or that Americans are ?crazy to allow weapons to be for sale at every corner? (so clever!) I can?t help but get defensive. Just as I?d suspect _anyone_ would about their own country. I?m not saying everyone needs to love America: you don?t. But give us some credit, and try not to be hypocritical.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Again, I'm trying to say what HalfaPerson said above. And this is inevitable. It is so tiresome to travel and be accused, by EUROPEANS, at how awful th US is.

Wow, Half, your story is spot on.

I don't make assumptions about other countries.

What I find interesting is yes, many move to the US and bitch about it. But they stay. Many others, especially NON-Europeans love the US. And THEY stay.

I also had a visitor from Britain who stayed for a month. I liked this person very much, but he made me cry every day. We should have sent him home. He had NOTHING good to say about the US, though he enjoyed the beaches in CA, my wealthy friends' house in San Francisco. I let him use my car when I didn't feel good. I took him to see a "Frasier" taping. He complained about fast food we didn't make him eat, he didn't like ANYTHING. We don't eat right, yada, yada, yada. But he sure didn't go home.

I see now he took complete advantage of me, and I'm an idiot that way. wish my husband had decked him, but that isn't my husband's nature either.

NOTHING I did was right.And there wasn't a day he didn't say at least one insulting thing about the US. (Or California -- LA or up the beautiful coast, etc, etc., etc.)

That hurts after a while is all.

I don't like to make uninformed statements, that's why I try to find statistics.

I still don't understand why Europeans pick on the US, when they have been attacked by terrorists repeatedly in their own countries. And yes the IRA business, etc.

Many others from non-European countries come here in droves to escape the misery of their own countries.

*The gun issue is one thing and has many causes. *

Violence? Go look at every country in this world. There is no country without violence. Would you prefer your head chopped off? Be put in front of a firing squad. Blown up by a mine? Blown up by a suicide bomber. Being killed with gas?

These things are not violence? I never understand. Why is this all forgotten, all the other violence in other countries.

No country is this damned world is perfect for the love of God.

Half, said it all. I have the same sense of hurt and defensiveness. I'm sorry. I've said many times as well. I can't help I was born here. This is where my parents had sex (at least once) and here I am.

Sigh, sigh, sigh.

I am NOT saying guns are a great thing. Also the point about suicide is very important. That much I know. Someone buys a gun once, dances around the idea of suicide for a year, and kills himself. If he didn't have a gun I can list for you the various other ways people kill themselves, including my female friend. Guns are chosen as the chance of survival is very small. Edit, the gun used in a suicide is confiscated as evidence and removed from the system. It remains in police custody in case anyone cares to know.

As noted, my friend was Hell bent on dying, and she did it without a gun and had planned this for months. She could have gotten a gun and didn't. Again, shall we ban MEN? Men seem to be rather violent creatures. I think we should ban all MEN.:roll:

Again, sad.
This makes me cry.
D

Ah, I recall back in 1973, I broke my arm in Paris, age.... 14?/15? years old... I had a few French words and was terrified. Fortunately my mother spoke fluent German. They LIKED her -- the one time I didn't mind her company on a vacation.

I was hysterical, terrified in a French hospital and I kept using words like ma bras! ma bras! je casse ma bras? -- ignore my spelling ... I was saying "My arm, I broke my arm", but it came out as probably "my arm broken is" or whatever.

A doctor and the X-Ray technician did not comfort me. They corrected my grammar. They repeated the correct sentence over and over. No comfort. I disgusted them that I spoke no French. THey never once spoke to me in English, though I knew they could. They only spoke with my mother, in German.

THANK GOD my mother spoke German and took care of everything.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I do have to laugh, and Americans CAN laugh at themselves, that while hunting Vice President Cheney shot his good friend by accident. The guy didn't die, thank God -- once everyone found that out Cheney was the butt of every joke imaginable. The man recovered 100%. Not to say everyone wasn't scares shitless.

So yes, accidental deaths are also figured into this, including a near miss by Mr. Cheney.

*No one answers my queston. Are there still fox hunts with guns, etc. in Britain? I know there is hunting the world over -- and illegal poaching in Africa and other countries for elephants and other exotic animals. Many hunters own guns, the purpose to shoot game, including ducks, geese etc. Here in my State, people eat the game they shoot.

I didn't say I like that sport. I didn't say I like guns. I don't like boxing either where two men get into a ring and beat themselves senseless.*


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

Cheers, Dreamer! Let's split a bottle of wine and hum a few bars of the _Star Spangled Banner_, shall we?

You're right. It is hurtful. In defense of England, I loved it there and most people were nothing but nice to me (until we started talking about politics). My largest concerns were that I couldn't get a damned cup of ice to save my life, or find a trashcan in London. But when he explained to me the lack of trashcans was because of bombings I thought, "Huh. How sad." I didn't start making flippant remarks about anything.


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2007)

> My largest concerns were that I couldn't get a damned cup of ice to save my life


Ice tea is wrong and was banished from England.


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

Emulated Puppet}eer said:


> > My largest concerns were that I couldn't get a damned cup of ice to save my life
> 
> 
> Ice tea is wrong and was banished from England.


LOL. Everything is better with ice. Lots of ice. Although, I do have to admit I miss the tea. The only thing I miss my ex over, actually...he could fix a mean cup of tea.


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2007)

HalfAPerson said:


> The *only* thing I miss my ex over, actually...he could fix a mean cup of tea.


Sounds as if you were made for one another :roll:


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Anyone who seriously thinks about how to make a cup of tea is obsessive - that is why I have dedicated time to the consideration. My recipe is:

- Good tea bags ie. authentic chai or Twinnings Morning Breakfast

- Boil the kettle until it clicks off...if you've got a dodgy kettle, shut the darn thing off before the whole kitchen fills with steam and there is no water left.

- Bag in mug, sugar in mug, water in mug.

- Milk (the amount is critical)

- Stir

- Do not remove the tea bag until there is at least some flavour!

Most people take the bag out straight away but I leave it in for more flavour: either drink it with the tea bag in or leave for 5 minutes. Now there's a cup of char...


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2007)

I'm on de-caff so I leave the tea-bag in.


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

Thank you for the lesson! I think you have to be born with tea making in your blood, though. If and when I tried to make a pot, he'd turn into Sherlock Holmes and know precisely what I had or hadn't done correctly.

So here is my one concession to Brits: Americans cannot make proper tea.


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

Ok, here a looooong article about violence in America. I couldnt take parts out of the article as every damn paragraph needs to be highlighted.

And do a Google search on America and Violence.

Article starts about violence in California, then goes into general violence in America, then to go back to California.

My points have been proven.

VIOLENCE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
DANIEL E. LUNGREN'S POLICY COUNCIL ON
VIOLENCE PREVENTION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In California, where we now have the distinction of being among the first states to report that gunshot wounds have become the leading cause of injury death, even surpassing automotive accidents, the need for action is obvious."
Dan Lungren
Attorney General
State of California
1992

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In May of 1994, California Attorney General Daniel E. Lungren convened a 26-member Policy Council on Violence Prevention and charged the Council with "studying violence in California and recommending policies and strategies for reversing the pervasive culture of violence in our society." The Council's membership included several state department directors, a district attorney, police chiefs and other criminal justice representatives, a county superintendent of schools, community action program directors, family violence experts, members of the medical, education and youth-serving professions, a researcher, business leaders, a religious leader, a media specialist, a foundation director and Californians directly affected by violence.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHARGE
Specifically, the Attorney General charged the Policy Council with:

Examining the underlying causes and social impact of violence on California communities. 
Finding common ground for multidisciplinary and community wide responses to violence. 
Making recommendations for preventing or reducing violence in California. 
As a group, the Policy Council was purposely chosen for its diversity of professional and ethnic backgrounds, knowledge, and social and political viewpoints. Its members represented a microcosm of society, bringing together their collective experience and expertise, as well as their unique perspectives, to address the problem of violence and violence prevention.The Council was asked to develop recommendations that would involve partnerships between public health, the police, education, social services, religious and community action groups, and local businesses. Acknowledging that there is no one solution to the problem of violence, the Council was asked to approach its work by seeking common ground for preventing violence in California.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE IMPACT OF VIOLENCE
VIOLENCE IN AMERICA 
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 
YOUTH AND VIOLENCE 
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS OF HOMICIDE RATES
VIOLENCE AND SOCIAL DISRUPTION
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VIOLENCE IN AMERICA
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO VIOLENCE
RECOMMENDATIONS BY COUNCIL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIOLENCE IN AMERICA 
*America is, by far, the most violent country in the world when measured against comparable, industrialized nations. Violence is deeply rooted in our society and has become woven into the fabric of the American lifestyle.* A culture of violence has emerged that invades our lives at every level, from our most intimate relationships at home to our schools and work environments. For many of us, violence has become an acceptable strategy for solving conflict, exerting power and control, obtaining possessions, and satisfying emotional desires. Moreover, violence has itself become entertainment, glamorized in the behavior of both real and fantasy heroes.

There is growing recognition that violence is not confined to specific groups or geographic areas, but directly or indirectly affects everyone. The conditions that underlie violent acts cut across all age, income, racial and ethnic groups, as evidenced by increasing reports of random acts of violence, hate crimes, kids killing kids, adults abusing children, and men assaulting women.

The extent of human suffering is captured by the scores of deaths and injuries resulting from violent acts committed throughout the United States. There has been a dramatic increase in deaths caused by violent acts during this century. The figures show that in 1900, the homicide rate was approximately 1 per 100,000 people. Although it varied over the intervening years, by 1990 the homicide rate had increased to over 10 per 100,000.

Each day, an average of 65 people die from and more than 6,000 people are physically injured by interpersonal violence in the United States. At these rates of death and injury, more than 215,000 people died and over 20 million more suffered nonfatal physical injuries from violence during the 1980s. The extent of murders by firearms in the United States is illustrated by a comparison of the total number of Americans killed during the Vietnam War (58,000+) with the total firearm murders in this country between 1989 and 1993 (70,918). It is clear that deaths by firearms have reached wartime proportions in this country. Violence and deadly force have had an extraordinary impact on the lives of Americans, causing great human suffering, social disruption and economic losses to the nation and California.

While the popular perception has long been that violence is most often perpetrated among strangers, violence has, in fact, in the past been more common among people who know each other. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), homicide victims and assailants have traditionally been more likely to be acquainted, have more often been of the same race, and have been predominantly male. Frequently, homicides have begun with arguments; more often than not, they have involved alcohol and firearms. In 1993, however, FBI statistics revealed that the face of violence is changing. For the first time, Americans were more likely to be killed by a stranger than by an acquaintance.

Despite the overall pervasiveness of violence, data indicate that some communities are experiencing violence to the point where they are under siege; certain groups are suffering from epidemic levels of violence. The data show that arrest rates for homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault in the United States peak among older adolescents and young adults. Homicide is the second leading cause of death for Americans ages 15 to 34 and the leading cause of death for African-Americans. Women are frequently the targets of physical and sexual assault by partners, spouses and acquaintances. Of the 5,328 women who died as a result of homicide in 1990, six out of 10 were murdered by someone they knew. And, all too often, children are the targets of abuse. In 1992, an estimated 1.9 million reports of child abuse and neglect were filed involving an estimated 2.9 million children. In the same year, almost 1,100 children are known to have died as a result of abuse and neglect, more than 1 death per 1,000 substantiated victims.

It is clear that the impact of violence has a multidimensional impact on families and communities. The most visible is the victimization of families who experience deaths and injuries to friends or family members. For those in lower-income neighborhoods, fear of personal violence to themselves or someone they know has become a major component of life.

Violence Against Women

National data show that in 1992, an estimated 4 million women were physically assaulted by male partners or cohabitants in the United States. A woman is physically abused in this country every nine seconds, and an estimated 1,871 women are forcibly raped each day. One study reported that the risk of rape for college women is 38 per 1,000. Older women are not exempt from this violence. National estimates for elderly female rape victims vary from 2 percent for women over 55 years to as high as 7 percent for women over 50 years.

Ron Rae, M.D., member of Physicians for a Violence-free Society, testified before the Council about the magnitude and frequency of domestic violence. According to his testimony, each year approximately 2,000 women abused by their partners will die from the abuse; about 28 percent of women seen in ambulatory care clinics have been battered at some time in their lives; and 20 to 25 percent of pregnant women seeking prenatal care have been in a battering relationship. Beyond the damage to the women who are assaulted and terrorized, domestic violence also victimizes the children who witness it daily, transforming the notion of the safety of home into a virtual nightmare. The emotional trauma and pain suffered by these children often results in somatic complaints, psychological disorders, school failure and a propensity to resort to violence themselves as a primary conflict resolution strategy. In addition, their notions of love, relationship and marriage are skewed, often resulting in a destructive cycle of violence that continues in their own lives, as illustrated by the violent pattern emerging in teen dating.

Youth and Violence 
Young people are disproportionately represented among perpetrators and victims of violent acts. Arrest rates in the United States for homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault are highest among adolescents and young adults. During the 1980s, more than 48,000 persons were murdered by youths between the ages of 12 and 24. Homicide rates among American males ages 15 to 24 are significantly greater than in males of similar age in other industrialized countries. The below listed figures compare homicide rates among 23 countries. The data show that the rates in the United States are over eight and a half times greater than for those in the next highest country, Italy. American youth are also disproportionately victims of firearm deaths. Data from the National Center for Injury and Prevention Control show that unintentional and intentional firearm injuries are the primary leading causes of death for youth ages 10 to 24. For people in higher age groups, firearm injuries as a cause of death drops to the fifth rank or above.

International Comparisons of Homicide Rates 
Males, 15-24 years of age
1988 - 1991
Homicides per 100,000 population

United States-----------------------------------------37.2 
Italy---------------4.3
New Zealand-----4.2
Israel--------------3.7
Australia----------3.6
Finland------------3.3
Scotland-----------3.1
Portugal-----------2.3
Poland-------------2.0
Ireland-------------1.8
Austria-------------1.6
Spain---------------1.5
Sweden------------1.5
Norway------------1.5
Netherlands-------1.3
Denmark-----------1.3
Greece-------------1.3
Switzerland--------1.2
Germany-----------1.1
France--------------0.9
Canada-------------0.9
England/Wales----0.6
Japan---------------0.5

Sources: National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics, 1991; 
World Statistics Annuals, 1991 and 1992, Geneva: World Health Organization

Frequently, youth are personally subjected to emotional, physical and sexual abuse from family members, or they witness others in their family being abused. The data show that children who suffer from family violence commonly run away, exposing themselves to even greater violence and abuse in the streets of urban areas. Open to the dangers of drugs, gangs, sexual exploitation and economic deprivation, these children are at the greatest risk of continuing the cycle as perpetrators or victims of violence. One research study found that young people who have been abused or neglected are 38 percent more likely to be arrested for a violent crime by the time they are adults than those who have not been mistreated.

People who work with victims of child abuse find a direct correlation between violence in the street and violence in the home. According to Dr. David Chadwick, Director of the Center for Child Protection, Children's Hospital, San Diego, street violence interferes with the contact between people and families that commonly occurs in less violent neighborhoods. When these preventive norms are limited by street violence, families are forced into isolation and fear. It is in these neighborhoods, where the support systems between individuals, groups and families are obstructed, that child abuse most commonly occurs.

Violence in the streets is carrying over into the schools, where students are also becoming victimized. In a 1993 nationwide survey of public and private school students in grades 9 through 12, 11.8 percent of those surveyed reported carrying weapons on campus in the previous month, and 24 percent reported they were offered, sold or given an illegal drug at school in the previous year. In another 1993 national survey, 4 percent of students said they had taken a gun to school in the past year, and 59 percent said they could get a handgun if they "wanted one." Of those who said they could get a handgun, two out of three said they could get one within 24 hours.

In some schools, the prevalence of gangs escalates the propensity for violence on campuses and fear among students. In a 1991 U.S. Department of Justice survey, 15 percent of a nationwide sample of school students said that gangs existed in their school, and 16 percent of the respondents claimed that they had witnessed students attacking or threatening a teacher at their school. Students exposed to gangs and gang violence respond by avoiding certain areas inside their schools (e.g., hallways and restrooms), taking circuitous routes to and from school, and fearing for their safety while in the school environment. The survey found that 3 percent of male students and 1 percent of female students said that they had taken "something" to school for self-protection.

The ability of schools to cope with the problem of violence on campus is often compromised by a lack of community involvement. Frequently, there is little or no communication between the schools, police, juvenile justice agencies and community services, nor is there an integration of efforts to mitigate the problems of violence. And, funds tied to categorical spending leave few avenues for schools to offer students alternative or vocational education opportunities. Consequently, lacking adequate resources, schools are too often relegated to the position of dealing with violence after the fact. Thus, youth exposed to violence at home and in the streets often find no respite in the schools, nor are the schools able to provide them with educational opportunities as viable alternatives to violent behavior.

A study of high-risk youth indicates that for many adolescents and children, the settings in their everyday lives fail to provide the resources essential to healthy development. About one-half of high school graduates in the United States do not go on to college, and of those who do, less than 25 percent receive a four-year degree. For the larger number of adolescents who do not attend or do not finish college, no institutional bridge or system exists to help them transition from school to work. Students who do not complete the 12th grade face even less encouraging prospects. Among those youth who do not graduate from high school, 28.1 percent of males and 21.5 percent of females are unemployed, limiting their prospects for a better future.

Young people's feelings of isolation and alienation appear to be exacerbated by parents, schools and communities planning for, rather than with, them. One youth who testified before the Council voiced the sentiments of many, "We feel that is one of the big problems, because young people aren't able to say what's going on with them, and programs are being created for them without using young people." In short, young people believe their opinions are valid and valuable, and that they should be heard. Without a forum, youth will continue to believe that they are not able to function effectively in the community.

Violence and Social Disruption 
The social disruption precipitated by violence results in broken families, abused women, child abuse, depression and grieving. Parents who have lost their children to drive-by shootings and gang retaliation know the almost unbearable sadness that remains in the aftermath of senseless violence and its injurious effects on family relationships. Meanwhile, children who have witnessed domestic violence in their home are burdened with fear and suffer from physical maladies such as exhaustion, nervous breakdowns and the inability to make emotional commitments.

At a minimum, children who witness traumatic events-in their homes or in their neighborhoods-are ill-prepared to function well at school or in their community. They frequently vent their anger through violence. Many youth who have witnessed violent and traumatic events in their families and neighborhoods suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and/or related personality disorders. With PTSD, youth experience the same symptoms exhibited by military personnel who have witnessed violent and traumatic events of war. Researchers have found that the effects of such traumatic exposures accumulate from birth, rendering these youth highly suggestible and resulting in behavior that is highly disruptive. These youth often become capable of committing the most outrageous acts against other people.

Finally, the spread of violence into the workplace has devastating effects on both employees and business operations. Despite the increase of violence in the work environment and the escalating costs associated with violent acts, a review of several employers in Northern California conducted by the Littler firm demonstrated that less than 17 percent have established any specific goals and responsibilities for preventing workplace violence.

Economic Impact of Violence in America
The costs of violence to society are staggering. Beyond the billions of dollars in direct medical expenses, criminal justice costs and property losses, there are hundreds of billions of indirect costs in lost productivity due to injuries, premature deaths and mental health issues, as well as lost quality of life.

The total direct medical costs for treating U.S. firearm victims in 1985 was $911 million. These costs included spending for hospital and long-term care, physician and other professional services, rehabilitation, medication, emergency transportation, medical equipment and supplies. Initial hospitalization costs in 1985 for the 65,127 hospitalized firearm victims in the United States were $455 million, an average of $7,000 per patient. Estimates from 1985 were updated to project 1990 costs, taking into account both inflationary and real changes. Total 1990 direct medical costs were estimated to exceed $1.4 billion, a 55 percent increase over five years.

The average annual financial costs of medical and mental health treatment, emergency response, productivity losses, and administration of health insurance and disability payments for victims of all assault injuries occurring between 1987 and 1990 were estimated to be $34 billion, with loss of quality of life costing another $145 billion.

Criminal justice expenses are also increasing. The U.S. prison population has increased by 167 percent between 1980 and 1990. In fact, this country incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other nation in the world. According to a Business Week report on the cost of crime in the United States, an estimated $90 billion a year is spent on police, courts and prisons.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, in 1992, economic loss of some kind occurred during 71 percent of all personal crimes involving rape, robbery, assault and personal theft. The total loss for victims of personal crimes was $4.1 billion. Property crimes, including burglary, household larceny and motor vehicle theft accounted for an additional $ 13.5 billion.

Estimates of overall costs of violence that include the indirect losses of productivity and quality of life are even more astounding. The total cost to society for firearm injuries in 1985 was $14.4 billion. By 1990, this figure had increased to $20.4 billion. The lifetime costs for all persons aged 12 and older who are injured due to rape, robbery, assault, arson and murder in a single year in America are estimated to be $178 billion. This includes $76.6 billion in mental health costs and an additional $77.9 billion in lost quality of life.

SOURCES: 1. James A. Mercy, Mark L. Rosenberg, Kenneth E. Powell, Claire V. Broome and William L. Roper, " Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, " Health Affairs, 12, No. 4, Winter 1993, citing National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System. 2. Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1991, NCJ-139563, Washington, D.C.: Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1992; and Harlow, Injuries fromCrime, NCJ-116811, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice,1 990. 3. Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1987, NCJ-115524, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of JusticeStatistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1988; Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1988, NCJ-122024, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1989; andCriminal Victimization in the United States, 1989, NCJ-12391, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of JusticeStatistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1990. 4. Crime in the United States, 1993, Washington, D.C.: FBI, U.S. Department of Justice, 1994, p. 18.5. Mark L. Rosenberg, M.D., M.P.P., Director, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Written testimony submitted to the Policy Council, Fresno, California, September 22, 1994. 6. Crime in the United States, 1993,Washington, D.C.: FBI, U.S. Department of Justice, 1994, p. 17. 7. Age-Specific Arrest Rates and Race-Specific Arrest Rates for Selected Offenses, 1965- 1988,Washington, D.C.: FBI, U.S. Department of Justice, 1990.8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Surveillance Summaries, Morbidity and Mortality WeeklyReport 29 May 1992, 41, No. SS-3, 1992, 1 -33, citing M. Hammett et al., " Homicide Surveil-lance, 1979-1988. "A.L. Kellerman and J.A. Mercy, "Men, Women and Murder: Gender-Specific Differences in Rates ofFatal Violence and Victimization, " Journal of Trauma, 33, No. 1, 1992, 1 -S.10. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Fact Sheet #19, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Nov. 1994, citing Barbara Allen-Hagen, Melissa Sickmund and Howard N. Snyder, "Juveniles and Violence: Juvenile Offending and Victimization," Nov. 1994.11. Maria Dye, Victim and survivor of domestic violence, Testimony before the Policy Council, Oakland, California, August 9, 1994.12. First Comprehensive National Health Survey of American Women, New York: The Commonwealth Fund, July 1993.13. Rape in America: A Report to the Nation, Washington, D.C.: National Victims Center, 1992.14. Mary P. Koss, Christine A. Gidyes and Nadine Wieseniewski, "The Scope of Rape: Incidence and Prevalence of Sexual Aggression and Victimization in a National Sample of Higher Education Students, " Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, No. 2, 162- 170.15. Patricia A. Tyra, Ed.D., R.N., C.S., "Older Women: Victims of Rape," Journal of Gerontological Nursing, May 1993.16. Ron Rae, M.D., Physicians for a Violence-free Society, Testimony before the Policy Council, San Diego, California, September 27, 1994.17. Brandon Carrillo, Student at Roosevelt Middle School, Oceanside, Testimony before the Policy Council, San Diego, California, September 27, 1994.18. Age-Specific Arrest Rates and Race-Specific Arrest Rates for Selected Offenses, 1965- 1988, Washington, D.C.: FBI, U.S. Department of Justice, 1990. 19. Supplemental Homicide Report Data Tapes, 1980-1989, Washington, D.C.: FBI, U.S. Department ofJustice, 1990.20. L.A. Fingerhut and J.C. Kleinman, "International and Interstate Comparisons of Homicide Among Young Males, " Journal/ of the American Medical Association, 263, 1990, pp. 3292-3295.21. Mortality Trends, Causes of Death and Related Risk Behaviors Among U.S. Adolescents, Adolescent Health: State of the Nation Monograph Series, No. 1, CDC 099-4112, Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1993.22. Arnold S. Kahn, Ph.D., ea., Task Force on Victims of Crime and Violence-Final Report, Washington, D.C.:.: American Psychological Association, 30 Nov. 1984. Cathy Spatz Wisdom, The Cycle of Violence, Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.:.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Oct. 1992, p. 1.24. David Chadwick, M.D., Director, Center for Child Protection, Children's Hospital, San Diego, Testimony before the Policy Council, San Diego, California, September 27, 1994.25. "Youth Risk Behavior Surveys," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1993.26. LH Research, Inc., "A Survey of Experiences, Perceptions, and Apprehensions About Guns Among Young People in America," Boston: The Harvard School of Public Health, July 1993.27. Lisa D. Bastian and Bruce M. Taylor, Ph.D., School Crime, A National Crime Victimization Survey Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Sept. 1991.28. National Research Council, Losing Generations: Adolescents in High Risk Settings, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993.29. R. Omega, Student member of the Fighting Back Project, Vallejo, Testimony before the Policy Council, Sacramento, California, October 13, 1994.30. Bruce Steven Basulto, Gang Diversion Coordinator, Bell Gardens Police Department, Testimony before the Policy Council, San Diego, California, September 17, 1994.31. Steve Sposato, Spouse of murder victim, Testimony before the Policy Council, Oakland, California, August 9, 1994.32. Lorna Hawkins, Founder of Drive-by-Agony and mother of two slain sons, Testimony before the Policy Council, Los Angeles, California, August 30, 1994.33. Marya Grambs, Consultant, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Strategist for Women Against Gun Violence, Child survivor and witness of domestic violence, Testimony before the Policy Council, Oakland, California, August 9, 1994.34. Hans Steiner, M.D., Associate Professor of Research, Stanford University, Testimony before the Policy Council, Sacramento, California, October 13, 1994.35. Ibid.36. Garry G. Mathiason et al., " Responding to Workplace Violence, " Terror and Violence in the Workplace, 1994, Chapter 8, Written testimony submitted to the Policy Council.37. Dorothy Rice and Wendy Max, "Shooting in the Dark: Estimating the Cost of Firearm Injuries," Health Affairs, Winter 1993, pp. 176- 177, 179-181.38. T.R. Miller, M.A. Cohen and S.B. Rossman, "Victim Costs of Violent Crime and Resulting injuries,' Health Affairs, Winter 1993, pp. 187-198.39. William J. Chambliss, "Policing the Ghetto Underclass: The Politics of Law and Law Enforcement," Social Problems, 41, No. 2, May 1994, 177-194.40. C. Farrell, "The Economics of Crime, " Business Week, 13 Dec. 1993.41. Patsy A. Klaus, "The Costs of Crime to Victims," Crime Data Brief, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1992.42. Dorothy Rice and Wendy Max, "Estimating the Cost of Firearm Injuries," pp. 177, 181.43. TR. Miller, M.A. Cohen and S.B. Rossman, "Victim Costs of Violent Crime and Resulting Injuries,' Health Affairs, Winter 1993, pp. 195-197.44. Crime and Delinquency in California, 1993, Sacramento: California Department of Justice, 1994, p. 5.45. Ibid.46. Homicide In California, 1993, Sacramento: California Department of Justice, 1994, p. 69.47. Crime In the U.S., 1993, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1994.48. Law Enforcement Information Center, California Department of Justice, 1993 statistics.49. Ibid. 50. Crime and Delinquency in California, 1993, p. 6. 51. Crime and Delinquency in California 1993, p. 8. 52. Crime and Delinquency in California, 1993, p. 10. 53. Homicide ln California, 1993,p.77. 54. Crime and Delinquency in California, 1993, pp. 10-12.55. Domestic Violence Related Calls for Assistance, Law Enforcement Information Center, California Department of Justice, 1993.56. Law Enforcement Information Center, California Department of Justice, 1993 statistics.57. Homicide in California, 1993, p. 16.58. Homicide in Califomia, 1993, p. 81.59. Homicides Among California's Children and Youth, 1992, 93-12002, Sacramento: Center for Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Dec. 1993.60. Death Records, California Department of Health Services, 1993.61. "Rate per 100,000 Population at Risk, 1992, " Crime and Delinquency in California, Sacramento: Division of Law Enforcement, Law Enforcement Center, California Department of Justice, 1993, p. 35._. Range Hutson, M.D., Acting Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Martin Luther King Medical Center, Los Angeles, Written testimony submitted to the Policy Council, Los Angeles, California, August 30, 1994... Allan F. Abrahamse, RAND, Memo on race of offender and victims in California homicides; and John M. Dawson and Barbara Boland, Murder in large Urban Counties, 1988, 140614, Washington, D.C.:Bureau of Justice Statistics.64. Gangs, A Statewide Directory of Programs, Sacramento: Crime and Violence Prevention Center, California Attorney General's Office, 1994, p. 295.65. School Crime Reports, Statewide Totals, July 1, 1988 - June 30, 1989.66. Gangs, A Statewide Directory of Programs, 1994, p. 295, citing California Student Substance Use Survey.67. Hate Crimes in California, (draft) Special Report to the Attorney General, Sacramento: California Department of Justice, Feb. 1995.68. Marcus Nieto, Roger Dunstan and Gus A. Koehler, Ph.D., "Firearm-Related Violence in California: Incidence and Economic Costs," Sacramento: California State Research Bureau, California State Library, Oct.1994, p. 22.69. Range Hutson, M.D., Written testimony submitted to the Policy Council, Los Angeles, California, August 30, 1994.70. "Firearm-Related Violence in California," p. 22.71. Crime In California, Legislative Analyst's Office, Jan. 1993, p. 45.72. California Department of Corrections, Offender Information Services Branch, May 1995.73. California Youth Authority Public Information Unit, May 1995.74. Ibid.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO VIOLENCE 
In seeking to better understand the catalysts that influence criminal and violent behavior, the Policy Council explored the underlying contributing factors. Dr. Leonard D. Eron, Chairman of the Commission on Violence and Youth of the American Psychological Association (APA) testified before the Council:

Violence is not a behavior that springs forth spontaneously when a child reaches adolescence. The ground work has been prepared long before this. Somewhere in the youngster's background, bombarded by all the genetic, physiological, social and economic conditions, he or she must somehow, somewhere have learned to solve interpersonal problems with the use of violence to relieve frustration and similarly to acquire material possessions by the use of violence.

As a youth, the violent adolescent:

Must have seen this type of behavior at home, in the neighborhood, in school, or on the TV screen. 
Must also have seen it rewarded and approved. 
Might subsequently have fantasized about it. 
Has perhaps engaged in it and been rewarded for it. 
Although aggression is caused by many factors, ultimately it is learned behavior. This is one hopeful note in the depressing sequence or combination of causal factors. If aggression is learned, then it can be unlearned, or conditions arranged so it is not learned in the first place. This is the overriding finding of the American Psychological Association.

The Council largely agreed with the APA findings that violence is a learned behavior resulting from the interaction of a complex array of factors. Members also recognized that the convergence of individual, family and community conditions greatly increases the risk for violence and the need for intervention.

Casual and Contributing Factors
The Council found a myriad of conditions and factors contributing to violence.

Alcohol and other Drugs 
Educational Decline 
Devaluing of Life 
Discrimination 
Media Influence 
Mental Health Problems 
Economic Poverty 
Hopelessness 
Corporate Promotion 
Lack of Responsibility 
Isolation & Alienation 
Access to Firearms

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Media Influence
Violence in the media is capable of having an indelible, negative impact on youth. Ralph Lewis writes that the mass media occupies a significant portion of time in the daily lives of Americans, and that a large proportion of television offerings portray violent, aggressive behavior. Recent surveys indicate that about 98 percent of American households have one or more televisions; the television is on about 28 hours a week for children 2 to 11 years of age and about 23 hours a week for teenagers. Research shows there are about five to six violent acts per hour on prime time and about 20 to 25 violent acts on Saturday morning children's programs. These violent acts account for about 188 hours of violent programming per week, or about 15 percent of all program time.

Mass media presentations that often glamorize violent acts, but rarely show their consequences, serve to normalize violence and desensitize our response to it. The underlying message is that violence is a legitimate strategy for solving problems. Dr. Delbert Elliott of The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, concludes, "What is learned is not only how to do violence, but a desensitization to violence and rationalizations for disengaging one's moral obligations to others.'' There is also a pervasive problem in the way in which women are portrayed in all levels of the media. Sexist stereotypes of women as victims, as passive, as "enjoying" or even deserving of abuse-and sexist stereotypes of men as aggressive, unemotional, more intelligent and valued members of society who solve problems primarily by force-feed into a climate in which it is permissible to batter women.

Newscasts also do their share to feed the public's appetite for violence by glamorizing violent acts through repeated coverage and sensationalized headlines. Under the guise of the "public's right to know," gang warfare is glorified and inflamed by reported hits, and victims are exploited with questions about how they "feel" under such circumstances. Thus does society become desensitized and numbed by the barrage of violence paraded before us daily.

Although computer and video games can assist with learning under specific circumstances, violent video games have been found to breed violent behavior. As early as 1984, Greenfield determined that violent videos tend to raise the level of aggressive play, and that this association is stronger when the game is played by a solitary player. Among those who play video games, boys far outnumber girls, suggesting that the attraction and impact of these games is linked to gender differences, both physiological and social.

Firearms
Recent research investigating the link between deaths and the availability of firearms suggests that guns now constitute a public health crisis. In 1992, firearms were used in 68.2 percent of the homicides committed in the United States. Firearm deaths have risen 14 percent over the last decade and are the second leading cause of injury death for individuals ages 10 and above. In 1988, the firearm death rates for both white and black male teenagers exceeded the total from all natural causes of death. In fact, offender surveys over the last decade show that while the number of assaults committed by juveniles has remained fairly stable, the lethality of these incidents has risen dramatically because of the involvement of firearms. Whereas, in times past, most juveniles, including gang members, would fight largely with their fists, clubs and knives, today's weapon of choice is the handgun. And, unfortunately, while there are laws against minors possessing handguns, these weapons are nevertheless so available that many inner-city youth can purchase a gun almost as easily as they can cigarettes and alcohol.

Violence caused by the availability of firearms is sometimes unintentional. Wintemute, et al. report that between 1977 and 1983, 88 California children under the age of 15 were unintentionally shot and killed either by other children or by themselves. The majority of these cases occurred while the children were playing with guns they found at home. Despite the unintentional nature of these acts, the outcomes were violent and irreparable, adding to the cumulative burden of social and personal disruption already being suffered by Americans."

Alcohol
Abuse of alcohol is an excellent example of the bond between contributing factors and violence. Alcohol, the number one drug associated with violence, may not, in itself, cause a person to become violent. Instead, the presence of alcohol reduces an individuals ability to make rational decisions and identify dangerous situations, while increasing the likelihood of impulsive and high-risk responses to potentially violent situations. These behavior changes also make it more likely that the protagonist will become either a perpetrator or victim of a violent act. According to James Mosher, J.D., Research Fellow, Marin Institute for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, over one-half of the inmates in California state prisons convicted of violent crimes used alcohol just before committing the violent offense.

Another study of crime on college and university campuses documents the relationship between alcohol, other drugs and violent behavior. The data show that from 1984 to 1989, over 80 percent of reported campus crimes involved students victimizing other students, and over 95 percent of all offenses committed on these campuses involved alcohol or other drugs.

Corporate Promotion
In many ways, we have relinquished the socialization of our children to people whose major concern is financial profit. To maintain our commitment to free enterprise and free speech, and to avoid the need for establishing extensive regulations to protect our children, it is time for corporate responsibility to take center stage and balance the profit motive with what is good and healthy for our young people and for society as a whole.

Our culture explicitly promotes violence in a multitude of ways. Our multimillion dollar entertainment industry is the most obvious illustration. John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone, Chuck Norris and Arnold Schwarzenegger are big-screen heroes who "save the day" in a blaze of gun power and destruction. "Mortal Combat," "Death Squad" and an overabundance of equally violent, sadistic video games are best sellers, with more explicit and shocking death modes introduced regularly. Rap idols "rap" about killing cops and raping women, and many music videos depict similar images. Even television is becoming more graphic in its depictions, and with cable access, there is less and less control over what is sent out over the airwaves.

Nor is it uncommon for corporations to use sex and violence to sell products, integrating both into the basic orientation of the culture. Rap idols are used to market high-alcohol-content beer (malt-liquors) to young males, and the beer industry capitalizes on such violent images as Colt 45 and Red Dog.

There is also the sports arena, with media-made superheroes whom our children see as role models. Unfortunately, competitiveness has been taken to such extremes (due to the large sums of money involved) that it is commonly accepted for players to engage in borderline violence such as late hits in football and brush-back pitches in baseball, often meant to seriously injure opponents. There are after-whistle shoves that turn into brawls, emptying the benches with entire teams trying to get in their punches. This fighting is sensationalized by media coverage during the game and then repeatedly shown during the 5, 6 and 11 o'clock news. Penalties and fines are sometimes levied, but are seldom significant; they are far outweighed by the glory of the win. "When winning is the only thing, can violence be far away?"

Poverty
The connection between economic poverty and violence is not straight forward; many economically deprived people are not violent, and many violent people are not economically disadvantaged. The risk factors for violent crime are, however, tied to economic hardship. They are evident in the absence of good health, education, recreation and jobs, which contributes to a sense of despair and lack of regard for human life among young people growing up in poverty. The data show that disadvantaged individuals and people in low socioeconomic status are at far greater risk of committing or suffering from a violent act. According to Wintemute et al., children in many poor, urban neighborhoods become experts in combat survival, "as they must do" in order to make sense of their daily lives.

The effects of poverty manifest themselves in health and mental health problems, hopelessness, isolation, broken and fatherless homes, and alienation. Studies indicate a strong, direct correlation between intergenerational poverty and child abuse. Economic deprivation is linked to a multitude of negative stressors, which, in turn, generate inadequate parenting. Lack of parental guidance and child abuse, in particular, have a significant impact on the delinquent behavior of youth. There is abundant research to demonstrate the relationship between either witnessing or experiencing violence in the home and later resorting to delinquent, criminal and violent behavior.

Hopelessness and Isolation
The Council saw fear, isolation and hopelessness experienced by youth and an increasing number of adults as clear contributors to and results of violence. For most people, violence is not the first choice. They seek diplomacy, negotiation and cooperation first, traditionally resorting to violence as their last course of action. Children today, however, are growing up exposed to more and more violence, and they see the ease by which guns are used as the first choice for solving problems or disputes. This, coupled with seeing friends die and coping with fear, isolation and hopelessness, sets up dangerous obstacles for youth to overcome that perhaps were not experienced by past generations.

These conditions make it difficult for youth to experience understanding, sympathy and empathy for others, a prerequisite for valuing human life. Young people may not be learning the basic negotiation skills or the value of cooperation. A child growing up in an environment that fails to foster a basic sense of safety and spiritual development, with clear standards for conduct that value social connections, may fail to see the world as a welcome place.

Experiencing hopelessness, fear and isolation is not limited to youth. Women, the elderly and other cultural and minority groups are impacted by people's attempts to assert power and control over them. These expressions of power and control show themselves in the form of domestic violence, elder abuse, hate crimes and even gang violence. As a result of the violence, the victims often become fearful, possibly ashamed and hopeless. They may then isolate themselves from family, friends and community. Sometimes entire neighborhoods are overcome by a sense of hopelessness and held captive by their fear, barring their windows and doors and isolating themselves.

Educational Decline
The National Commission on Excellence in Education produced a report in 1983 that described the declining education performance of our children. In the ensuing 10 years, little progress has been made. According to the Committee on Economic Development, the more than one million youth who fail to graduate from high school each year will be marginally illiterate and virtually unemployable. And, dropouts are three and a half times as likely as high school graduates to be arrested (60 percent of prison inmates are high school dropouts) and six times more likely to be unmarried parents.

In California, a massive educational reform movement began in 1983. The components include: engaging students in a strengthened and challenging curriculum; developing more powerful student assessment and school accountability; improving instructional resources; preparing more students for college and to qualify for technical preparation programs and jobs; providing support to students and reducing the dropout rate; establishing an environment of professionalism for school faculty; involving parents, businesses, and community members; making instructional and organizational changes to allow students to reach higher levels; and expanding the use of technology in our schools.

California schools continue to have increasing enrollments, and progress is being made in many of the reform areas. For example, in California, the dropout rate has fallen almost 34 percent since 1986. In spite of these improvements, however, test scores and youth crime and violence rates continue to indicate that the system is still not working for many students, and much hard work remains.

In order for education to reduce crime, educational reforms must be targeted at youth who are at greatest risk. This means focusing on inner-city public schools, which tend to have the least experienced teachers, as well as the largest and more dangerous classrooms. Furthermore, public education must have the necessary resources to meet the needs of its dramatically growing and increasingly diverse student population. California currently spends significantly less per pupil than the national average. If schools are inadequately funded, the gains made may be erased, and reform efforts may grind to a halt.

Devaluing of Life
At a minimum, our culture of violence causes anxiety, desensitizes us to the pain of others and devalues life. The Council passionately discussed the racism and discrimination that has tolerated unspeakable violence against African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians and other people of color. The effects of racism and discrimination continue today as demonstrated by socio-economic inequalities, the stereotype of black men as violent criminals to be feared, the overrepresentation of people of color in the criminal justice system, as well as an increase in hate crime.

The Council acknowledged the power and control theme that has manifested itself in violence against women and children and is tacitly supported by society, as evidenced by domestic violence, including partner abuse, acquaintance rape and child abuse. Until recently, society has largely looked the other way, holding the victims somehow responsible (assuming women "must have asked for it") or deeming domestic violence a private matter (taking the attitude that what goes on within a family is the business of its members).

The Council also recognized the tragedy of "gang mentality" that takes a life for a false sense of respect and power. This distorted sense of pride places a human life at less value then a pair of sneakers, or condones the taking of a life as the standard retaliation for perceived disrespect.

Lack of Responsibility
Any combination of these risk factors economic deprivation, dysfunctional family life and parenting, exposure to chronic family and community violence, alcohol use, easy availability of firearms, social attitudes of sexism, racism and discrimination, or the cultural glamorization of violence creates a tinderbox only waiting for a spark to ignite it. These conditions, however, were not viewed by the Council as a justification for reacting with violence, particularly the taking of a life.

Council members agreed that a lack of accountability or a sense of personal and social responsibility also contribute to violence. They discussed how many in our society have lost their sense of responsibility, and how we no longer hold individuals and institutions accountable for their actions. If people are not held responsible for their actions, and our youth see this day after day, it is unlikely that we will effectively communicate to young people the value of personal and social responsibility. And, without these values, it is unlikely that they will develop the skills to negotiate life without resorting to violence.

Mental Health Problems
Mental health problems associated with violent behavior include biological or physical problems such as attention deficit or hyperactivity disorder, and emotional or psychosocial problems associated with abuse, neglect or trauma. Dissociative disorders such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) are identified as commonly being a result of exposure to traumatic violence or as having a causal relationship to violent acts. PTSD is typically associated with exposure to violence, such as the violent trauma experienced by veterans during war, or that of children who are exposed to a traumatic incident (e.g., having a parent murdered or killed in a car crash, or witnessing a drive-by shooting).

In testimony before the Council, Hans Steiner, M.D., Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Stanford Medical School, described a study in which he found that about a third of the 110 California Youth Authority wards who participated tested positive for PTSD. He explained that more severe forms of dissociative disorders, although rare, are linked to chronic traumatization such as prolonged and repeated abuse and neglect. Youth in this state are often highly suggestible. Dr. Steiner suggested that this may help explain why these kids are performing outrageous acts of violence against other people.

According to Ronel Lewis, M.D., of the San Francisco Youth Guidance Center, child abuse and neglect is repeatedly seen as a problem that leads to tendencies towards violence. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is another disorder that impairs 3 to 10 percent of school-age kids. If not properly diagnosed and treated, these children develop self-esteem problems and conduct problems, and are labeled "bad kids." The majority of these children eventually drop out of school, seeking gratification in other activities, frequently outside the law and involving violence to some degree. Studies show that from 30 to 50 percent (depending on the study) of youth diagnosed as having ADHD by age 12 will be arrested by the time they are 18.

SOURCES:1. Leonard D. Eron, Ph.D., Chair, Commission on Violence and Youth, American Psychological Association, Testimony before the Policy Council, San Diego, California, September 27, 1994. Ralph G. Lewis, "The Media and Violent and Criminal Behavior," Justice and Media, Issues and Research, ed. Ray Surette, Ph.D., Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas, 1984, pp. 51-69.3. E. Donnerstein, R. Slaby and L. Eron, "The Mass Media and Youth Aggression," Reason to Hope: A Psychological Perspective on Violence and Youth, ed. L. Eron, J. Gentry and P. Schlegel, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1995.4. Ibid.5. Delbert S. Elliott, Ph.D., "Youth Violence: An Overview," Boulder, Colorado: The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado, March 1994.6. Patricia Marks Greenfield, Mind & Media: The Effects of TV, Video Games and Computers, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984.7. Daniel W. Webster, C. Patrick Caulk, Stephen P. Teret and Garen J. Wintemute, "Reducing Firearm Injuries, " Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 1991.8. Randy Rossi, Acting Chief, Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis, California Department of Justice, citing FBI Crime Reports, Testimony before the Policy Council, San Diego, California, September 27, 1994.9. Mark Rosenberg, M.D., M.P.P, Director, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, Testimony before the Policy Council, Fresno, California, September 22, 1994.10. Delbert S. Elliott, Ph.D., "Youth Violence: An Overview."11. Garen J. Wintemute, M.D., M.P.H., Stephen P. Teret, M.D., M.P.H., Jess F. Kraus, Ph.D., M.P.H., Mona A. Wright and Gretchen Bradfield, M.S., "When Children Shoot Children, " Journal of the American Medical Association, 12 June 1987, p. 257.12. Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, Feb. 1994, p. 4.13. J.D. Mosher, Marin Institute for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, Testimony before the Policy Council, Oakland, California, August 9, 1994.14. J.D. Mosher, Marin Institute for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, Written testimony submitted to the Policy Council, Oakland, California, August 9, 1994.15. John J. Sloan, "The Correlates of Campus Crime: An Analysis of Reported Crimes on Colleges and University Campuses, " Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, No. 1, 1994, 51 -61.16. Myrian Miedzian, Boys Will Be Boys, New York: Anchor Books, 1991, p. 181.17. Garen J. Wintemute, M.D., M.P.H.,., Michael Hancock, J.D.,., Colin Loftin, Ph.D., Andrew McGuire, Michael Pertschuk, J.D.,., and Stephen P. Teret, M.D., M.P.H.,., "Policy Options on Firearm Violence, Improving the Health of the Poor, ed. Sarah E. Samuels, D.P.H.. and Mark D. Smith, M.D., M.B.A., Menlo Park: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, May 1992, pp. 79-96.18. Ibid., p. 82.19. Candace Kruttschmitt, Jane D. McLeod and Marid Dornfeld, "The Economic Environment of Child Abuse," Social Problems, No. 2, May 1994, p. 41.20. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Excellence in Education, U.S. Department of Education, 1983.21. Children in Need: /investment Strategies for the Educationally Disadvantaged, New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1987.22. Byron N. Kunisawa, "A Nation in Crisis: The Dropout Dilemma, " National Education Association, Jan. 1988, p. 61.23. Reducing Crime in America, San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Aug. 1993, p. 39.24. Janice Lowen Agee, California Public Education 1983 - 1994, Sacramento: California Department of Education, 1994, p. 1.25. Ibid., p. 3.26. Ibid., p. 43.27. Hans Steiner, M.D., Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Stanford University Medical School, Testimony before the Policy Council, Sacramento, California, October 13, 1994.28. Ronel Lewis, M.D., Medical Director, Psychiatric Clinic, San Francisco Youth Guidance Center, Testimony before the Policy Council, Sacramento, California, October 13, 1994.29. Mark Rosenberg, M.D., M.P.P.,., Testimony before the Policy Council.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RECOMMENDATIONS
A Violence-Free Society

The Policy Council concluded that violence is everyone's business. When the people of California accept this truth, we will see a promising future, and we will start to turn back the tide of violence sweeping our land. The Council believes that a country which reaffirms that every person matters by embracing violence-free values, sees its people and communities as having strengths and being resilient, and fosters those strengths and resiliencies will see the promise fulfilled. California can lead the way.

MEDIA
FIREARMS
ALCOHOL
COMMUNITY
FAMILY
RELATIONSHIPS
YOUTH
RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
PERSONAL AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEDIA
Promote policies and strategies that increase the constructive use of media to deglamorize violence and promote nonviolent social norms.

1. Network executives and local television and radio stations should adopt more responsible, sensitive news reporting practices that:

?Deglamorize violence and promote nonviolent social norms.
?Avoid showing graphic details of murder scenes and resist the attraction to sensationalize violence. 
?Balance negative images with those that highlight positive efforts in communities such as neighborhood heroes, including youth and young men of color.
?Help promote community forums that encourage participation in violence-prevention efforts.

2. The motion picture, music, video, television and interactive game industries should exercise corporate responsibility by producing products and programming that:

? Deglamorize violence.
? Accurately portray the consequences of violence in terms of human suffering and social costs.
? Encourage empathy and personal and social responsibility.
? Teach conflict resolution skills and nonviolence (e.g., resolving conflict without weapons or violent behavior).
? Do not stereotype or promote social misconceptions about cultures, religions, genders or age groups.
? Provide positive, nonviolent entertainment options for children and adults.

3. Advertising and marketing campaigns should:

? Promote products without depicting or glamorizing violence. 
? Avoid promoting anti-social behavior such as that connected with graffiti and gangs.
? Show sensitivity to all segments of society and avoid demeaning depictions of any group, including women.

4. The motion picture, music, video, television and interactive game industries should exercise corporate responsibility by developing effective- rating systems and consumer guides that reveal the levels of violence in their products, in addition to adult language, nudity and sex.

5. Distributors and exhibitors of entertainment products, including theaters, video and record stores, and stores that sell video games should:

? Advocate for rating systems that accurately reflect public concerns and scientific information about the effects of violent and other inappropriate material on children.
? Seriously promote and enforce rating advisories and other content information to assist parents and ensure that children have access only to age-appropriate material.

6. Parents should increase their media literacy to better understand and mitigate the possible influences of media on their children's attitudes and behavior.

7. Schools should incorporate media literacy programs into the existing curriculum to enable youth to better access, analyze, evaluate and produce communication in a variety of forms.

8. The Attorney General's Office, in conjunction with the State Departments of Health and Social Services, should develop a statewide campaign to communicate the message that violence is everybody's business and should not be tolerated.

9. Public education campaigns should be developed to instill the social values of:

? Acceptance and respect for all people, recognizing the value of diversity in gender, age, race, culture and religion, and countering stereotypes and social misconceptions.
? Personal responsibility and accountability as demonstrated through character, critical thinking skills, resiliency, delayed gratification and related issues.
? Social responsibility, including the importance of civic virtue, community service, justice and fairness, and the necessity to balance freedom with responsibility.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FIREARMS 
Promote policies and strategies that reduce deaths and injuries from firearms.

1. California should enact legislation to prohibit the manufacture and sale of handguns commonly referred to as "Saturday Night Specials.'

2. California should enact legislation to require guns manufactured in California to meet the same consumer safety and production standards imposed on imported firearms.

3. California should enact legislation that requires gun manufacturers to build in or provide child safety devices for all firearms sold in this state and requires all dealers to offer such devices at the point of sale.

4. The California Attorney General, Governor and Legislature should urge Congress to support the continuation and rigorous enforcement of the federal assault weapons ban.

5. California should enact legislation to limit the sale of expanding, hollow-point ammunition because of its lethality and ability to cause extensive injury and organ damage.

6. California should enact legislation to require all gun dealers to register with their local police or sheriff's department to ensure that proper dealer licensing requirements have been met.

7. California should enact legislation to require individuals to obtain a license to purchase a handgun.

8. The Department of Justice should promote public awareness of California law requiring that all firearm sales and transfers be documented through a licensed dealer or local law enforcement agency.

9. The California Department of Justice, the California Department of Health Services and local law enforcement agencies should develop a public service campaign to promote firearms safety and to encourage gun owners to record the make, model and serial number of their firearms for reporting purposes, if stolen.

10. The Judicial Council should encourage judges to apply the law allowing them to order individuals who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders to surrender any and all firearms in their possession.

11. California should enact legislation to increase the penalty for carrying loaded, concealed firearms from a misdemeanor to a misdemeanor/felony at the discretion of the district attorney, to make it consistent with other concealed weapon sanctions.

12. California should enact legislation to increase mandatory sentences for using a gun during a crime.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALCOHOL
Promote policies and strategies that reduce violence associated with alcohol.

1. Local governments and communities should exercise their rights to influence how alcohol is distributed and sold in their communities.

2. California should enact legislation to increase state alcoholic beverage excise taxes and allocate the additional resources to fund prevention programs, alcohol-related trauma care and treatment, and economic development programs that reduce community economic dependence upon alcohol outlets.

3. The State Department of Health Services and the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs should initiate a public awareness campaign to educate the public on the strong association between alcohol and violence.

4. California should increase state funding for and support the continuation of federal funding or effective local alcohol, drug and violence prevention and intervention programs.

5. California should continue to make it a high priority to fund Department of Alcohol and Drug Program prenatal substance abuse programs for pregnant women and their substance-exposed children.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMUNITY
Promote policies and strategies that strengthen communities and schools by expanding local ownership and control.

1. The Attorney General's Office, the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, and statewide law enforcement professional associations should aggressively promote comprehensive Community Policing so that it becomes the standard for policing throughout California.

2. Local city, county and district governments should be encouraged to adopt a "community-based, customer service" approach that actively seeks community participation in identifying problems and designing and implementing solutions.

3. Local programs and agencies should be encouraged to recruit and fill staff and leadership positions from the neighborhoods and communities being served.

4. Local communities should exercise their authority in managing and controlling alcohol distribution through the effective use of local zoning ordinances, conditional use permits and Department of Alcohol Beverage Control enforcement practices regulating retail outlet licenses, advertising and billboards.

5. State funding should be allocated through non-categorical block grants that require community collaboration to support community capacity-building involving violence prevention.

6. State and local policy-makers should be encouraged to offer social and economic incentives for businesses to invest in community health, including affordable housing, vocational skill development, jobs and child care.

7. School


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

When I saw the news on this tragic incident they interviewed someone important (sorry to be non-specific) in American politics. The man said that the gunman may not have killed so many people if more of the students had weapons.

I only scanned the above articles, but the one thing that really blew me away, above all, was simply the number of homocides in US culture compared with elsewhere. 37/100,000 men (aged 15-24) in the US versus 0.6 in the UK. That is a huge difference, and I can't help but think that while this tragedy may have happened irrespective of gun laws, ongoing tragedies are happening that amount to really large loss of life...just makes no sense to justify the promotion of weapons with the argument expressed above.

Everyone knows that politics should be utilitarian to an extent, not just protective of individual rights.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Dreamer said:


> *No one answers my queston. Are there still fox hunts with guns, etc. in Britain? I know there is hunting the world over -- and illegal poaching in Africa and other countries for elephants and other exotic animals. Many hunters own guns, the purpose to shoot game, including ducks, geese etc. Here in my State, people eat the game they shoot.
> 
> I didn't say I like that sport. I didn't say I like guns. I don't like boxing either where two men get into a ring and beat themselves senseless.*


There is a big difference between holding guns in the countryside to shoot game or targets and carrying them in town for self-defense.

In any case, fox hunting has been banned.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

sunsetcoloured said:


> Dreamer said:
> 
> 
> > *No one answers my queston. Are there still fox hunts with guns, etc. in Britain? I know there is hunting the world over -- and illegal poaching in Africa and other countries for elephants and other exotic animals. Many hunters own guns, the purpose to shoot game, including ducks, geese etc. Here in my State, people eat the game they shoot.
> ...


I was just curious about hunting in England, it was a simple question as I don't like hunting either.

The long article above includes MANY factors. Modern society has impacted the US and ALL countries. We have many social problems that in my mind start at home. I agree with all of that. I have no argument.

I have to read the whole thing, and am too tired to do that, and have no ink to print it out which I'd rather do ... well, down very low ... or paper for that matter.

I just find it interesting that no matter what anyone says here, the U.S. in the focus of all the ills in the world. This has gone beyond the gun debate.

The interesting point is that young males 15-25 are great contributers to violence in America. That is true in other countries too. Many things happen to kids at this age, and boys are especially impulsive, they are forced by their peers to "prove themselves to be men" -- in gang indoctrination that means killing people. Gangs and drug dealings account for a great deal of violence I dare say, and vandalism, etc.

I see the root of the problem starting at home. With famlies who have "let their kids raise themselves", are "friends to their children, not parents". But on the flip side, we have a culture of very low class, despondent youth. Disenfranchised male youth with no hope for a future are a danger in any society. They don't want to be in school, but where do you put them? How do you save a child that has been ... well hasn't even been raised by one parent, or one struggling parent?

Those who put themselves on the line in wars, terrorism, etc., are young men. It is indeed noted as a rite of passage.

I'm not going to go on. I don't know the answer to this, particularly the gun situation. I believe in very heavy regulation, but the horse is out of the barn, how we turn this around I don't know. With as many guns as we have now on the streeet, I have no clue how we are going to "sweep them all up." One would have to go door to door and confiscate guns. There would be sweeping legislation.

*It would seem there is some conspiracy amongst Americans to sweep this under the rug. There isn't. There are huge debates about this constantly. How to deal with the situation. The Virginia Tech massacre has gotten the discussion going fulll force.

It seems Europeans have to point out to us in the US our failings, as though we are too stupid to notice them. I find that tremendously rude and not helpful in the least. "America is violent!" -- OK, gee I didn't know we have any social problems here.

In terms of Cho the VTech murders. I will say, that young man, very disturbed, would have perpetrated something awful if he had no guns. I believe this, like the Oklahoma City bombing -- was that Tim McVeigh? sp?*

--------------------------------------------------------------

I think I'll have a fine cup of tea. That is a good idea. I have to admit, I prefer it the Brit way -- milk, but no sugar. I hate it here when they serve only lemon with it and don't understand why I want whole milk, not cream.

The best tea I've ever had (with scones) was in the Empress Hotel, Victoria, and in England. To DIE for. One of my prized possesions is a Teapot/cozy and two cups from Murchies in Canada. The tea one can order from there costs a fortune! But I'll bet it is Heaven.

True, there is nothing like a cup of true Brit tea.

I can't discuss this anymore. I'm feeling defensive again.
I don't have the answers. No one does.

I have to read that entire huge post by .. Levi? That will take me a few days!

Cheeers,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I looked up World Violence, not just Violence in America:

Again from the BBC, 2005. These things are what we ALL have to deal with.

*World report on violence
Alexander Butchart, WHO (World Health Organization)

No country or community is untouched by violence. Here, Alexander Butchart, Prevention of Violence Coordinator at the World Health Organisation, explains why violence is a universal challenge.
It injures, it paralyses, it kills. It hurts people, families, communities and societies. It is everywhere and affects everyone. But it can be stopped.*

"It" is violence - rape, murder, shooting, fighting, sexual assault and emotional abuse.

The victims are children, youth, women, men and the elderly.

Every minute of every day, someone, somewhere in the world, dies because of violence. Every day, thousands of people need emergency care. It causes depression, anxiety, alcohol and drug abuse. It tears apart families, friends and neighbourhoods, and does untold damage to societies.

Globally, there are approximately 1.6 million deaths due to violence each year. That is around half the number of deaths due to HIV/Aids, roughly equal to deaths due to tuberculosis, and 1.5 times the number of deaths due to malaria.

But fatalities are only a fraction of the full violence problem. Each year, 3.5-7.5 million people in the 15 to 29 age group receive hospital treatment for a violent injury.

For every completed suicide, local studies suggest there are 10-40 cases that present with suicidal behaviour.

In surveys from around the world, 10-69% of women reported being physically assaulted by an intimate partner at some point in their lives, with many immediate and long-term consequences.

And one in four women may experience sexual violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime, and in females aged 12 to 45 the frequency of pregnancy as a result of rape is 5-18%.

*Science has clearly shown that a complex mix of factors, ranging from the biological to the political, underlie why some individuals and groups experience violence more than others.

Some of the most important risk factors cut across the different kinds of violence, including high levels of economic inequality; cultural norms that condone violence; rigid gender roles; breakdown of community support structures; poor parenting practices and family dysfunction; age; psychological and personality disorders; alcohol and substance abuse, and a history of engaging in violent behaviour or experiencing abuse.*

Informed by scientific studies of these and other underlying causes, violence prevention strategies that keep people from engaging in violent behaviour have been developed.

A number of interventions have been shown to be of proven and promising effectiveness in preventing violence and reducing the harm caused when it does occur.

Prevention can be achieved by helping individuals to prevent unintended pregnancies; by improving access to prenatal and postnatal services; through pre-school enrichment programmes; through social- and life-skills training, and by providing incentives for high risk youth to complete schooling.

Strategies for working with families and peer groups that are effective in preventing child abuse and youth violence include parent training programmes; home visitation to high risk parents and infants; mentoring; partnership programmes between schools and homes, and family therapy for juvenile offenders.

And community-level interventions that show promise include lead monitoring and the removal of environmental toxins; screening by health care providers for child maltreatment; providing safe havens for children on high-risk routes to and from school; reducing alcohol availability; improvements in emergency response, trauma care and access to health services, and training health professionals in the identification and referral of victims of intimate partner violence, sexual violence and elder abuse.

At the broadest level, promising society-level interventions include changing cultural norms that support violence; reducing media violence; reforming education systems; reducing economic inequality; job creation programmes for the chronically unemployed; tackling gun violence, and strengthening police and judicial systems.

Violence is not inevitable. Rather, it is often predictable and preventable. Many factors that increase the risk for violence are modifiable, and there are many steps that governments, non-governmental organizations and public citizens can take to strengthen policies, systems and services in ways that will substantially reduce rates of violence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am sadly more of a cynic, perhaps because I'm older and seen the world deteriorate in many ways. I don't know.

Re: guns. They are a critical part of the equation, but they are NOT the only cause. The causes of violence are multifold. They are almost endless.

Children are our greatest resource and they tend to hurt and get hurt worldwide. If children are destroyed before they grow up, what do we have left?


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

Levi,

Very thought provoking post. The statistics you used were quite a bit older than the Johns Hopkins ones, so perhaps the homicide rate in our country is somewhat on the decline. I?m hoping at any rate. Statistics are tricky, though?

You did _support_ your many of your points with your research; however I don?t know that you _proved_ all of them.

I currently live, and was raised in, one of the cities prominently featured in those reports. I teach at a school in what is considered to be a lower-to- mid socioeconomic area in that community. Have I ever once, in the flesh, seen a civilian on the streets using, or even carrying, an unconcealed firearm? No.

I can see how someone living elsewhere could form all kinds of conclusions about my hometown from reading those reports, perhaps imagining that we all drive around waving our guns out the windows and picking up new ones ?on the corner? as you suggested. Maybe I just live in a na?ve little hope bubble, I don?t know?

Do I think there is a problem with lack of respect in our culture? Absolutely (as I said in one of my original posts). But as Dreamer pointed out, and as those reports clearly indicate, guns are just one part of that equation. And this is not just happening in America.

You also asked earlier if anyone is concerned about how someone could commit such a crime. Of course we are. You asked where the ?community? was.



levi said:


> I work with children. The ones that are most disturbed and challenged, are the ones most in need of guidance, understanding and care. And I give it to them. Where was everyone to help him out? Let us think about that for a while.


I know how difficult it is and I admire you for it. As I also said earlier, I think there need to be major educational reforms which try and adapt to our changing _world_ and culture. But it?s not simple. Yes, I grumbled about students and their senses of entitlement and lack of respect earlier, but I do care for them. I do try and guide them. And they're not horrible beasts. They do make me fall off my chair laughing sometimes or write me a note that makes me get all mushy.

I'm not sure what country you're in even, but here, the classes similar to the ones you teach are incredibly small. 5-10 kids usually. I teach up to 40 students per class, up to 175 a day. And they ALL need attention and care, not just the ones in special programs. I spend so much of my day just trying to show them how to be good to one another. But I'm not naive enough to think that some aren't slipping through the cracks. That there aren't kids in my classroom every day that are silently hurting. I do the best that I can, but I'm one person.

I also found the statistics about violence to women to be particulary interesting. The one abusive relationship I've been in was my marriage, and as I said earlier, he was from the UK. That's far too personal to go in to here, but I just want to make it very clear that I support Dreamer when she says that we are not the only violent country in the world.

Like Dreamer, my lone American compadre on the issue, I don't like guns. I don't own one and most likely never will.

I agree that less guns would theoretically help prevent senseless violence and homicides, but again, IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. How do you revoke something that's been in our Constitution for centuries in one fell swoop? Changes have to take place slowly. Changes _are_ being made slowly. But, laws and legislation are geared toward the people who are law abiding citizens. Muderers are not law abiding citizens.

It's not the concept of gun reform that gets me upset. It's condescending attitudes and people acting like they've got _the_ solution.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

HalfaPerson said:


> I currently live, and was raised in, one of the cities prominently featured in those reports. I teach at a school in what is considered to be a lower-to- mid socioeconomic area in that community. Have I ever once, in the flesh, seen a civilian on the streets using, or even carrying, an unconcealed firearm? No.


Again, I agree w/all that Half has said, and I do admire both of you for working with kids. It is so important. We have no future without healthy children.

But indeed there is an image portrayed, in foreign media, of America that is sometimes really off the wall. I could say exactly the same thing as Half says.

There are cities/areas where indeed one does not go without having a damned good reason to go there. I have lived in a very wealthy neighborhood growing up, and some very dicey neighborhoods as an adult. The dicey neighborhoods are not pleasant.

But I think we all ... here in America as well ... get a VERY distorted version of many countries in the media. The good, the bad and the ugly of every country.

OK, to bed.
Peace,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

OK, I think my final remarks on this one. Thought about this a lot last night. And from reading everyone's posts and researching this, I've learned a lot. I do like learning about stuff.

*In general to Martin who started the thread*
1. As noted, the culture of guns in America is two fold:

- Originally, as a new country, we had no standing army to defend ourselves from outside invaders which included a number of countries. In my state we were always having it out with the French. Many of the names of cities in the State are French, and Indian (American Indian), among others.

Hence we had militias as they still do in Switzerland and as noted, every able bodied young man had a rite of passage of using a weapon to defend his family and property.

When we had a Federally controlled army there was no need for militias, but the country was armed.

Note, even in those days, there were "outlaws" who would rape, steal and commit other crimes. There were no "police", no specific laws, courts coordinated in any constructive way to deal with these men. NOTHING NEW. Guns were left at home with women to defend themselves. That was another reason for proliferation of guns here.

EDIT: SORRY
*The Militia History of building the frontier including "The Western Ethos"*
which made the symbol of the gun something of a positive cultural symbol, and the *"Sporting/Hunting Ethos"*/ These, and I mixed them up, which helped us defend ourselves legitimately when we had no standing Federal Military all figure in to the building of this country from East to untamed West. The Swiss have a well-regulated Militia that has stemmed from their inability to pay for a Federal military, which I don't understand. But their weapons are meticulously regulated.

- Also, homesteaders moving Westward defended themselves against animals, Indians, and hunted for food.

The gun is a "Cultural Icon". That as well as "freedom of choice". Put those together and that was the start of a legitimate gun culture that went corrupt.

2. *Do I believe in banning handguns?*

- It's a strange question. Yes, I wish this had never started out this way ... no one anticipated that a legitimate gun culture would *be a part of, but not the only cause* of cultural disintegration on so many levels that is worldwide. And the reason my husband has one is to defend himself in case someone tries to kill him. Yes that neighborhood isn't good. But the GUN STAYS IN THE HOUSE .. he doesn't carry it.

- As I said, "The horse is out of the barn". How do we undo this now, especially with gangs (the young men who are miserable in this country) who will not buy a registered handgun, but who get them on the black market? Young men aged 15-24 or so who are in serious trouble in many countries. They are also the source of home-grown terrorism.

3. *The first step -- extremely strict regulations, and some coordination from a very poorly coordinated bureaucracy sp? that can't get their act together re: State and Federal law.*

Also, police officers need to protect themselves in this culture now. Yet they shoot to disable, or defend themselves. As Half said her father was a police officer and never shot anyone in 20 years of duty. That is the usual case.

4. *Do I think this made Cho's plan easier?* Yes
*]Do I think it would have stopped him from doing something equally horrible?* No.
And as noted, he should have been stopped at some point due to his known mental status, but that information never got to the right people at the right time -- a mental health/social services mess we have here too.

5. *Are Americans the most violent people in the world?* No. But all humans have the potential to be violent. Men in particular.

6. *Has modern society contributed to all of this?* Definitely, in terms of parental responsibility, the sense that kids feel entitled to have/do whatever they want. The internet makes things easier to purchase -- from bomb making materials to guns to knives.

I also have some problem with video games that are extremely violent, and rap and such which talks of murdering, raping women, etc.
I think we are desensitized. Do we ban these games? Do we ban rap? I don't know.

7. *To One re: Eric and Dylan/Columbine* -- from the article you gave me, it is difficult to define Dylan as a psychoppath/sociopath. I'm still uncertain about Eric. Again, he was full of rage. Whatever unhappiiness he felt in his life doesn't justify murder, by any means. Because he seemed to show some remorse, he clearly was sane and knew right from wrong.

The fact that he committed suicide indicates he was not willing to take any responsibility, wanted to also go out in a "blaze" of glory. In that sense, his lack of value of human life puts him into the "inability to truly value human life."

Again, had he not had easy access to handguns I believe he would have used explosives. They were there anyway.

Dylan had he not hooked up with Eric, was mentally ill, and had he lived would be considered "not of sound mind" and probably been given an insanity defense.

I don't know how we defend ourselves against such people. Thank you for the article.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, I thought of one other couple I know who own a rifle, and I think one handgun. Why? They live on a Christmas tree farm (about 75 acres they tend mostly by themselves) and have for 30 years in the middle of nowhere in Oregon. Both weapons are kept in the house, save if they go on long hikes, etc.

This is a crazy story, but the rifle and gun saved their life. Where they live there are mountain lions that attack their animals. A few times, my friend's husband has killed one or a bear for their safety.

One time my friend and her husband were asleep upstairs when they heard crashing in the downstairs bathroom. Mind you, they are about 45 minutes from police, even medical help.

My friend sprained her ankle falling down the stairs (in the dark of course) to see what the Hell was going on. A cougar had broken into their bathroom! and was so scareed itself it was breaking everything in there. Mirrors, tore up everything.

If they opened the door, which fortunately was closed -- and the cougar broke the glass to get in -- he would have attacked them.

They both set things up so that once the door was opened by my friend who was ready to have a heart attack, she pushed it open with a LOOOOONG object, like an axe ... the handle or something, and her husband immediately opened fire on the cougar and killed it.

In that case, they needed a rifle. The animal wasn't dead. Her husband shot it once more with the handgun.

*This is the frontier ethos. And it is justified. I'd say the only true justification for the use of a gun/rifle. Both of their weapons are registered.*

They had to clean up the mess. And no one could come to take the cougar away for two days. I think they had to drag it outside themselves.

OK, I think that is my POV. I do not know how we will disarm this country, and also justify the use of a weapon for such a purpose.

Peace.
D


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

_?It?s so easy to laugh, it?s so easy to hate.
It takes strength to be gentle and kind.?_
I Know it?s Over ? The Smiths

I?ve always loved these lyrics because they ring so true for me. I struggle to be kind and do the right thing. I question and doubt and am generally unsure of most things. I worry about if I?m treating people fairly or am taking enough time to see things from their point of view. I wonder if I'm being taken advantage of. It makes me sad that many other people don?t seem to do this; but perhaps they?re the sane ones.

Dreamer (yes, I?m dragging you into this), I read your posts and your voice is so strong to me. _I hear your struggle_. Maybe this is part of our ?illness,? I don?t know. But it makes me want to give you a cuddle  . I take comfort in the hope that one day all of life?s questions will be answered for us. Not literally, of course, but we?ll just instinctively _know _and be okay. That is my idea of heaven. We may be dead, but maybe we?ll get some damned peace for goodness sake. At least, as another great writer once said, "Isn't it pretty to think so?"

Even though we?re squabbling about world issues, I have no doubt that if any one, no matter what country they were from, attacked us, or tried to discredit our struggles with depersonalization, we?d all band together: each and every one of us loonies on this thread.

There are many issues that can divide us, but on this one we?re united. And in a sad and twisted way, this is comforting.


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

A big sigh here....

Dreamer, you say:


> 5. Are Americans the most violent people in the world? No. But all humans have the potential to be violent. Men in particular.


Again, I havent said Americans are the most violent people in the world. I said (and the statistics I posted confirm this and other studies Ive read) America is (one of) the most violent western/civilized countries in the world.
So my question to you is, Dreamer, can you acknowledge that as fact?

And no discussion about other countries' violence etc etc. or misquote what Ive said.
Can you acknowledge this as fact?


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

She already did answer your question. Several times. In several posts.


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

HalfAPerson said:


> She already did answer your question. Several times. In several posts.


Show me where, I couldnt find it


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

HalfAPerson, to be clear, Im not trying to be or act condescending or hypocritical (if that comment was directed at me). If anything, I think my posts are coming out of a place of concern and really wanting to get the facts straight, is all. I have no answers and wasnt trying to give you the impression I did have them. I was trying to get across the severity of violence in your country and that it is worrysome, even to me as a European. And 'us europeans' dont understand anything about the gun laws etc. and the 'right to use it for self-defence' and from my point of view and cultural background, it is unsettling to look at the US these days.

Hope that was clear.8)


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

I don't know that she's actually come out and said the exact words that America is one of the most violent countries in the Western world (man, there are a lot of posts to wade through!), but I think she's made it _very_ clear that much can be improved in America.

Speaking for myself only here, I realize America is violent, and perhaps _the_ most violent, even. Who can say with absolute certainty? The very question "Which country in the world is most violent?" is SUCH a subjective one to ask. Who decides? What's the criteria? Ugh. Enough. 

I probably shouldn't be so bold as to speak for Dreamer, but I'm going to anyway...Based on our honest and heartfelt opinions and experiences, America still has a lot of good in it, and we're saddened to hear others watch the news and read the paper of the most horrible of the horrible and think that's all there is to us. We're hurt by the fact that so many people in other countries think we're a nation of idiots, and that it seems to be clever and acceptable to assume the worst about us. These are our own personal experiences as Americans in this crazy, crazy world of ours.

I appreciate you asking questions and hopefully amidst some of our ramblings, you can find evidence that we're not all a bunch of rage fueled, gun toting lunatics. Not even close to the majority of us.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

HalfAPerson said:


> I don't know that she's actually come out and said the exact words that America is one of the most violent countries in the Western world (man, there are a lot of posts to wade through!), but I think she's made it _very_ clear that much can be improved in America.
> 
> Speaking for myself only here, I realize America is violent, and perhaps _the_ most violent, even. Who can say with absolute certainty? The very question "Which country in the world is most violent?" is SUCH a subjective one to ask. Who decides? What's the criteria? Ugh. Enough.
> 
> ...


Dear Half,

Well, you are far more articulate (and succinct! sp?) than I. Your sentence I put in bold says it all.

Thank you and hugs back at you. Yes I think you understand me, and that is comforting. I appreciate a lot of things you've said. We need a fine cuppa' tea and a swig of something else, LOL.

Dear Levi,

I likewise appreciate your concern particularly in that last post. This thread is so long, but I have quoted at least two articles that indicate the US has the highest gun-murder rate of Western nations. One on Page 2 (near a comment Martin made - something silly about my writing novellas here which is true 8) )

And something else on Page 3, another article. I have made other similar statements in other places I don't care to search for. I have also tried to research and understand the reason for our gun culture.

And again: the media portrays the US innacurately without understanding what is going on here, and *our* media innacurately portrays things as well about other countries. But Half notes this endless attack on the US is hurtful, and I've lashed out in the past and I'm trying to be calm here.

*What almost makes me laugh is Half's saying (in another post) you don't come here and see people brandishing guns everywhere and stopping off at the drug store for ammo. As noted, one cannot go out, by law with a concealed weapon. The police have their weapons holstered and are easily seen. If a responsible person has a gun, it is home, and it is locked (or should be) and hidden. That is the law. You cannot have a weapon in your car. This does not stop criminals, oh, and we forgot to mention the MAFIA! (we need to factor in their weapons)*

A woman may not carry a handgun in her purse. A man may not hide a handgun in his clothing. Certain people do so by permit -- those who are people who could be targets of violence -- attorneys defending a criminal, etc.

That is the law. I'm stunned at how clever Cho was in all of his actions. I don't know how he concealed all he had, including chains to chains the doors shut, inside the school.

I think I've said all that needs to be said. And I explained where many aspects of the social system failed and do fail with troubled people. But again re: Cho, and I was at the bookstore today looking at profiler books. Cho fits the psychopathic personality to a "t". I feel sick for his family.

This young man was born disturbed. Some people are. Serial killers, mass murders, etc. He was known to roommates and other students alike for some time. He was "different", never spoke, etc. I won't go into the full details, and we don't have all of them yet. There were signs where he was reported for certain activities that disturbed people. He was committed to a hopsital, but chose outpatient services. He couldn't be forced to see a therapist or take medication, and he had no criminal record. What to do?

There WAS concern. There IS concern for the community here. But as I've said 5 million times, the US isn't perfect, never said it was, and we are drowning in red tape and bureacracy and confusing laws, personal rights, yada, yada, yada.

OK, shut up Dreamer.

I appreciate condolences we've received from South Korea. They should feel no guilt. I don't know how I feel about Cho. He was far beyond help, yet again, I never excuse murder.

I messed up something above re: the Sporting ethos and the Miltia/Frontier ethos that is at the grounding of our gun culture. Read the article, LOL.

I want this to be a better world. I decided today to really go Green. And I don't own a gun. And I want to help others with Mental Illness.

Others, many, are working on the gun control issue and all sorts of social issues.

Peace,
Cheers,
D
I'm going to have a cup of shitty American tea, LOL.


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

HalfAPerson said:


> Speaking for myself only here, I realize America is violent, and perhaps _the_ most violent, even. Who can say with absolute certainty? The very question "Which country in the world is most violent?" is SUCH a subjective one to ask. Who decides? What's the criteria? Ugh. Enough.


I just wanted to know if that was clear and I asked again, as I sense some denial and defensiveness as well in the posts I read and needed a clear answer.



> I probably shouldn't be so bold as to speak for Dreamer, but I'm going to anyway...Based on our honest and heartfelt opinions and experiences, America still has a lot of good in it, and we're saddened to hear others watch the news and read the paper of the most horrible of the horrible and think that's all there is to us. We're hurt by the fact that so many people in other countries think we're a nation of idiots, and that it seems to be clever and acceptable to assume the worst about us. These are our own personal experiences as Americans in this crazy, crazy world of ours.


I think people thinking you are a nation of idiots comes from your country having an idiot president, and I really mean that. But to me, this doesnt make Americans idiots, but I can see for many people, they dont understand the Americans having voted for Bush (but that is a another seperate issue).
I myself do not assume the worst about Americans, and give me some credit, Im not an idiot either. I can see what is going on in America even when I dont live there and I see the good stuff as well. I think, HalfAPerson, you think a bit too black and white. If people criticise your country it doesnt mean it is ALL bad! I myself see many things that concern me and about some things I do get angry (Guantanamo Bay, the illegal war in Iraq, the lies of your government getting involved in that war, lack of/no health insurance for 40 million Americans, no basic right to social security, poverty, racism and so forth), there is other stuff I enjoy about America.

I do really feel though that you need a new president. It was from Bush on and your administration's policies, my view on America started to drastically change, into the negative. I sincerely hope a new leader can steer your country to more constructivity, welfare and less violence etc.



> I appreciate you asking questions and hopefully amidst some of our ramblings, you can find evidence that we're not all a bunch of rage fueled, gun toting lunatics. Not even close to the majority of us.


I read what some of your friends would say about your country and them basically being hypocritical and unjust to you, which I think is awkward. I do not fit this pattern and I hope Ive made that clear as well. I do not see both you and Dreamer as a 'bunch of rage fuelled, gun toting lunatics', not at all. There will be people that will think that, but you'd have to look at how valid and intelligent such stereotyping is.
Anyway, it was an interesting exchange of thoughts and experiences.

Dreamer is next.


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

Dreamer said:


> Dear Levi,
> 
> I likewise appreciate your concern particularly in that last post. This thread is so long, but I have quoted at least two articles that indicate the US has the highest gun-murder rate of Western nations. One on Page 2 (near a comment Martin made - something silly about my writing novellas here which is true 8) )


I missed that one.



> And something else on Page 3, another article. I have made other similar statements in other places I don't care to search for. I have also tried to research and understand the reason for our gun culture.


What I saw you do was becoming defensiness and you mentioned this yourself and you made a comment about Europeans picking on your country and the violence and saying it was rude of them to point that out, as if you people didnt know that yourself. It confused me and made me think you was into denial about-and Im going to mention it again..lol- America being one of the most violent western countries in the world. I think if you can be a little more direct in your communications, that would be helpful, if I may suggest that. This is why I asked again, to get a clear answer. You could have answered with a 'yes' or 'no' and I would have understood immediately and clearly and not having to wade through your long posts. I do not mean this in an arrogant way, just to point out I cant always follow your long posts and what it is you actually want to say/reveal. Makes sense?



> And again: the media portrays the US innacurately without understanding what is going on here, and *our* media innacurately portrays things as well about other countries. But Half notes this endless attack on the US is hurtful, and I've lashed out in the past and I'm trying to be calm here.


I think media is skewed anyway, whatever topic is discussed, but through the years Ive been pretty much able to get a quite accurate picture of the US, as the same issues keep coming up again, with new info etc, but yes, ful understanding I can never get as I dont live in your country and even if I did, I wouldnt be affected by all issues, as I dont in my country either.
And I didnt mean to be attacking or causing hurt, just to point out the devastations of violence in America and one only has to read and see so much to get quite an accurate picture. Then there are the cultural differences and one can make comparisons and see what's wrong (or, also, what is better than in my country).



> *What almost makes me laugh is Half's saying (in another post) you don't come here and see people brandishing guns everywhere and stopping off at the drug store for ammo. As noted, one cannot go out, by law with a concealed weapon. The police have their weapons holstered and are easily seen. If a responsible person has a gun, it is home, and it is locked (or should be) and hidden. That is the law. You cannot have a weapon in your car. This does not stop criminals, oh, and we forgot to mention the MAFIA! (we need to factor in their weapons)*


No, but we do make fun about being able to walk into a WallMart and buy us some ammunition! We compare it to going to the butcher's to buy a pound out meat. Not laughing of making fun about America, just actually laughing out of disbelief and the absurdity of being able to walk into a store and get ammunition. Again, for us, it is unbelievable. We cant imagine THAT ever happen here. And we hope it stays that way.

Out of curiosity, does any of you understand to other (european) people and countries, it is unthinkable for us to buy ammo at a WallMarts and that we DIDN't grow up with those gun laws and so many deaths due to gun-violence. Im curious what Americans views are on that? If you have understanding from what place I and other non_americans come from when they express their ideas and feelings about America, especially the violence. Can you see to us it is alien?

Off for a coffee. Maybe I can join you guys?8)


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Levi said:


> I think people thinking you are a nation of idiots comes from your country having an idiot president, and I really mean that. But to me, this doesnt make Americans idiots, but I can see for many people, they dont understand the Americans having voted for Bush (but that is a another seperate issue).





Levi said:


> Dreamer is next.


Already that sounds like a threat ... again. I thought we had this sorted out.

Ah, Levi. If you go back into "That's Life" you will see we've been through the Bush business about a million times. The belief some people have which is beyond my comprehension that 9/11 was perpetrated by our own governmnet, etc.

If we explain gun control, then you move onto Bush. There are 1,000 reasons why Bush was voted in again, that unless you live in this country, understand its history (and many here don't) you would see the events leaading up to the election of Bush.

I wish I knew what country you're from. Whichever one it is, I wouldn't pick it to pieces in this manner. This is why if I or Half or any other US citizen on this Board seems defensive, well we are, or at least I am.

There is complaining about every decision. No one looks at mistakes that other Presidents have made in our country. Many have. But no one looks at mistakes the leaders of other countries have made.

My question is, truly, why this endless analysis of the US. What do you want us to say? Would you feel better if we said, "Oh yes, we are indeed fools to have voted for Bush, we are so sorry, even though you don't understand the many different GROUPS who voted for very different reasons, those who refused to vote, those who made protest votes that could have taken away from Kerry, etc."

"Oh yes, we are the most violent country. Now what would you like me to say?"

We are aware of our faults. I am particularly disgusted with our consumerism, commercialism, etc. I was angry today because again someone in my apartment building threw trash all over the parking area. I'm not angry with everyone here, just whoever that was. There is this disrespectful "entitlement" here. But I have seen it in other countries.

*What do you want the response to be? Now you move on, almost attacking Half again. And .... I'm next. :shock: I guess what I want to understand is if other countries despise us so much (Western) why have any dealings with us? Boycott our products. Have your governments speak up against us. What should YOU do? What should YOUR governments do?

And again, what do you want me to say? What answer are you looking for? And when you get the answer you are looking for, then what? What will you do with the answer I don't know what to give?*

I can see the problems forthcoming with emerging countries such as China, other countries in the Middle East ... I have visited many countries (not China) ... seen wonderful and horrible, but even so I would not make a judgement on that country without having lived there. I could not understand the culture, the history without being a part of that country -- YOUR country whatever it is, and I'm curous why you don't say, unless I forgot.

Right now I am reading about the Middle East. I want to understand why there is such hatred there. What Islam is all about. And I'm not going to say all Middle Easterners are violent, or all Muslims are violent, or all Jews, or all Palestinians.

But I do believe in one thing. Humans are not innately good, and I do not believe that culture exists separate from the individual. Culture springs from who we are as humans. I'm a cynic. I worry about the future.

*What do you want from me? This is my question.*

Bad tea. OMG I threw it out. I don't have whole milk and I don't have real English tea. HELL.

D


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

Dreamer, our posts crossed. I certainly didnt mean to attack neither you nor HalfAPerson. And saying 'Dreamer is next' I meant I was going to respond to you next in a separate post. I couldnt put it in one post as I cant seem to quote from the 'Topic review' when I write a post (no overview of posts are available where I can read back to while Im writing a post). Again, I certainly didnt mean to attack anyone in my last two posts!!!!!


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

We posted at the same time, and now I forgot I had several things to answer.



Levi said:


> Out of curiosity, does any of you understand to other (european) people and countries, it is unthinkable for us to buy ammo at a WallMarts and that we DIDN't grow up with those gun laws and so many deaths due to gun-violence. Im curious what Americans views are on that? If you have understanding from what place I and other non_americans come from when they express their ideas and feelings about America, especially the violence. Can you see to us it is alien?


This is why I said while we were posting simultaneously you cannot understand a culture unless you live in it. The best sources I can get on that are scholars who have indeed lived in the countries they write about. And I'm talking SEVERAL books that give me some insight into the country.

The ammo you can buy in Walmart is for sporting. It is for rifles. I have never gone into that section of the store. If you buy it, you must show a permit of some sort, and you must have identification etc. That ammo is in the sporting department.

Yes, I find it odd. I don't like the idea. But I have tried to explain that those people (the bulk of those people) and I see them as I live in a sporting state, are going out to hunt. And that ammo is out as a "seasonal item" if I'm not mistaken. Don't quote me. There are "hunting seasons" you can't hunt all year. ACH I don't enough about it, as it is a culture unto itself.

But, OK, you see this as alien. As I have grown up with it, as Half grew up with her father as a police officer, these things did not impact my life until I was about 10 or so. Something changed in our society. The 1960s, the drug culture, segregation, civil unrest, riots. I knew there was something to be afraid about, but I lived in a wealthy community and there was no fear there. We left our doors unlocked and there were two police cars that sat doing nothing.

I can't go into all of this. But again, I was rather astonished in my research to find that Scotland is considered "most violent" -- in the West -- not re: handguns, but re: assaults on each other. One is more likely to get assaulted in Scotland than in the U.S. I believe it has to do with alcholol consumption and other problems.

That is ... "odd" to me ... not "alien" ... I want to understand, I don't want to criticize. I'm fascinated by human behavior.

I have to go. But I don't think this will end.

I don't understand again why somone said to me, a Brit, after the WTC was hit, "Gee, they should have gotten Bush and Cheney with that one."

I would never say that to a member of any other country in the world.

That is what I am talking about.

And I still don't know what you want me to say. This is the good the bad the ugly of America and it has multiple sources. I cannot rewind the clock to frontier days and say, "Oh no, no guns on the frontier, in the future we will have handguns in every home and people will kill each other."

Peace, I hope.
D


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

Dreamer, read my latests post to you and HalfAPerson, I wasnt attacking anyone, I was explaining myself, some of my views. Please read carefully and do not feel so attacked so immediately. I wasnt attacking you nor HalfAPerson and if it felt that way, let me know.

I used the Bush example to explain the change of many people's views on America after he became president and a couple of things he did. This made people to stereotype Americans as 'dumb' etc. If you take Bush away, which will happen within a year and half at least and hoping to get a better president and administration in charge, this may be a chance for you guys to have the world have a more positive view on your country, which I what I wish for. Did I say anything wrong here?


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

Dreamer said:


> We posted at the same time, and now I forgot I had several things to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do not want you to say anything, I was already done.
I wasnt fighting with you in this post and the few before I wrote, so I see no reason to accept your 'peace', that was already there, for me.


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

Last comment.
If my fellow country men (and women) or even foreigners would say this about my president:


> Quote:
> I don't understand again why somone said to me, a Brit, after the WTC was hit, "Gee, they should have gotten Bush and Cheney with that one."


It would make me laugh and I'd probably tell them they were right! And I dont even hate the guy. Humor, please.: lol


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Levi said:


> Last comment.
> If my fellow country men (and women) or even foreigners would say this about my president:
> 
> 
> ...


But see, here is a difference in culture. I, personally, find that horrible to say. Cruel. My guess is you are British, as this could be construed as "British Humor" as a Brit said it. I would not say that in a sentence, to anyone, ever. Especially after 3,000 people were killed.

Would you say re: Cho who is dead now who committed the VTech massacre, "Wow, glad he blew his face off, it must have been ugly." My thoughts are more with, "Wow, what was wrong with him? Where is his family? Why did this happen? Thank God more weren't killed, etc."

Re: Bush, this Brit didn't say, "Wow, what an awful thing." He literally ONLY said, "Damn, missed the White House, etc., etc."

Perhaps it is the city I was raised in, perhaps the community.

Here is the only thing I really, really, really don't understand. Americans are "horribly violent", but we're really not, it's only because we voted for Bush, which means?????? I've said this 500 times as well. If 9/11 had not happened we wouldn't be in the mess we're in, true. We also don't know what Kerry would have done.

*But, let's see, the individuals who used four airplanes to kill innocent people .. Boxcutters as well to kill some pilots, and a few passengers, crashed these planes into several buildings killing several thousand people. That isn't violence? I'm always puzzled by that. I have literally heard people say, the US DESERVED 9/11. That is painful.*

But, do you not see the violence of other countries? I don't care if it's Western or not. It is painful, as the US is a young country, and we are naive ... we were never attacked like that. And the overall consensus is we deserved it. Believe me, I'm not exaggerating.

We were disliked BEFORE Bush. Westerners prefer when we have a Democrat as President vs. a Republican.

There was a brief discussion about this here as well, or I mentioned it to a Brit I like in an email. If you grow up in a Socialist/Left Wing Country you will have a tendency to see things in that manner. If you grow up in a Republic such as the US you are going to see things differently.

I look at say countries where if a woman is unfaithful to her husband she must be burned to death and think, Oh my GOD. That is barbaric. That is violence. But I don't fully understand the culture. I know where it stems from -- very primitive parts of human nature. But it doesn't make me less aghast. In that country, it's "no big deal."

Finally!
1. Yes, I write a lot. But if we could sit and talk I could get things out more easily. Also, I find citations/charts to back up my information -- things I'm just learning about my own country.

2. Yes, I may be overly defensive. This is a mental health forum. You don't know me, my story which many people do. You can look at my website. It isn't an "excuse" for being overly sensitive, it explains why. I want to be liked, respected, loved as I never was. I want to be thought of as a good person. It's taken me 48 years to start getting there; I'm just starting.

3. *I am no more informed about your country -- whatever it is -- than you are about mine and would never assume to be. I don't think anyone can truly understand another country unless one is steeped in it's culture, traditions and way of thinking. One must live in a country for several years at MINIMUM to get the hang of it. Read about it. Learn the language, etc.*

I do not consider myself truly knowledgeable about my own country. I enjoy a conversation like this as it makes me think, makes me research.

My next research project is the history of guns in Britain. Someone told me on the phone that it was Henry the VIII? Eighth -- (that looks all wrong! sorry) who took guns away from all British subjects as he was afraid of being overthrown. 8) I know the British had guns in the 1800s and 1900s, I just don't know all the ridiculous red tape that went on, as has been going on here in the government.

Personally, I wish we had Ronald Reagan, a younger Ronald Reagan as President at the mo, yet he had a different task -- the former Soviet Union, not this odd new "enemy" -- terrorism, and it was a different time. Some Americans hate Ronald Reagn to this day, others think of him as one of our best Presidents.

Last comment. If I were alive during WWII when the Germans "Jerrys" sp? were defeated (and I hate those stupid nicknames), when the world found Hitler was defeated and had killed himself and had burned in a bunker, I would not have said, "I'm glad that idiot is gone now." I would say, "Thank God. Thank all of the allies, thank the military for ending this horror. What the HELL is wrong with that man. Or I might have said, that is one man I can say without a doubt was truly Evil. How did he get to power." I would not say, "Idiot Germans".... there were many events leading up to Hitler comiing to power.

And no, one can't compare Bush to Hitler, but that has also been done as well; that is sheer ignorance.
:roll:

A Peaceful Earth Day. Right now the fate of our little planet is greatly on my mind.
Truce. Please. Yes, I'm overly sensitive.
Question? Have you been to the US. Where? For how long? Just curious.
D


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

You turn your back for a few hours and look what happens! Just when you think the coast is clear... 

Let me start out by saying I don?t feel attacked; more misunderstood than anything. And I?m not angry--perturbed, but not angry.



Levi said:


> I just wanted to know if that was clear and I asked again, as I sense some denial and defensiveness as well in the posts I read and needed a clear answer.


Fair enough. I am definitely being defensive, and am most likely in denial about certain aspects of my country. BUT...

The world is a complicated place and it does my head in. Really, truly does. In all honesty, I don?t know why I?m bothering at this point, because my brain may implode at any moment. But, God help me, I just can?t stop myself.

It?s human nature to be defensive when someone from the ?outside looking in? makes judgments.

I personally feel that it is arrogant, and often useless, to stick my nose into other countries? affairs. I?m not a politician. I have no answers. I know that not everyone shares this philosophy with me, and that?s fine. Usually I can stick my little ostrich head in the sand and be perfectly content.

But, the main reason I stepped in to this forsaken thread in the first place (damn ye, Martin! :twisted: ) is because I?m a teacher and tragedies of this kind have, at the very least, a subtle impact on my day-to-day life.

My frustration can possibly be explained by going back to the analogy about Northern Ireland. I stay out of any debate on that issue even though I know people?people whom I care very much about?that have had their lives destroyed by it. It?s not that I?m unconcerned or lack empathy; quite the opposite in fact. But the bottom line is, as an American school teacher, I?m not in any position to do a thing about it. Not the first thing. Opening my mouth up about something so delicate is only going to offend people, and as I said before?rightly so.

I would not pop on to an English message board and casually ask, ?Why don?t you just get out of Ireland and give those poor people back their country? It saddens me.?

Whether or not you see any connection, in my opinion, this is essentially what you are doing. You are asking questions that have no simple answers, and then claiming there was no hint of smugness in them, but only concern.

Dreamer could not give you a yes or no answer to your question about America being the most violent nation, because from where we?re standing, it is NOT a yes or no question. You may think it is, but that?s because you?ve already got yourself convinced of the answer.

As she pointed out, many things about our country may seem alien to you, but are perfectly ?normal? to us. This doesn?t mean we?re in denial. It means we have a different point of view-- a first-hand point of view, warts and all--and are trying to explain it to you.

Do you have the right to ask the questions you do? Of course. Do we have the right to be defensive about them? Absolutely.



Levi said:


> I think people thinking you are a nation of idiots comes from your country having an idiot president, and I really mean that. But to me, this doesnt make Americans idiots, but I can see for many people, they dont understand the Americans having voted for Bush (but that is a another seperate issue).


Agreed, that is indeed a whole separate issue, and I?m not touching it with a 10-foot pole.



Levi said:


> I myself do not assume the worst about Americans, and give me some credit, Im not an idiot either. I can see what is going on in America even when I dont live there and I see the good stuff as well.


I don?t think you?re an idiot. But, I must say your tone (especially in your first post) is very negative, and yes, condescending even. Particularly here:



Levi said:


> And saddened that a country can be so hypocrite. If weapons are available for any citizen, do not be surprised such tragedies take place. The US gives the opportunity, which I think is sick, so these things are bound to happen. Violence is glorified. Something is seriously wrong in/with American culture.


I think we?re at an impasse on this one and our own personal biases are cancelling each other out. You provide reports about the problem of violence in my country which coincidentally happen to feature research conducted in my hometown. I tell you that despite what that report says: _things are not as grim as they may appear from an outside perspective_.

I don?t doubt the validity of the report, but I don?t think it paints the whole picture either. I live here, I work here. I?ve never been the victim of a violent crime committed by a stranger and neither has anyone I know well. Violence, or even the fear of violence, does not effect my daily life. You may call this denial; I call it a fact.



Levi said:


> I think, HalfAPerson, you think a bit too black and white.


I can honestly say no has ever said that to me before and it made me laugh (so thank you). I question everything and drive myself nuts in the process. In my opinion, people who believe that we can get rid of guns in this country without major upheaval, or even that doing so would prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech shooting are the black and white thinkers. People that see simple solutions are the black and white thinkers. I tend to think most everything is complicated so I wouldn't consider myself one.



Levi said:


> I do not see both you and Dreamer as a 'bunch of rage fuelled, gun toting lunatics', not at all. There will be people that will think that, but you'd have to look at how valid and intelligent such stereotyping is.


Oh dear. What can I really say to this? I believe there is very little validity or intelligence in this sort of stereotyping and is basically what I?ve been trying to say all along.

As far as keeping a sense of humor about all of this goes: Haven?t you ever heard a joke so many times that it stops being funny? Especially when you or your country is the butt of it? I think I have a very good sense of humor. The subject matter just gets a bit stale after awhile. I agree with D when she says negative attitudes about America have been around long before Bush was in office. It just certainly didn't help matters any.


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

> Dreamer could not give you a yes or no answer to your question about America being the most violent nation, because from where we?re standing, it is NOT a yes or no question. You may think it is, but that?s because you?ve already got yourself convinced of the answer.


Again, and Im done here with the anger I get stuffed on me after having stated very clearly I didnt mean to attack anyone of you and tried to explain myself, I was talking statistics and the statistics show either a yes or a no. Simple as that. It is true. A child can see this. No denying.

It seems to me you both have wounds that lead you to feel attacked and Im not judging you for that, as I understand, but I do not think it is fair to dump the results of those wounds on me. They belong somewhere else.

All the best.


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

Ouch. I will leave it at that because we're clearly misunderstanding each other on many levels.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

I like ladies boobies.

Just thought I'd try and lighten the tone, seeing as I have nothing intelligent to say.

Please, continue...


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Ah, Martin you are a pot plant for starting all of this, and then not even contributing for the Love of God. :evil: to you as well. 8)



Half said:


> Ouch. I will leave it at that because we're clearly misunderstanding each other on many levels.


This is abundantly clear. And I agree cannot be solved in this discussion. I don't think it could be solved in person either which is unfortunate as we now live in a tiny world whre we need to cooperate with each other.



Levi said:


> I used the Bush example to explain the change of many people's views on America after he became president and a couple of things he did. *This made people to stereotype Americans as 'dumb' etc.* If you take Bush away, which will happen within a year and half at least and hoping to get a better president and administration in charge, this may be a chance for you guys to have the world have a more positive view on your country, which I what I wish for. Did I say anything wrong here?


Yes, you did. *Americans are not stupid now, we are "dumb".* Nothing has changed in this discussion. And you haven't learned from my posts or Half's. We're just back to the beginning. And no, there is no guarantee the next President will be any better, or your next Primeminister will be. Politics is a dicey business.

Our poliltical system needs revision as well. You don't understand our election process, concerns both domestic and foreign. We have primary elections before the final election. We get who is out there to vote for. People vote the lesser of two evils frequently. At least we have some choice and not a dictator.



Levi said:


> Please, again, I know enough about America to at least have an informed opinion and I have my own point of views as anyone is entitled to, wouldnt you agree?


You are entitled to whatever POV you wish. *But there is no way that you "know enough about America to make an informed decision". I do not know how to solve the problems in this country. There are a million different POVs on that from those who live here.*

There are people wracking sp? their brains here trying to solve so many problems from Global Warming to crime to foreign policy to social issues, health insurance. These are experts. Generals who disagree about how to deal with Iraq and other foreign messes around the world

THEY disagree. How could you make an informed decision about who we are? I would never say that about ANY other country in this world.

I'm surprised you don't note that the long article you posted about California is only one example that there is clear awareness of problems and there are groups working on them and always have been.



Half said:


> Dreamer could not give you a yes or no answer to your question about America being the most violent nation, because from where we?re standing, it is NOT a yes or no question. *You may think it is, but that?s because you?ve already got yourself convinced of the answer.*


Yes, you have your own answer already, and did from the beginning.



Half said:


> I don?t think you?re an idiot. But, I must say your tone (especially in your first post) is very negative, and yes, condescending even.


There is nothing more to say. I will say what is positive from all of this is my research which as led me to understand my own country better.

Also the Swiss.

Now let me get this correct:

Our gun culture came from:

*Milita ethos* - not having a standing Federal Military as we were separate States, many not formed in the West. One gun to a young man as a rite of passage to protect his home. There were "outlaws"/criminals then.

*Hunting and Sport* - Supporting the homestead, hunting for food.

*The Mythology of the Western Cowboy* - which has been portrayed as something of a representation of the formation of our country in the West -- moving from the East Coast to Western Frontiers.

Also, forgot to note, in collecting of guns now, many are also classic guns from the Civil War and before. These would also be included in guns in a home. They would not be used as firearms. They are not fired, or fired only in "reeinactments" you wouldn't understand. They hang on someone's wall, again marking a part of our nation's history.

We are also a huge nation. Our population exceeds that of other Western countries and it is more difficult to deal with huge populations than smaller more homogeneous ones. We are also a country of immigrants who themselves have their own cultures, assimmilated and others not. You cannot define us all as one type of people.

Again re: the handgun debate. Switzerland with it's militia and a gun in every home has the second largest murder rate per handgun despite strict regulation. Their population is approximately equal to that of Los Angeles -- ONE CITY here = to one country there.

There's no more to discuss, but I have learned a LOT. And I appreciate the contributions of everyone for that.

Cheers,
D
Ah, I really want scones and tea, the real stuff. I'm on a mission to find a gem like that. We do have them.


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

Dreamer, I understand you feeling attacked (while you weren't) and the need to be right all the time. That is not my problem. I have made an effort to explain myself, but you feel the need to give your own twist to it, and it was not what I was saying. In several posts I was coming from an understanding position, yet that seems to have gone lost as you needed to attack me for a couple of things I said and give it your own twist. And one advice: work on your defensiveness.


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

Martinelv said:


> I like ladies boobies.
> 
> Just thought I'd try and lighten the tone, seeing as I have nothing intelligent to say.
> 
> Please, continue...


Thank you for the Deep Thoughts courtesy of Martin 

Olive branches have been extended through PM and the tone has been officially lightened.


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Blergh, looks like I missed another hot debate. Sorry I can't be bothered reading the entire thread. No offence Dreamer but your long winded replies are too much for me right now.

But there was a lot of good ideas in this post. I'm quite alarmed at the idea that "Some people can't be helped" (Dreamer) and concerned about the issues in schools that Half was talking about.

IMO no-one is beyond help and it is exactly the opposite attitude that makes it worse. These people are feeling lonely, depressed, confused, frustrated and no-one wants to know about it. If they act out in school they get punished by teachers and ridiculed by the students. As a last ditch effort they say "Fuck it!" and kill everyone around them including themselves.

Something is not quite right here.

IMO it needs to be a grass-roots change. I can't help but think if even one genuine person sat down with those kids and said "Tell me what's bothering you" there could have been a different outcome. If we can improve interpersonal relationships at a very grass roots level then we can make a change.

Half a Person - I can understand the difficulties you have working in schools, especially when you give out journal excercises and learn about scary things. But that is their way of reaching out. They need help. We need to collectively develop more support for these kids and for teachers and parents too.

But don't look to the government to do it for you, its not something you can legislate your way out of. Its a matter of each individual changing themself and helping others change too.


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Deleted


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Dreamer said:


> *But, let's see, the individuals who used four airplanes to kill innocent people .. Boxcutters as well to kill some pilots, and a few passengers, crashed these planes into several buildings killing several thousand people. That isn't violence? I'm always puzzled by that. I have literally heard people say, the US DESERVED 9/11. That is painful.*
> 
> But, do you not see the violence of other countries? I don't care if it's Western or not. It is painful, as the US is a young country, and we are naive ... we were never attacked like that. And the overall consensus is we deserved it. Believe me, I'm not exaggerating.


See, here's the thing Dreamer - when you engage in violence in other countries, you get violence in return. You reap what you sew.

America's stance may be that "We are helping the world to be a safer place" and that's all fine and dandy. But you can't use VIOLENCE to bring PEACE. If you use VIOLENCE you get more VIOLENCE back.

Now, I'm not saying the US deserved 9/11, but I am definately saying there were valid reasons for it. Btw this is assuming it was a terrorist attack. Those "terrorists" had valid reasons to attack you - its because in THEIR eyes, you attacked them first! They were happy blowing each other up in their own countries and suddenly the US puts their foot down and says "I'm sorry, you can't follow your own ideas and do your own thing anymore, we won't let you!". And you wonder why they get pissed?

And this is not the first time its happened. Korea, Vietnam, First Gulf War etc. etc. etc.

Now I'll agree the US isn't the most violent country and its definately NOT the only violent country. The way I see it, the western world in general is on a power trip right now. Currently there is no military in the world that can oppose the US. If several countries banded together they might give you a run for your money, but you are fairly safe on your own soil IF you don't provoke other countries to attack you. What does that mean? It means we all need to sort out our own issues first and let everyone else sort out their own issues too. The western world is acting like the police for the world and fuck, it doesn't work in our own countries (Policing crime does NOT stop it, it excacerbates it) so why the hell should it work in other countries?

There's a lot of interconnected themes in all of these occurences - 9/11, Columbine and the latest masacre. The over-arching one is that if you use violence, you will get violence in return. If you punish crime you will get more criminals. If you invade other countries, other countries will invade you.

Look at some of those countries in Europe (Post WWII). They are neutral, never getting involved in military action. They don't invade other countries, they don't tell other countries what to do. Do they have widespread war and violence? No. Is there a causal link here? You decide.

Basically it boils down to this: If you want peace, practice peace. If you don't want people flying planes into your buildings, don't fly over their cities and carpet bomb the living fuck out of them.

Seems kind of simple to me :roll:

Sorry, I get fired up about this shit.

/rant


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

CECIL said:


> Half a Person - I can understand the difficulties you have working in schools, especially when you give out journal excercises and learn about scary things. But that is their way of reaching out. They need help. We need to collectively develop more support for these kids and for teachers and parents too.


There really is a lot to this issue. In fact waaaay too much to go in to here.
I promise you this question is not intended to be rude but have you ever been a teacher?

My idealism has been curbed by reality in the last six years. Please don't get me wrong, I haven't turned a blind eye or given up by any means, but I had to set some parameters for myself or genuinely there would be nothing left to give. Journals were one thing I cut from the equation. I still talk to students and interact with them (of course).

My colleagues and I talk about this stuff all of the time. Believe me, we care. We are working on things to help develop more support and are trying out new things. If you're interested I could tell you more about it later, but right now I'm off to bed.


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

No I've never been a teacher. Its good to know you care and I agree its a massive issue. You need to take care of yourself too and if those sorts of things are overwhelming I can understand why you are hesitant.

Actually, my mum is a teacher so I know that teachers in general don't get a lot of support. Then of course its always the teacher's fault if a child isn't progressing well. Its another system in dire need of an overhaul IMO.

And yes I am interested to hear about what sorts of things you are trying to do


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I can't get into explaining US politics anymore, it's useless. Suffice it to say the problems in the Middle East have gone back centuries. We didn't start the unrest. Our reaction to 9/11 was poorly thought out, a mistake, I think it's a disaster. Agreed. But you must understand there is more than meets the eye. Vietnam was a disaster.

But we have helped defend the world in numerous ways from the agression of other countries. I am a Darwinist, I see us as individuals fighting for territory, scarce resouces, land, etc. You forget the United Nation tried repeatedly to control/overthrow Saddam. There are 500 reasons.

I think our reaction to 9/11 by invading Iraq was a mistake, but we did not "ask for it." Meantime in Iraq, their dictator is gone, which has resulted in sectarian warfare amonst Sunni and Shiite. THEY are fighting amonst themselves now. We opened Pandora's box, yes, we didn't prepare to assist with this. But now (oh forgot the Kurds who want their own country as they are completely despised for reasons I don't understand are fighting amongst themselves. This is old news.

*Please note: Middle Eastern fundamentalistts declared a JIHAD, a Holy War against the West, and the US in particular WAAAAY beore 9/11. Israel and Palestine have been fighting over the same piece of land themselves since 1948, or you could go all the way to Biblical times to figure that one out??????*

*End of that, I'm accused of writing too much (I type about 160 wpm and my mind is packed with thoughts I need to get out). Read the history of the development of the Middle East and the West. I'm trying to understand by doing this:

Recommended books/authors to start: *

The late author/journalist David Halberstam, brilliant guy, may he rest in peace -- anything he's written on the catastrophe of the Vietnam War and other politica topics ... I believe *A Bright Shining Lie* would be a good start.

*Fiasco* about the Iraq War... can't remember the author, the title speaks for itself.

Anything by Bernard Lewis: And what I'm still working on *The Crisis of Islam, Holy War and Unholy Terror*

Anything by Thomas Friedman, I love *From Beirut to Jerusalem* but can't remember all the details to save my life.

EDIT: Amazing, difficult to read book about Saddam's regime which destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq -- note many Middle Eastern countries have wanted to get rid of Saddam themselves, he invaded other countries himself -- I think of him as a sociopath to be honest. *The Assassin's Gate* by George Packer, explains years of misery in the Middle East.

Also, had this invasion been successful (which it never could have been due to stupid lack of foresight on our part, the Middle East and Europe would be happy as Hell with us. And the United Nations wouldn't be wringing its hands as it had been for 10 years before this.). Bad President. Bad decision. Wrong time.

I find history and politics extremely difficult to read. It is very complex, nothing is simple.

*You must READ books and respectable scholarly journals, I can't write for hours about what I'M trying to understand.* I am more interested in psychology/anthropology/sociology of why we are, the world over so violent and make mistakes. The internet is unreliable, the popular media is biased and screwy, etc. Watch PBS instead of regular news on TV.

There are also many Middle Eastern authors and others from many other countries with POVs that come from every which way about how we solve this -- world conflict.
-----------------------------------------------------
*Re: Psychopaths/Sociopaths:*

Psychopaths/Sociopaths, are the least likely individuals to be helped regardless of their childhood - healhy or dysfunctional.

The same can be said about pedophiles.

The most famous serial killers and mass murderers in history (even going back to Jack the Ripper) have no conscience, no value for human life, find murder a power trip. In real life generally have some sense of inadequacy which they take out with "power trips" against innocent people.

*Early warning signs of a psychopath are frequently exhibited in early childhood: "The dealdy triad" which does not bode well for rehabilitation: 
chronic bedwetting - cruelty to animals (torture/death, e.g. killing the family dog) - arson (e.g. everything from setting small fires to burning the house down).*

Cho, I believe without a doubt was a psychopath/sociopath. Seriously disturbed.
----------
*Personal experience:* my close friend from college is a social worker and probabtion officer. She works with all manner of criminals. If someone is a true sociopath/psychopath they return to the system again and again regardless of help offered.

She has worked for 25 years in this job. Great thing is an abused women shelter she helped start -- women are more likely to respond to help than men. Men are also more likely to commit violence, are serial killers.
-----------
Other books:

*The Sniper in the Tower: The Charles Whitman Murders* by Gary M. Lavergne

*A Father's Story* A Father's Story by Lionel Dahmer (about his son Jeffrey Dahmer)

*As If* by Blake Morrison re: the 1993 Liverpool, England murder of 5 year old James Bulger by two ten year olds.

Books by John Douglas, profiler at Quantico (now retired) - he and his team have interviewed most of the most notorious serial killers now on death row, imprisoned, or now deceased.
*Mindhunter
Anatomy of Motive
The Cases That Haunt Us*

Books by Anne Rule, profiler, true crime writer

*Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited* by *Sam Vaknin[/u] - a narcissist with insight into himself who reveals his inability to connect with people. It is simply lacking in him. Google him and you can read much of his book online. He developed his site into a book.

In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, or see the film Capote with Philip Seymour Hoffman or rent the old film with Robert Blake (it actually holds up -- am fascinated with the Clutter family murder and have read the book and seen both films).

Search psychopath/sociopath/narcissistic personality on Amazon. Yes many kids can be helped, but these people are a huge exception. They frequently perpetrate all manner of vicious crimes without any concern about it at all. No remorse. None. Ever. They laugh at authority, have no concern for it.

Also [ONE] recommended a great book on Columbine which I forgot the title of, but it's in this thread.
-----------------------------------------
My POV which is only my POV and you don't have to buy it, is that we are complex animals and are ruled by the same instincts as all manner of animals we observe more and more.

This is illustrated in the Great Apes. E.G. -- Chimps go to war. Chimps cannabilize sp? Chimps steal and murder the babies of one mother so they can inseminate the mother again and pass on their own genes.

The Great Apes also exhibit altruism, play behavior, use of tools, great intelligence, some sense of "Self" -- I don't know how much, etc.

Jane Goodall is the expert on this, and Diane Fossey re: Gorillas. There are SO many more animal behaviorists now as well. Don't know names offhand.
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes I am a cynic. That doesn't mean I have given up on civilization. I wish to study, to understand, and again give great credit to those who help make society better in whatever way they can. This is difficult in a world with an exploding population, many cultural/religious differences, and growing competions for resources, such as WATER -- there can be wars over WATER.

I learn, try to understand, do what I can. What else can we do?


I have several friends, and Hallelulia to ALL teachers, who work in one way or another in social services. It is a helluva job. My mother, a psychitrist, worked with abused children in the 1960s and 1970s (ah the irony). She would recommend in juveniloe court a child be taken from it's home as "it would be dead in 3 months". She was more often correct than wrong. She was called, or so she said, I didn't believe everything she said, "the baby snatcher."

Examples:
1. Baby thrown out of a car - dead
2. Child beaten with the cord of an iron - dead
3. Child stabbed in the back with a knife - dead

No remorse, and repeat offenses, similar ...

This was in the 1960s and 1970s.

I have also studied the V.S. Ramachandran, M.D., Ph.D. the evolutionary neuropsychiatrist at UCSD. I follow his theories these days.

Cheers,
D*


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Newspaper which gives "All the facts" vs. a bunch of hooey ... my favorite 
*The Wall Street Journal*

It is yes written for those involved in finance who need to have a concise summary of the news in an intelligence fashion. There are also excellent Op-Ed pieces and debates.

People argue about advertising in newspapers -- it helps earn revenue to publish the paper! People subscribe, yes, but just like a TV show you need to "sell soap" to help produce it. The WSJ is also more expensive than other papers. It would be a fortune in Europe, as European papers are here. I don't know the equivalent papers in Europe.

An excellent but very difficult to read journal *Foreign Affairs*. VERY in depth reporting on, well what the title says.[/b] Expensive, no advertising. Again, don't know the equivalent in Europe.

F.A. is intellectual like "Daedalus" or other such journals for scholars. Personally it is for people already well-versed in politics, etc. But the occasional article if you can plough through it can be extremely thought provoking at minimum. Do I remember what I read or understand all of it.

Um, no. But I try. Sometimes it's like trying to understand string theory in physics. :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

CECIL said:


> Currently there is no military in the world that can oppose the US.


Anyone with a nuclear device, such as N. Korea, Iran, Russia (AGAIN) and various other countries in the Middle East, could dump us off the face of the Earth in an instant; home grown terrorists, and those abroad -- our greatest fear. It's like a mine field of decisions. And we're looking in every direction how to avoid a catastrophe here or there.

China has a huge military complex already. They have a huge population. They could easily wipe us out as well. If we attempt to force global warming sanctions on them -- well Western countries/the UN -- we are in trouble. Global warming has become a great threat to all countries as critical resources will be in high demand, again water in particular. Other countries will have serious droughts. This will result in violence over that scarce resource.

If we don't act, European nations say we ignore threats that could affect them. If we act, we are asking for retaliation. And there are many other reasons.

I do not justify war. It's nuts. But it has existed since the dawn of man, and unless Utopia lands here from another planet, I see that keeping ourselves in check, being more self reliant is the best way to be.

Should we be proactive, or not?

Not simple CECIL. And no, I don't have the answers. Also, many countries have their own agendas, their own domestic problems. As noted China is a huge threat to the Global Warming program. So is India. These countries in a short period of time will be very powerful influential countries.

Don't worry, the US will not be your biggest worry in 10 years from now. Far from it.


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

Dreamer said:


> Um, no. But I try. Sometimes it's like trying to understand string theory in physics. :shock:


 :shock: :shock: Agaghagah! The very words _string theory_ make me want to run screaming from the forum. (Mental Note: I will stay away from the journal Foreign Affairs)


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

HalfAPerson said:


> Dreamer said:
> 
> 
> > Um, no. But I try. Sometimes it's like trying to understand string theory in physics. :shock:
> ...


Brilliant woman. I swear I do try to read this stuff... really try... and I can't keep track of names, dates.

Bless you. 8) 
Yes to Hell with physics, LOL. Sorry. It is critical, but not me cup o' tea.
:shock: indeed.


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

CECIL said:


> No I've never been a teacher. Its good to know you care and I agree its a massive issue. You need to take care of yourself too and if those sorts of things are overwhelming I can understand why you are hesitant.
> 
> Actually, my mum is a teacher so I know that teachers in general don't get a lot of support. Then of course its always the teacher's fault if a child isn't progressing well. Its another system in dire need of an overhaul IMO.
> 
> And yes I am interested to hear about what sorts of things you are trying to do


Hi Cecil,
The main thing we?re trying to do is create Smaller Learning Communities. Schools are big. Classes are big. So the thought behind it is if you have the same group of kids with the same core teachers it?s like a school within a school. I think it helps kids feel a sense of stability and of belonging.

Teachers can support one another and establish similar policies and ultimately it allows us to be more involved with the kids. We do projects together and meet often to discuss issues with students (things like, ?Hey, have you noticed anything off with so-and-so??).

From my own personal experience it?s worked very well. The trick is finding teachers that you?re on the same wavelength as. Not everyone buys into it. I?ve been part of these communities for three years and have worked with several different people. There have been positive results with all of them, but I had really great success with one in particular. It?s sappy to say, but we were kind of like a little family. She and I shared two sections of students and none of them were failing either of our classes. This may not sound like a lot; but it is considering there?s a general sense of apathy among many students. One section made each of us a scrapbook for Teacher?s Day with letters from each and every kid; needless to say it blew us away.

Anyhoo...that?s one of the major things we?ve got going on and will continue to work on. There are other things like peer counseling classes which seem to be helping out. The older students (the really responsible, positive ones) take the younger ones under their wing and meet with them regularly to talk out problems.

Nobody has all of the answers, but we?re trying. There are several other things in the works but funding always seems to be an issue. But that?s a whole ?nother saga?


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Two blind men walked into a cave. One said to the other:

"Dark in here isn't it?"

The other man replied:

"I don't know, I can't see."

Hmm. There may be a metaphor in there, without me even knowing it. Ah, how the philosopher dies in me!


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

Martinelv said:


> Two blind men walked into a cave. One said to the other:
> 
> "Dark in here isn't it?"
> 
> ...


 :?: This one's a head scratcher. Random thoughts...or profound insight into the thread?


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

HalfAPerson said:


> _?It?s so easy to laugh, it?s so easy to hate.
> It takes strength to be gentle and kind.?_
> I Know it?s Over ? The Smiths.


*So* true.

"I know it's over, though it never really began but in my heart it was so real."

The world is flowered - end of story. 8)


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2007)

*Listens to "The Smiths" while cutting his arms*... I'm fine... I'm fine.... :roll:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Martinelv said:


> Two blind men walked into a cave. One said to the other:
> 
> "Dark in here isn't it?"
> 
> ...


I'd say that sums it all up rather well, LOLOLOLOLOL. Sadly fits in with siouxie's (sorry I can't spell your name) summary of the whole mess.

This suddenly made me recall my mother's menacing comment she'd come up with as she shook her head at the newspaper, "ACH, it's the halt leading the blind, and in the valley of the blind, the one-eyed man is King."

Cecil, the world is not filled with peaceful people. I see as part of the animal kingdom, and so many would disagree. Is the animal kingdom peaceful? No, it is survival of the fittest. This is life.

We wander blindly through it, doing the best we can.
D


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

Something is _way_ over my head here. I must be one of the blind men :shock:

P.S. Rozanne: Love is natural and real, but not for such as you and I, my love 

Darren: Stop your whinging. You know it's good stuff.


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Dreamer said:


> Cecil, the world is not filled with peaceful people. I see as part of the animal kingdom, and so many would disagree. Is the animal kingdom peaceful? No, it is survival of the fittest. This is life.


See this bothers me as well. Humans came from the animal kingdom, but we have since evolved beyond it. We are no longer bound by the same rules and laws that govern the animal kingdom. We don't NEED to be animals anymore.

We don't need to be just trying to survive anymore - we can actually kick back and enjoy life for once in our species' evolution. Well, maybe in another 5 years 

If we keep acting like animals then our niche is going to collapse. And it just so happens that our niche is this whole planet. We are at a cross roads and we can either choose to tear ourselves and this world apart or we can choose to start living.

And I firmly disagree that about the world not being full of peaceful people. Everyone is peaceful at heart, its just that right now a lot of people are doing terrible things to themselves and to other people because we've all collectively got our wires crossed. We have inherited patterns of behaviour and beliefs that have been passed down through generations since the dawn of human history. But these are NOT OURS. Not our patterns, not our own beliefs. They are adopted. Its time to cut all of that away and experience our true nature.

Most people will tell you its impossible to change the world this late in the game. But I'm here to tell you that you don't need to change the world - only yourself. And if everyone changes themselves? Well, you get the idea 

Halfaperson: Those communities sound like really awesome ideas. I think you are right on when you say schools are too big. Its too impersonal and doesn't cater to the individual enough. It would be great to see more of the same, keep it up


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2007)

HalfAPerson said:


> Darren: Stop your whinging. You know it's good stuff.


And you know it's non-important "good" stuff :roll:

"Meow" I?m a cat.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

CECIL said:


> Dreamer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecil, the world is not filled with peaceful people. I see as part of the animal kingdom, and so many would disagree. Is the animal kingdom peaceful? No, it is survival of the fittest. This is life.
> ...


Cecil we have to agree to disagree. You can't take away aeons of instinct. I see instinct as far more powerful than anything else, and culture EVOLVES from instinct.

People say, "Why do we need sexual attraction now, the world is overpopulated." The argument is completely illogical. If an asteroid were to hit tomorrow and there were only a few people left, our sexual instincts would remain, to serve us agaiin.

Also, our brains are hard wired re: many of these instincts. You cannot evolve in a few centuries. It takes thousands upon thousands of years to change.

My belief in evolution in this sense is a strong belief I have, that I have believed a long time, examining Nature/Nurture for years. If we see our DP/DR has an extension of the fight/flight response. Well that is a primitive but useful response, but it can go bad. Without it however, we'd be in dire shape. We aren't fleeing lions or other beasts, we protect ourselves in other ways of modern society.

Without basic instincts we wouldn't survive, and they cannot "devolve" in a short time.

On this, we have to agree to disagree.

I'm also not saying that there aren't many good people out there who are trying to make the world better. But do you realize the population of this tiny world? As I note again, competitioin for resources of all kinds causes conflict. But there are many, many people who cannot contribute, they are struggling literally to stay alive, day to day. Others, literally, don't give a hoot. They feel somehow they are entitled to the life they have, don't care to contribute and slide on by.

*Again, I tell you this from experience, from living in active, positive situations, and in negative ones. I have participated in a lot of positive things, such as establishing a community garden, volunteering for years with the mentally ill, being a literacy tutor, etc. I CONTRIBUTE to positive causes. I try to make the world a better place. I have always been involed in some sort of charitable activity. But I am endlessly frustrated by the overall picture of the world.*

I haven't given up, but I don't have the faith in innate goodness. I think you have noted you are a spiritual person. I wasn't raised with faith. Perhaps that makes me more of a cynic, I don't know.

Yes, on this we have to disagree, and I'm not an optimist either. I wish I were. But it is a fact that hardwired instincts cannot be "undone" by culture. Frequently they are controlled by strict social controls. We wouldn't have rules if we didn't break them.

I wish I were an optimist. I do look towards intelligent, creative young people to work on the positive things that will come in the future. But I cannot believe in a Utopia. It is incomprehensible to me.

Sorry,
I try my best, and so do many others.
I don't know what else to do.
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

P.S. -- I reveal my ignorance again. What is "whinging"? LOL.

I think I've figured out paling ... it might have to do with being impaled, hence could it be those sharp protrudiing spear like things on the top of fences? Forgive, I digress.

Pleaes what is "whinging". ACH, I can't keep up with the times.


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

Don't fret, D...it's a British expression only (I think).

whinging = whining, moaning, complaining, etc.

But I still don't get the blind people thing.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2007)

> whinge:
> 
> to complain, especially about something which does not seem important:


----------



## HalfAPerson (Aug 22, 2006)

Paling = Main Entry: pale
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): paled; pal?ing
: to enclose with pales : FENCE

The dictionary said it's an archaic word,so no wonder we hadn't the foggiest.


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Dreamer said:


> Cecil we have to agree to disagree. You can't take away aeons of instinct. I see instinct as far more powerful than anything else, and culture EVOLVES from instinct.


Yes, we have to agree to disagree and that's fine by me 

Culture does evolve from instinct in a way, but so much of our evolution over the last however many thousands of years (i.e. human history) has been evolution outside the animal kingdom. Art, dance, war, politics, religion, commerce - all of these things are external (though I suppose they share themes) to the animal world. Nothing like this has been seen on this planet before. No animals take it to this extreme. So what makes us different?



> Also, our brains are hard wired re: many of these instincts. You cannot evolve in a few centuries. It takes thousands upon thousands of years to change.


And we have had thousands upon thousands of years  We are now approaching the end of this evolutionary period at which time we can shed our animalistic behaviours and start something new. That's not to say we will no longer be a part of nature, because we will. However it implies a very different way of interacting with nature than what we currently do.



> My belief in evolution in this sense is a strong belief I have, that I have believed a long time, examining Nature/Nurture for years. If we see our DP/DR has an extension of the fight/flight response. Well that is a primitive but useful response, but it can go bad. Without it however, we'd be in dire shape. We aren't fleeing lions or other beasts, we protect ourselves in other ways of modern society.
> 
> Without basic instincts we wouldn't survive, and they cannot "devolve" in a short time.


I can agree with a lot of what you say here, especially about DP/DR having a lot to do with fight/flight responses. Or, what many people refer to as "Fear". In an evolutionary sense, fear serves a great purpose, because it stops us burning ourselves or getting eaten by Saber Tooth Tigers. My point is that in our current state, we don't need to fear any of those things anymore. We are currently on top of the food chain - no predators hunt and eat us. We wear clothes and live in buildings to completely ignore the effects of the weather. Our technology has progressed to the point where we can grow crops/livestock even in remote areas and so we can produce enough food even in adverse conditions.

We are no longer subject to those evolutionary forces and so fear only remains as a relic of our past evolution. I believe we can do away with it, but I definately understand your beliefs otherwise.

The only thing we realistically need to fear is other humans (And of course fear itself  ). But if you live a life of fear, you get more fear and you resrict yourself in so many ways. This is why my belief is different to yours (and that's fine  ) - I believe that collectively we can break this idea of surviving through fear and instead begin living through love.



> I'm also not saying that there aren't many good people out there who are trying to make the world better. But do you realize the population of this tiny world? As I note again, competitioin for resources of all kinds causes conflict. But there are many, many people who cannot contribute, they are struggling literally to stay alive, day to day. Others, literally, don't give a hoot. They feel somehow they are entitled to the life they have, don't care to contribute and slide on by.


Yes, its definately a problem. From what I understand (and I could be wrong), there is actually enough resources in the world to go around. People who are starving couldn't care less about politics and commerce, they only care about their next meal and keeping warm for the night (Pyramid of needs).

You know how we can solve this problem over night? Instead of spending trillions of dollars each year developing ways to kill people and protect "our" resources, instead spend that money feeding, clothing and educating every single person in the world, not one exluded. And there would be enough money to do this many times over.

Then what happens? Suddenly people aren't fighting over resources anymore. Terrorists suddenly have no reason to attack America because they have everything they need. We can make steps to becoming a global community.

The only reason we don't? Because collectively we are stuck on fear and the egoic materialism that dictates "This is mine. I must gather more. I must protect my resources. I must kill anyone who threatens to take it away". And that is a mentality that arises from our animal evolution but it has no any place in our lives now that we are outside of those evolutionary forces. I agree its an incredibly hard mindset to break, but it is doable.

To paraphrase Terrence McKenna: "We can re-engineer our society to be based on a set of emotional values rather than consumerism and materialism. Once you've touched the inner core of your own and someone else's being you can't be lead into thing fetishism".



> *Again, I tell you this from experience, from living in active, positive situations, and in negative ones. I have participated in a lot of positive things, such as establishing a community garden, volunteering for years with the mentally ill, being a literacy tutor, etc. I CONTRIBUTE to positive causes. I try to make the world a better place. I have always been involed in some sort of charitable activity. But I am endlessly frustrated by the overall picture of the world.*


Its awesome that you stay so involved. Believe me, you aren't the only one that is frustrated. Honestly one of my inner desires is to just tear down these systems, just slash and burn and have no remorse. Its one reason I get so angry talking about this sort of stuff (which I apologise for).



> I haven't given up, but I don't have the faith in innate goodness. I think you have noted you are a spiritual person. I wasn't raised with faith. Perhaps that makes me more of a cynic, I don't know.


I wasn't raised with faith either. And I am my own biggest cynic. One thing I am often told is that doubt is healthy. I suppose faith is having the courage to do what you believe in, make the changes even though you doubt your own ability and doubt your own beliefs. In the end, a positive change is a positive change, regardless of the intent and belief behind it.



> I wish I were an optimist. I do look towards intelligent, creative young people to work on the positive things that will come in the future. But I cannot believe in a Utopia. It is incomprehensible to me.


Firstly, you're never too old to change. There's many, many people out there who's chosen career it is to help people heal themselves. But its not for everyone and if its not for you that's fine.

Second, utopia isn't a realistic vision. Utopia would be downright boring and pointless. In my ideal vision for the world there is pain and suffering, there is violence. But at each point there is personal reflection and a desire to understand, learn and grow from each painful experience. It is a culture of positivity - celebrating mistakes as a learning experience rather than punishing ourselves for them. It is a living and ongoing process and it can start right now, if we are willing.



> Sorry,
> I try my best, and so do many others.
> I don't know what else to do.
> D


Your best is enough


----------



## suz (Mar 26, 2007)

Dreamer said:


> P.S. -- I reveal my ignorance again. What is "whinging"? LOL.
> 
> I think I've figured out paling ... it might have to do with being impaled, hence could it be those sharp protrudiing spear like things on the top of fences? Forgive, I digress.
> 
> Pleaes what is "whinging". ACH, I can't keep up with the times.


*
This* is *im*paling!










OUCH!!!


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

> If we keep acting like animals then our niche is going to collapse


Please refer to my short story, This World and The Critique of Pure Unreason. I couldn't agree more.

(is this a first dreamer?)


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Martin,
Have to read that story.

But Cecil, for instance, I hate to say this, but I'd gather you didn't see the American Idol special to raise funds for poverty in the US and Africa. Did you contribute? 8) I havne't been able to get through. The show was a little rocky, but they're doing a good thing ... at any rate an important point was made that here as a result of Hurrican Katrina (which has indeed reduced humans to living like animals) there is a huge increase in crime and despair. Hence we do have enemies now .... nature is still out there.

And a brief example -- your orange juice at the mo costs a fortune as we had a crazy winter and the orange crops were destroyed, many of them. If you were a farmer you would understand we fight Nature every day, as much as how many billions of years ago. I have friends who are farmers. It is a thankless, 24/hour day job. And one can be struck by a blight and destroy all the work one has done for a year. They love what they do, but it is far from easy, regardless of modernizatin of various techiques in agriculture.

DISCLAIMER: I am not an expert on all of this. This is what I see and read about and see how it applies to global interaction. If I am overgeneralizing or giving incorrect information, I'm sorry, correct me.


Cecil said:


> We are currently on top of the food chain - no predators hunt and eat us. We wear clothes and live in buildings to completely ignore the effects of the weather. Our technology has progressed to the point where we can grow crops/livestock even in remote areas and so we can produce enough food even in adverse conditions.


As noted, we are not at the top of the food chain. There is illness, there are natural disasters all over the world. There is drought, there are areas in this world where it's a miracle if one can find water. You are ignoring a HUGE part of the world -- i.e. the NON-Western nations.

And these other nations affect us. Developing nations are in big trouble. China is immensely powerful but destroying itself with pollution -- you do know they only allow one child per household due to overpopulation? An instinct has to be legislated there which makes me sick. The pollution there is literally unbearable. I have mentioned a friend who has two adopted kids from Beijing. When they visit the grandparents they cannot breathe.... literally. They stay inside.

Also China is working like Hell in preparation for the Olympics (2008?). They will be seeding the clouds to cause rain to clear the air out. I pity the atheletes, not to mention the population there. Mexico city in 1968 -- 1968 when I was 9 was forced to use Draconian measures to host the Olympics then as their pollution was staggering.



Cecil said:


> Our technology has progressed to the point where we can grow crops/livestock even in remote areas and so we can produce enough food even in adverse conditions.


I don't know where you're getting this information. As noted, if there is simply a bad crop year this can affect food supplies tremendously. I don't think you see the power of Nature in all of this.

Also, in countries that are essentially sand. Our "modern lives" here in the US and other places are based on "fake" environments. For instance, Las Vegas and Palm Springs shouldn't exist. We are using precious water to create an oasis where one doesn't exist. The explosion of Los Angeles shouldn't be.

*Also, I mentioned before ... and this is key... we SHARE resources. No one country can live alone on what they produce. Import/Export, etc. I'm not sure if we discussed this. But no country has every resource it needs. No one country has every single supply it needs.*



Cecil said:


> And we have had thousands upon thousands of years We are now approaching the end of this evolutionary period at which time we can shed our animalistic behaviours and start something new. That's not to say we will no longer be a part of nature, because we will. However it implies a very different way of interacting with nature than what we currently do.


Thousands of years are a nanosecond in evolution. And we are always a part of Nature. And again, if we do not, or can not cooperate with other nations -- and other nations do not want to cooperate with us or the West, not just the US -- we will die, collectively.

I hate to say this, but there is truth in films like Bladerunner, Children of Men, Minority Report, Gattaca, and other frightening looks at the future.

Again, I won't go on, but you are looking at the world, I think, we rose colored glasses. Engineers, scientists, all manner of professionals are working on how to solve these problems. In the West it is true, there is magically a grocery, and water, and a clothing store, and a coffee house on each corner. That is neither true nor possible in so many countries around the world.

Much of the West has flourished because of location.

Oh, and response that no one else could off the US. ANYONE could if they wanted to. The problem is, people want things we have, and the result (serious retaliation) would result in economic, social, and resource catastrophes the world over that no country REALLY wants to deal with.

We are ONE WORLD. And that doesn't just count the Western World. We need each other. The hope is we can get all of our differences sorted. I ask you, if you were a world leader, how would you do that?

DISCLAIMER: Politicians know how to get elected. They don't always know how to make political decisions. And you can't please everyone. Bush is the worst President we've ever had. But there are tyrants the world over who do not allow their citizens the ability to even begin crawling out of their misery.

You are discounting a HUGE part of the world. Much larger than the population of Europe and the US.

Again, we agree to disagree. Yes, we could/should be peaceful and kind to each other, but we're not. At this juncture in history I think we have a LONG way to go, and I mean hundreds of years to sort things out. And we may not be here then.

We are not top of the food chain. Nature, and her limited resources are. Just fact. And I'm no expert, but this is what I learned years ago in Science and History, and this is why we have global interaction and commerce and money.

"No man is an island, no man stands alone" -- in theory.

Cheers,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

PS, always a PS. We discussed this before. How do you think food supplies get from a farm to remote areas. Transportation. This adds to cost. Many families can't afford the cost of the most basic meal in some areas of the US!

Transportation causes pollution, congestion, it isn't always reliable. Ships that go out for seafood -- well they're finding the oceans are not yielding what they used to. And it is treacherous sp? to work such a job.

Also, re: animals we eat. I don't eat red meat. I mostly eat chicken/fish and am veggie as much as possible. Growing animals means FEEDING THEM. Not only do we feed ourselves, we need to feed the animals. I just realized the strength of the US is its vast supply of natural resources, but we have polluted many. We are slowly reversing that, but in certain places here and abroad it is too late.

Again, does your country live on all of its production alone. No. Neither does the US. Our difficult goal is to become less dependent on Fossil fuel. This means we would be less dependent on a % of imports from the Middle East. BUT if that is the key Middle East export what will they SELL to BUY what they need? It's a two way street. And oddly enough, the Middle East is sitting on gold, yet burns oil fields out of spite and rage.

Terrorism and not world war is our worst fear for the future also. And how do you fight that?

We need science and engineers, to work on these problems. In many Western countries there are those not educated in these fields or in the US, our education system stinks so much we have illiterate kids graduating from high school -- a result of "let's be easy on them", "let's not force anyone to feel 'bad' about themselves."

A "feel good" society doesn't always yield good things. It yields lack of knowledge, lack of competence in critical fields, lack of respect for authority.

You cannot MAKE someone be peaceful, kind, etc. That is at the level of parents, many of whom don't know how to raise children, don't care, etc. And even among the most peaceful communities -- such as the Amish -- there is emotional strife, tension. These communities require strict adherence to rules.

I know in a sense why America has it's own troubles. We believe in "individualsim" -- freedom to chose your own way. Sometimes that backfires, as we need to cooperate. Hollywood stars are alwyas yakking about peace and pollution control and drive Humvees and private jets.

Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

*Excellent website of peaceful societies in the world. They are very small, isolated and generally very peaceful, yet there are still sanctions on "bad behavior."

This is a MUST READ. *

The question remains, how can such small communities and their simple ways of living be applied to modern society? And none of these communities has "perfect harmony" though their goals are the values of non-agression and peace.

http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/index.html

I had never heard of any but a few of these cultures, and am familiar with the Amish. They are very small, isolationist, and do not have modern conveniences.

Amish
Batek
Birhor
Buid
Chewong
Fipa
G/wi
Hutterites
Ifaluk
Inuit
Ju/'hoansi
Kadar
Ladakhi
Lepchas
Malapandaram
Mbuti
Nubians
Paliyans
Piaroa
Rural Thai
Simai
Tahitians
Tristan Islanders
Yanadi
Zapotec of La Paz

Out of a HUGE website ... this is antrhopological study, there are even more books to read on the subject. This is a very brief summary (left a lot out) about how non-agression is able to exist in these SMALL communities -- many on islands.

*Sociocultural systems.*

The psychological and social structures, mythologies, beliefs, religious convictions, and worldviews held by the peaceful societies strengthen their daily nonviolent lives.

Many of the peaceful societies have social patterns that foster and reinforce nonviolence. For instance, while some of the peaceful societies have political leaders, they tend to not glorify leadership. Not surprisingly, the leaders of peaceful societies (those that have leaders) are generally not as bellicose as some of our contemporary world leaders.

*Sanctions.* Some peaceful societies maintain their internal nonviolence through effective sanctions against deviant or aggressive behavior. Nonviolent punishments such as ostracism may help enforce social norms in some societies.

[Dreamer's note, there is "deviant and agressive behavior amongst individuals in the group" -- it exists on its own!]

*Isolation.* Some of the peaceful societies are able to maintain their nonviolence because they live in very isolated locations?islands, remote deserts, or dense forests.

However, isolation is not the only factor. Many also have strong convictions that peacefulness is something that is very important to them. Some of them feel that nonviolence works, for them: it is a very practical way for them to exist in the world that they experience.

Others feel that nonviolence is the way that God ordains them to live. For others, they have always lived that way and their belief system reinforces the ways they feel people should coexist.

*Flight and Separation.* Some of the peaceful societies maintain their nonviolence by fleeing at the slightest hint of aggressiveness by outsiders. Furthermore, people in many of the societies break apart into new groups whenever internal strife or tensions threaten to disrupt the peacefulness of normal daily life.

[Dreamer's note: so within a peaceful society there will be disagreements, and one group breaks off from the other to start another group.]

*You MUST read the site and a number of seminal anthropology books to understand this. More important -- the study of anthropology requires one spend lengthy amounts of time with a group such as this, if it is possible, to understand how it works. One must then fit in completely and that is not easy.*

There is no perfect society. And even amonst the most peaceful there are conflicts. This is inevitable.

How can this be applied to Modern Society? It would mean we remove most of our modern conveniences and return to a far simpler lifestyle. I.E. I wouldn't be using this computer, we wouldn't have cars. We would eat simple, yes healthier, foods. We would lose our individuality to the group. I have no problem with these groups. But again, our horse is out of the barn, how do you make people be peaceful, be less selfish, how do you turn back the clock when there was never true peace to begin with?

Cheers,
D


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Dreamer said:


> As noted, we are not at the top of the food chain. There is illness, there are natural disasters all over the world. There is drought, there are areas in this world where it's a miracle if one can find water. You are ignoring a HUGE part of the world -- i.e. the NON-Western nations.
> 
> Again, I won't go on, but you are looking at the world, I think, we rose colored glasses. Engineers, scientists, all manner of professionals are working on how to solve these problems. In the West it is true, there is magically a grocery, and water, and a clothing store, and a coffee house on each corner. That is neither true nor possible in so many countries around the world.


I'm not ignoring huge parts of the world nor looking at it through rose coloured glasses. There are major problems the world over with resources, war, death etc etc. In other words, what we are doing right now isn't working, so we NEED to change. Or we die, like you said.

Perhaps I should have said we have the *potential* to be outside evolutionary forces. Personally in my life I exist outside survival of the fittest rules. The fact that disabled people can live full and meaningful lives is a testament to this. In Africa this may not be the case right now, but if we shared our resources it could be (See my suggestion for feeding, clothing and educating everyone in the world).

Scientists and engineers are constantly developing technologies, which is what we need. But its governments and people that decide how to use those technologies. If the government and people don't change, neither does what we are doing.

I see your point about weather and natural disasters still having an effect on us, so I'll concede that point.



> I don't know where you're getting this information. As noted, if there is simply a bad crop year this can affect food supplies tremendously. I don't think you see the power of Nature in all of this.


At least in areas where we have sufficient technology and resources (which again we could have in every area of the world) this doesn't wipe out entire populations like it could have in the past. For example entire Banana crops were wiped out here in Australia, but the people who's crops were destroyed didn't die and there wasn't a massive famine in the country.



> Also, in countries that are essentially sand. Our "modern lives" here in the US and other places are based on "fake" environments. For instance, Las Vegas and Palm Springs shouldn't exist. We are using precious water to create an oasis where one doesn't exist. The explosion of Los Angeles shouldn't be.


A prime example of how we can live outside of evolutionary forces.



> *Also, I mentioned before ... and this is key... we SHARE resources. No one country can live alone on what they produce. Import/Export, etc. I'm not sure if we discussed this. But no country has every resource it needs. No one country has every single supply it needs.*


We share SOME resources. And only at a cost. Poor countries can't afford those resources and so they go hungry. Why can't we dispense with these silly obsessions of currency and economy and just help people get what they need?



> Thousands of years are a nanosecond in evolution. And we are always a part of Nature. And again, if we do not, or can not cooperate with other nations -- and other nations do not want to cooperate with us or the West, not just the US -- we will die, collectively.


Again, we as a species are done with genetic mutation and natural selection. Our evolution is now epigenetic in nature. This began some 15 thousand years ago and since has been getting faster and faster and faster. The rate at which it is happening now is phenominal. We are approaching the end of our history.



> I hate to say this, but there is truth in films like Bladerunner, Children of Men, Minority Report, Gattaca, and other frightening looks at the future.


Its one possibility, its not the only possibility.



> Oh, and response that no one else could off the US. ANYONE could if they wanted to. The problem is, people want things we have, and the result (serious retaliation) would result in economic, social, and resource catastrophes the world over that no country REALLY wants to deal with.


So if people want what you have, give it to them. See my point in all of this?



> We are ONE WORLD. And that doesn't just count the Western World. We need each other. The hope is we can get all of our differences sorted. I ask you, if you were a world leader, how would you do that?


I am not nor will I ever be a world leader. My responsibility is to change myself and to help others change if they want to. That IMO is also everyone else's responsibility. This has to be a grass roots change, it can't come from governments or world leaders.



> At this juncture in history I think we have a LONG way to go, and I mean hundreds of years to sort things out. And we may not be here then.


I tend to put the figure more around 5 years, but time will tell if I'm just insane or not 



> We are not top of the food chain. Nature, and her limited resources are. Just fact. And I'm no expert, but this is what I learned years ago in Science and History, and this is why we have global interaction and commerce and money.


And again, this planet has more than enough resources to go around. Though it wouldn't hurt if there was less people. The reason we have commerce and money is because we are driven by an egoic desire to accumulate wealth as though it means something. Its a system built from the ground up on greed. You can't get something unless you have something I want. Well that system isn't working for us, so its time to do away with it.[/b]


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Ah, Cecil, we have to agree to disagree. 8) On so many of these points.

Again, you are talking like a Fundamentalist Libertarian, essentially eliminating goverment. From what I know about that, it ain't going to fly.

Also, evolution of the human mind takes thousands upon thousands of years. Again, I can't stress that enough.

*And your statement that Palm Springs/Las Vegas, etc. are an example of our ability to control Nature -- couldn't be further from the truth.* We are paying for this with lack of water supplies. How do you think we get water -- we BUY it from other areas that have more water.

And a bananna loss in your country is "no big deal". In a more disorganized country it's huge.

And if we GIVE our resources to other countries, what they need, we will have nothing. We give money which unfortunately doesn't always get to the people -- it is intercepted by unscrupulous individuals and dictators.

The Red Cross, The Salvation Army, Doctors Without Borders -- etc., etc. ther are a million groups trying to help other countries. Many, I don't know if I can say most, come from the US. The Peace Corps, our peaceful Military -- not wartime -- but military that is for control of violence.

I still say, and we have to agree, you are not aware of the complexity of commerce, trade, bartering between many countries and BILLIONS of human beings.

We are still trying to help with AIDS and malaria in Africa. Do you understand that many children there have no parents. They have already died of AIDS. Children raising children. The US or other countries cannot adopt every child. We sponsor children.

And believe me there is poverty, mental health issues here in the US as well. The reasons are multifold.

I think your view of the West, the luxury you live in... the quality of your life ... skews your views, and many here.

What is your country doing to help these other countries? Also you say we shouldn't force our views on other countries. We want to help them be self-sufficient. The most logical ways are to organize the society into some form of Western model which appears to work best. It isn't the perfect model, but many countries have a variation of a Western model.

As noted. In Britain, the government is far more in control of British activities. As in peaceful nations, individuals are controlled by a common belief system.

Ah, did you even look at that site on peaceful communities?

Cecil, we have a huge gap in what we believe in. And again, the US does NOT have every resource it needs. We can't "give away" what we have any more than your country does. We help as much as we can. We are able to contribute money, supplies. Do you think this is easy? Transporting food/water to Africa?

Again, each of us can do what we can. I gave 20 dollars to the children's fund to help poverty and hunger and illness in Africa and America. We have povery and serious problems here. The total collected so far is @$60 milllion US dollars.

In Africa. Children, who live alone, or in shacks with 7 or 8 others have ONE DOLLAR if that much to pay for EVERYTHING they need -- including school, supplies, food, clothing. And I can't remember if that's a dollar a day or a week. They scour garbage dumps for food. THey have no electricity or indoor water or plumbing. THEIR GOVERNMENTS DID THAT TO THEM, we DID NOT. Corruption. Tribal infighting.

We in the West, you in OZ, live in LUXURY. I get angry at US consumpton of things such as CDs for FILMS, X-Boxes, Plasma televisions, huge automobiles, and just plain junk ... consumerist junk. Your country and the West does the same. So do many otheer wealthy countries the world over.

We have to agree to disagree. I challenge you to visit Africa, I have, to visit, Morroco, I have, to visit Egypt, I have.

You will see that all of these problems cannot be solved in 5 years.

We have all contributed to what exists now. It is the result of history, events that happened centuries ago when no one foresaw theire implicatins.

Again, the US is expected to save the world. And then we are kicked in the head for our contributions. Not everyone here is wealthy. You have a skewed view of our economic status. A disappearing Middle Class and a growing rift between the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor.

We have problems to solve here. No one has time to "kick back" and enjoy. We have work to do, and always will.

Peace,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

A few last comments:

- Again, could your country live without interaction without any other country? Once you expend all the existing resources you have, would you be able to have the same style of living?

- Many people IMMIGRATE to the United States to get away from their own countries, so in that sense we are "helping" other countries. However, it has gotten out of control. We are having trouble supporting everyone. People want entitlements, welfare, health services, and desrved pensions.

- Certain immigrants merely come here to send money back home and do not contribute financially to the economy.

- What will you do when you are old and incapable of caring for yourself.

- You say there are too many people. As I noted more than one child per couple is not allowed in China -- mandated by the government. Do you want that? Or shall we off people that are straining our resources?

- How do you get your medical help. Will you force all of your doctors to stay in your country if they don't wish to? And again, OZ better hurry up with delsalination plants for water or find other sources.

- Also, the Great Barrier Reef is in trouble from pollution. We are helping with that, and the tropical rain forests. Will you just let that go?

- Where do you put your garbage? We are running out of space, and many don't care about the toxic waste they dump into lakes and oceans. Even "innocent things" like paint, building materials, etc.

Saying "yeah we have a population problem" but it's no big deal is ... inconceivalbe to me.

You make all of this sounds so easy.
Sad.
Again I cannot agree with your POV. It is not based in reality. And I don't mean to sound arrogant, I an troubled by your attitude.


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

> Again, the US is expected to save the world. And then we are kicked in the head for our contributions


Just want to make one remark here. Dreamer, this couldnt be further from the truth. It is the US themselves that takes on this role, even without permission of the UN! (see war in Iraq). Noone wanted that war, it was your country's own choice. Many countries are very capable to 'save them selves'. Please do not go narcissistic and hypocrite on us!
And also, your government already had plans to invade Iraq BEFORE the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 gave them the opportunity to do it. Illegally and based on lies. Please do not see your country as being 'heroic' for saving other people. And, they kill many as well. As much as you tell Cecil he has skewed views, this (quote) is an example of a skewed view I see you have.
Sorry, had to get that OUT! lol

America is also seen by many people as the Agressor that endangers world peace. Think about that one for a sec.

8)


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Levi said:


> > Again, the US is expected to save the world. And then we are kicked in the head for our contributions
> 
> 
> Just want to make one remark here. Dreamer, this couldnt be further from the truth. It is the US themselves that takes on this role, even without permission of the UN! (see war in Iraq). Noone wanted that war, it was your country's own choice. Many countries are very capable to 'save them selves'. Please do not go narcissistic and hypocrite on us!
> ...


It's alright. We see it is abundantly clear that the Administratioin used 9/11 to enact a plan that was already in place ... I agree. You can't compare charity to that. OY. Do you understand even George Tenent sp?, former CIA head said there was no debate over the war. 9/11 was the perfect excuse to invade Iraq. And note again. Clinton and other presidents previous to that time were looking for "the right opportunity to naiil him as well."

*The UN would not stop us from giving aid to other countries. You're making an apples/elephants statement OMG.*

I admit the damage we do. I also admit the good we do. See, it doesn't matter if I say what we have done to contribute to other countries. You come back to Bush and Iraq. I give up. If I sound defensive, that's why. We've had discussions like this here a million times. Same old stuff. And no solutions offered by any other country. Ideas anyone? We have none here.

*Meantime, in the headlines, Saudi Arabia just fended off a huge attack. 7 different Al-Quaida cells were at the 11th hour in planning taking SAUDI planes and suicide diving them into oil fields. They also planned to Assasinate several Saudi leaders. Foiled at the last minute. It was just on TV.

The goal, again, disable the Middle East which has gone "Modern", and destablize the economy of the Middle East and the Western World.

No worries, soon we will have no transportation. Those who can't get to work will lose their jobs. The economy here and in the West will crash. Our biggest problems, the environment and terrorism. I am not optimistic about the future of the US.*

I can't go on saying the obvious. People only pick on the US, they see nothing positive we've done. I see the errors of our ways. We are the #1 gun murder capital, but the reasons for it aren't that we are most violent (that is where the confusion is). The horse is out of the barn. Levi if you care to go house to house in this entire country and collect everyone's guns, legal or illegal, I welcome your efforts. See you in 50 years, LOL.

How about some great videos:

One from that crazy American Idol show with famous folks lip-synching and dancing to "Stayin' Alive" -- including my love Hugh Laurie.

And an interview with Hugh Laurie ........... I'm in LOVE .... with Craig Fergusen ....... love him too.

HUGE LAURIE IS VIRTUALLY EXACTLY MY AGE GOD, DAMNIT. Happily married, the rat.

----------------------------------------------------
Let's Dance!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8KuLsZG ... ed&search=

American Idol Gives Back -- famous people singing/dancing to "Staying Alive" Hugh Laurie, Hugh Grant, lots of people.... Hugh is adorbable I'm sorry. Goldie Hawn, Shaq, many famous people. Kevin Bacon, it's fun.

Hellen Mirren! Dr. Phil, LOL. The Blue Man Group! It's a montage to the real Bee Gee Song
-----------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ0Qq4zs ... ed&search=

Hugh Laurie with Craig Fergusen on the Late, Late Show. They're both hilarious.


----------



## Levi (Dec 28, 2005)

> Levi if you care to go house to house in this entire country and collect everyone's guns, legal or illegal, I welcome your efforts. See you in 50 years, LOL.


I'm starting TOMORROW.....lolol. Make sure you have your tea ready!! LOL


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Dreamer said:


> Again, you are talking like a Fundamentalist Libertarian, essentially eliminating goverment. From what I know about that, it ain't going to fly.
> 
> Also, evolution of the human mind takes thousands upon thousands of years. Again, I can't stress that enough.


Yes, agree to disagree. I must explain that I do not think linearly and within the confines of 3D space-time. Of course you will think I'm insane and, well, I am. But that doesn't mean I'm not making a good point 

What I am saying is that our current systems do not work. At all. They are broken, flawed from the ground up. The evidence is all the problems you say existing. So when something doesn't work, do you patch it up with blue tack, or do you rip it down and build something new?

And about the evolution of consciousness taking thousands upon thousands of years - you are still thinking biologically. Again, we are now evolving epigenetically. That means it DOESN'T take thousands of years - it takes years, days, minutes. Look at known human histroy - the last 15,000 years. Culture, art, war, dance, politics - all of these things have evolved out of seemingly nowhere. And the rate at which these things evolves is speeding up! Its only a few hundred years since we even knew about the human mind, and now look at modern psychology. Its only a few hundred years since the invention of science, but look how rapidly our technology is improving. Case in point: The day after you walk out the door after buying a new computer, its obsolete.

Please, you make me sound like an idiot who has no idea how the world is outside my own comfortable existance. Which, by the way, may be comfortable in terms of modern western lifestyles but that doesn't mean its comfortable on other levels. I know damn well there's people dying in Africa due to AIDS, war, famine. I know there's kids being abducted from their villages, being taught how to kill and then being sent back to slaughter the rest of their village, including their parents. There is a lot of horrible stuff going on out there. But that doesn't mean we can't change. We HAVE to change, or we won't survive.

That is why I am optimistic. The alternative is to believe we are all going to hell in a hand basket. If we collectively all believe that, then that is what we create. And I for one don't want this planet and human civilisation to die out because we couldn't get our shit together. Just like I didn't want to kill myself because I couldn't get my shit together. I'd much rather stop and actually work out what's not working, then change that.

You seem to be confused by my ideas. I am not saying we shouldn't have trade, I'm not saying countries shouldn't interact with each other. What I AM saying is we don't need governments to do that. Or at least not in its current form. Our systems are currently based on greed - what we have is ours and you can't have it unless you have something we need. Well this is an archaic idea based on, you guessed it, the apparent need to horde resources. Once again I say that there's more than enough resources to go around and if we get our priorities right, we can change a lot of things. Once again I point to my example of not spending trillions of dollars a year on weapons and instead using that to feed, clothe and educate the whole world, which it would many times over. Who needs weapons when everyone in the world has all of their basic needs met? But of course governments won't do this, because they are stuck in the mind set of greed. Instead we try to feel good about ourselves by donating $20 to an African village. Sure it helps, but it doesn't solve any problems.

I am also saying that we could stand to make some huge changes in all of our lives. My life would change significantly as well and yes, I am a hypocrite for not having made these changes already - its something I'm working towards within myself right now. You accuse me of not knowing the complexities of commerce etc and yes, I would agree. That's because these are all systems I don't find necessary - I can see they are fundamentally flawed, so why keep building on them when they don't work? We don't need economies, we don't need national debt, credit cards or any of this shit.

But anyway, I know I'm not going to convince anyone and I know you aren't going to convince me. Food for thought I suppose.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I have been biting my lip, or my hand 8) to not type anything:

All I can say is there is no agreement here, and never will be:

Did you read about peaceful countries? Regardless of "government" they have leaders. You can't have a meeting without someone in charge of it. Who brings the doughnuts? Who brings the tea? OMG



> We HAVE to change, or we won't survive.


Cecil, this isn't what I'm saying?



> I'm not saying countries shouldn't interact with each other. What I AM saying is we don't need governments to do that. Or at least not in its current form.


Yup you are an Anarchist. Libertarian, and that is fine. But it is based on all individuals making decisions for themselves. No organized police for instance. Instead of government there is PURE capitalism and free enterprise. That is the opposite of government (well in a simplistic way, have to read about the 70 different versions of Libertarianism, sigh -- can't keep up!).

MORE government is (in order of power from above) Tyrant, Dictator, etc. Communism, Socialism, Social Democrat. A Republic (US -- meaning rejecting a monarchy and having LESS government intervention) is somewhat in between (with socialist aspects) and Libertarianism/Anarchy. Democrats like to spend MORE money (more government intervention), Republicans like to spend less (Bush is all backwards!). There are good qualities as I see it of mixing a bit of Socialism, Democracy, Republican views, and Libertarianism.

I take a bit of each of those. I'm overall conservative, not really of any particular party. I have voted both. My husband made a protest vote of Libertarian instead of Bush (so you could say he took away from Kerry, and yet voted for more of the type of governent YOU want).



> Instead we try to feel good about ourselves by donating $20 to an African village. Sure it helps, but it doesn't solve any problems.


*Thank you for that insult. Much appreciated. Question, if it cost money to keep the DP site up and running would you contribute or let it go? It is YOUR responsiblity to take care of things as an individual if there is no government help -- you just said that! If the government doesn't take care of things it is ALL up to the individual, i.e. no universal healthcare, no welfare, no social programs. That is the absense of govenrment. No military, no police, no traffic control, etc. Doesn't make sense to me. There has to be a degree of government control. Banking, law, etc. The court system. Medical care. No socialized medicine without pure government intervention. Pay as you go. Or purchase capitalist health insurance.*

I can't go to Africa or to Louisiana and help victims of strife. I gave enough to help one child get malaria medication. I don't expect to change the world, but I did SOMETHING. You note you have been lazy about your own ... I forget ... consumerism, lack of helping the environment by doing the simplest things. And then you attack me.



> We don't need economies, we don't need national debt, credit cards or any of this shit.


Well you obviously don't own a house. LOL. I don't, but my husband does. And we are not in credit card debt. That is a choice -- living beyond ones means. And national debt is not simply military. It is on social programs. *GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION DOMESTICALLY -- SOCIAL PROGRAMS, such as Bush's failed "No Child Left Behind", money thrown at various projects such as education, welfare, helping people get out of welfare, farm subsidizing sp?, helping with drug addiction, health issues, research, etc., ,etc., etc. National Debt can be accrued from all the things we need at HOME. Cleaning up disasters, like Hurrican Katrina. Which is a mess.*

You are talking about the US Military re: war mongering again I guess -- it is a portion of a HUGE budget we have. The money we spend on that. It is based on something we learned a long time ago, especially in dealing with the Soviet Union and with certain other countries as well. And hence the country has evoved with that mindset.

Was it Roosevelt or Churchill? ACH I always forget, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." I think it was Churchill! OMG, a Brit, one of your most respected leaders! :shock: I'll double check Having a strong DEFENSE is a deterent sp? to war ... (not to terrorism which again is our biggest concern -- that requires infiltrators, spies, which is insane, and not just here, everywhere).

*Did you also know that Stephen Hawkins sp? -- famous scientist with total paralysis beleives we need to find another planet as our home? He feels we have ruined this one.*

If we have DEFENSE we are less likely to be attacked. We played a game of chicken with the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Also with JFK in the Cuban Missle Crisis -- the closest we got to a nuclear war. Our strength drained the Soviet Union of all it's military bluffing. They ruined their economy with THEIR OFFENSIVE military spending -- the pollution in Russian is astounding. Chernobyl I believe will be habitable in about 500 YEARS. FIVE HUNDRED YEARS.

We took a gamble that our strenght would prevent retaliation and world catastrophe. If you want to talk about Pearl Harbor ... well Hell, just read about it.

*I haven't called you an idiot. I am just pointing out things you seem oblivious to. And please don't insult me. I gave a small amount of money to a much larger cause. The end result was millions of people gave a small amount of money and it added up to a huge amount.

Don't insult me for contributing to Mental Health causes. Don't insult me for contributing to my private school which saved my life. This isn't "feel good" ... this is to help, with genuine sincerity.*

OK, I'm going on vacation. A very bright person told me to give up on this and said person is correct.

*Truce is all I ask. And I ask you to read about the Peaceful communities that exist in the world today. They have their own version of "goverments" to one degree or another.*

Somehow I feel you feel that all people need to do is sit back and have a Corona and some peanuts and life will take care of itself.

*I am trying to help as I can. NOW. And I have been for many years. Being a volunteer for good causes means nothing either? My website for DPers is useless. My main cause is mental health education. So I'm doing that to "feel good"?

I give up.*

Off on vacation, i.e. taking a break from all of this.

Cheers,
D
*Levi, yes, we'll meet for tea
8) *

*Again, Let's Dance!* 8)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8KuLsZG ... ed&search= :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

"Big Stick Diplomacy or Big Stick Policy was the slogan describing U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt's corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.

The United States, he claimed, had the right not only to oppose *European intervention in the Western Hemisphere,* but also to intervene itself in the domestic affairs of its neighbors if they proved unable to maintain order and national sovereignty on their own.

Roosevelt first articulated this slogan at the Minnesota State Fair on September 2, 1901, twelve days before the assassination of President William McKinley, which subsequently thrust him into the Presidency.

*Roosevelt got the term from a West African proverb,"Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far". Roosevelt conducted an aggressive foreign policy using Big Stick Diplomacy. Through this policy, the United States became increasingly assertive in the early 1900s."*

So, yes we are war mongers, going from isolationism to intervention. Didn't start with Bush, started with Teddy Roosevelt @ 1900. Hmmm, 107 years ago. I certainly had a lot to do with that too. Oh wait, I wasn't born yet! Sorry. :?

*Cecil, the sad fact that we can't agree illustrates my point exactly. If you and I can't agree on some of the most basic historical/economic concepts, well you and I are already living in different tribes.

That doesen't make either of us more or less Evil, violent or corrupt. It means both of us must continue to learn, read, study, participate in change. I'm simply more of a cynic than you, for many reasons I've already explained.*

Let's Dance!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8KuLsZG ... ed&search=


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

OK, I'm starting to really get into political systems. Fascinating, save serial killer psychology, and Martin's connection to "The Other Side"

Again, a sample of governments in this world, and within them, various political philosophies as mentioned from Dictator to Libertarian and everything in between.

Very simplistic here ... more complicated than one could imagine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/find_ ... 151570.stm

*Anarchy
Capitalist
Communist
Democracy
Dictatorship
Federal government
Monarchy
Regional or local
Republic
Revolutionary government
Totalitarian state
Transitional*

*Anarchy* 
Anarchy is a situation where there is no government.
This can happen after a civil war in a country, when a government has been destroyed and rival groups are fighting to take its place.

*Anarchists are people who believe that government is a bad thing. They say it stops people organising their own lives.*

*Capitalist* 
In a capitalist or free-market country, people can own their own businesses and property.
People can also buy services for private use, such as healthcare.

But most capitalist governments also provide their own education, health and welfare services.

*Communist* 
In a communist country, the government owns things like businesses and farms.
It provides its people's healthcare, education and welfare.

*Democracy *
In a democracy, the government is elected by the people.
Everyone who is eligible to vote has a chance to have their say over who runs the country.

*Dictatorship* 
This is a country ruled by a single leader.
The leader has not been elected and may use force to keep control.

In a military dictatorship, the army is in control.

*Federal government* 
In this type of system, a central government shares power with a number of small local governments.
The USA is a type of this, called a federal republic

*Monarchy* 
A monarchy has a king or queen.
In some traditional monarchies, the monarch has absolute power.

But a constitutional monarchy, like the UK, also has a democratic government that limits the monarch's control.

*Regional or local* 
This is a government or council that controls a smaller area within a country.
Some local governments have very limited powers and are mainly controlled by the central government.
Others are powerful enough to make their own laws, like individual states in the USA.

*Republic* 
A republic is a country that has no monarch.
The head of the country is usually an elected president.

*Revolutionary government *
If a government is overthrown by force, the new ruling group is sometimes called a revolutionary government.

*Totalitarian state *
This is a country with only one political party.
People are forced to do what the government tells them and may also be prevented from leaving the country.

*Transitional* 
A country that is changing from one type of government to another has a transitional government.
For example, a dictatorship may turn into a democracy after the dictator dies.
The change between governments can take several years if not longer.
--------------------------------------------------
aneki.com <----- any statistic you wish

U.S.A. - Federal Republic; strong democratic tradition

Australia - Democratic, federal-state system recognizing the British monarch as sovereign

Canada - Confederation with parliamentary democracy

Saudi Arabia- Monarchy

Ireland - Republic

China - Communist state

Iran - Theocratic Republic (theocracy, government where leaders are considered DIVINELY inspired -- this is the danger here.)

Japan - Constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government

U.K. - Constitutional Monarchy

India - Federal Republic

Switzerland - Federal Republic

Russia - Federation

Iraq - Transitional/Anarchy in its truest form

The Netherlands - Constitutional monarchy

Ah, Cecil, I leave it to you to sort out the world. I'm lighting the little corner where I am with a candle and some scrap of hope.

Cheers.
D

Oh, also found out the definition of a "barrel roll", but I don't know if it's the same as the Brit definition which I still understand. It can mean when a fighter plane does a complete flip upside down and over, on purpose.

Yipes. :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

The final key question Cecil. Thought about this last night. Ooo, my visitor is coming this week and I'll be off the 'puter.

The Ultimate Question:
*I forgot what you do for a living.  If there is no money, how will you get paid to purchase the simplest goods and services, such as food, electricity, your cell phone, your computer connection, water (you live essentially in a big freakin' desert), and how will your country support itself? The animals survive better in the Outback than you could for 5 days.

I am very curious about your answer. Money is the easiest way to transmit work into purchasing power -- or you could barter. You work, and get a pig in return, from a farmer who has to trade You don't need most of the consumerist crap we have, including the computer you're using, a car, there won't be much public transportation, you'll need a horse or a kangaroo, LOL, sorry, but you need food, water, shelter, and indeed a job. Your job will probably be farming, surviving -- back to Nature. You will move backwards, to frontier days.

And the competition for resources will revert for competion, yes with violence.

I'll look for your answer in several weeks. I am really fascinated.

Cheers.
D*


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Oh, and how will you care for your horse, or kangaroo? LOL. Sorry. You actually need a camel.

God I'm a bitch at this point and admit it.
Forgive.
No more fighting here. Homeskooled was right. There should be support, ideas on how to solve these things. But there needs to be knowledge. History and philosophers have been working on these qustions since the ancient Greeks.

THEY used currency.

I'm stunned. :shock:


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Dreamer said:


> Yup you are an Anarchist. Libertarian, and that is fine.


You can label me whatever you want, its ok. But I don't think I fit any of those labels. I am and that's all I'll ever be.



> *Thank you for that insult. Much appreciated.*


*

Sorry about that, I got carried away. I do think its a good cause - my family also donates money to World Vision and it is a good example of people doing their little bit to help out. And you're right, it does add up.




Truce is all I ask.

Click to expand...



Sorry Dreamer, we always seem to butt heads over these things. Probably because we are both passionate about it. I don't mean to fight or insult you but I think I get too caught up in my rants sometimes.




Somehow I feel you feel that all people need to do is sit back and have a Corona and some peanuts and life will take care of itself.

Click to expand...

No, far from it. But I do think people in general (myself included) need to be more relaxed about how we live our lives. Living in a state of fear (Anxiety), whether on an individual, community or global scale is no good for anyone.




I am trying to help as I can. NOW. And I have been for many years. Being a volunteer for good causes means nothing either? My website for DPers is useless. My main cause is mental health education. So I'm doing that to "feel good"?

Click to expand...



No, those are all excellent causes. Well done for putting yourself out there and making a difference 




The Ultimate Question: 
I forgot what you do for a living. If there is no money, how will you get paid to purchase the simplest goods and services, such as food, electricity, your cell phone, your computer connection, water (you live essentially in a big freakin' desert), and how will your country support itself? The animals survive better in the Outback than you could for 5 days.

Click to expand...

Right now I am training to be a Youth Worker, but I'm not planning to stay in the job for long. Before that I got a degree in Biology but I decided not to use it. As strange as it sounds, money isn't important to me. Or rather is just a means to an end rather than an end in itself. If I wanted to I could be pulling down a decent salary right now, but I made a choice and am following a different path. Perhaps I am just immature and some day I'll "snap out of it". Or perhaps I am just different.

In answer to your question - I don't know yet. I have an idea, that's all. Right now there's a massive discrepancy between my idea and what I see in the world. Some people may say I'm simply avoiding accepting reality or that I am being unrealistic. But if I've learned anything over the last few years, its that if you don't like the reality you live in then you can change it. If I hadn't changed my reality in the last few years, I'd be dead right now. That's how much I believe this.

So I am left with a simple choice: Give in to the horrible things around me, lay down and die. Or change myself and in doing so change the world. I choose to live!

As much as our ideas on how to get there differ Dreamer I still think we have similar hopes for the world. You say you are a cynic, but you wouldn't be doing the positive things you are doing if you didn't see some light at the end of the tunnel 




Off on vacation, i.e. taking a break from all of this.

Click to expand...

Hope you enjoy yourself and sorry to get you so worked up *


----------

