The Cellar - View Single Post - Seems somebody at the Miami Herald wants you dead

theirontower · 10-24-2006, 05:36 PM

As a lurker on the boards I usually just read the stuff the flows across, but I felt compelled to post on this, it seems that most people are arguing over things that don't really have much to do with the issue. I am not a champion speller, I am very well read and an internatioanal parli debater, so hopefully people can focus on the ideas rather than the literal verbage. Please understand that when I ask a question I never mean it rhetoricaly or in a sarcastic manner, I really do want to hear what people think about this. I have for months enjoyed reading the threads here, thank you for that =D

A little history to explain the perspective: I grew up in a very poor, rural area in California. Being in California, poor and rural are relative for most, but I grew up on a farm, not a rich farm, a working farm, where as an 8 year old I got up in the middle of the night to fix irrigation ditches breaking down from time to time. I grew up with mostly mexican kids (who see the word Hispanic as an insult, a nod to the spanish conquistadors.) Real mexicans whose fathers taught them concepts like machismo and honor, kdis that would get pissed if you called em a wetback, because most likely they did swim over. I bring this up because more and more I realize that the world at large does not value things like honor anymore, so maybe I grew up in a different environment than is the norm. We learned to take a whuppin and give one, you don't go for a knife or a gun, if you got a problem you take it out mano e mano if you can't talk your way through it. I never had to worry about getting jumped by 8 guys, or stabbed, or shot. We had plenty of guns around, it just wasn't even an idea that you would use a gun to solve a problem with another person. My family are all white christian cowboys, while I may be the black sheep in the family, we found alot of common ground with the people we worked with, we all fought for our honor and are great friends, even greater enemies. Looking back at it I can say I didn't grow up the california norm, but who does?

Thats not true anymore though.

Most of this thread has centered around school based gun violence. Both that caused by students and by adults not involved with the school. As far as the students go, my perception is that most of these kids are either A. afraid to take a whuppin or B. afraid they will get jumped/stabbed/shot if they try to deal with the issue mano e mano. But understand, that to fall into either of those categories, you must have already decided that violence is the answer to your problem. The thought process does not instantly devolve to gun = kill. First you have to decide upon that method as resolution. After that, you begin to take stock in your resources. Even if that thought process takes less than a second, it happens in that order, probably not with conscious thought all the time. Can I fight fairly? Will that solve the problem? Will I have to worry about vengence? There is no reason to consider the gun as an answer until you have already decided that other answers will not resolve your issue, so the gunis all that is left. Fear takes over.

So this is my question to the people in the thread talking about guns being a direct reason for violence. This is not rhetorical, nor sarcastic. Do you think that violent crimes would have have occured if guns were not available? Do you think that if they had not had the access to firearms that they wouldn't have gone to a knife? Or somthing else?

There is a broader issue occuring that EVERYONE in this thread agress on, but maybe it takes someone else to point it out.

Our world has become more violent, and that violence is intruding upon areas of our lives that we traditionaly have not had to relate to violence. (I say we in general, there are large portions of the world that do or do not have the problem in the same proportion that we do.)

Some people in the thread have accused others have having a wild west attitude. If you look at that period in history, many many people died of gun violence. But was it in schools? Were children performing these acts, and were schools the target they have become then? If not, then why not? There was just as much lawless activity and viciousness, if not more, with more firearms readily acessible and accepted publicly.

The truth of the matter is that the world is evolving, AS USUAL. At one time statistics told people that fighting back against a rapist, or home assalt, or classroom assault, would get more people killed, as the people doing those crimes were not as likely to kill the victim. That is no longer true though, rapists and child molesters are much more likely to do away with the victim when they are done rather than run the very real risk of being caught. That has changed the paradigm under which "victims" may respond. Today, if an armed gunman takes overa school campus, it is not very likely that a student will not get shot, that people will not die. I lived though the Stockton Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_Massacre), my girlfriend in highschool was a very good friend of some of the cambodian girls that were killed, she still remembers what happened. That guy decided before he showed up at that school that people were going to die. As a result of that, semi-automatic assault weapons were debated and then a federal law was put into place to try and stop these kinds of things from happening. As a gun owner and hunter, I was very happy for that, I have no problem not owning semi-automatic weapons, just have to be a better shot.

Sorry for the long post

Look at what happened at Beslen! Had the teachers been armed, had they fought back against the intruders, they would never have had the chance to work explosives into the scenario. Even if some children were hurt doing this, wouldnt some be better than 186? On the other hand, they had alot of problems with local parents showing up armed, they finally had so many of them that at one point there were reports coming out indicating that they had to include them in the police work, had to organize and utilize them to get them outta the way. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_massacre)

What Im really saying here folks, is that there is NO one answer for a situation like this. Saying that situation X will best be solved by Answer Y because that worked last time, or the opposite, situation X will not be solved by Answer Y because that didnt work last time, is a verifiable and defined fallacy of logic. Logic dictates that each situation be evaluated and analyzed on its own, we can apply the lessons history has taught us, but not in a rote manner, always with reason and analysis. At times force will be the only means of saving our childrens lives, at times we will be able to find other means of resolution. At times its appropriate to gather all the kids into a fortress of a classroom and lock themselves in to prevent some madman with an AK from shooting them, at other times that same action will provide the attacker with a defendable base and hostages, with time for explosives. Prioviding an easily defensible area may not be the a good thing when taken with things like Beslan in mind, or take a step back farther and see the power a few people can wield in a small defensible arena. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae)

How to tell ahead of time?

Steve

PS I know that there are statistics that would support every viewpoint in the world, so please refrain from them, unless you can give the statistic for every variable, which we know isn't possible. Logic and reason are the flavor of the day.

10-24-2006, 05:36 PM	#81
theirontower Fellow-Commoner Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10	As a lurker on the boards I usually just read the stuff the flows across, but I felt compelled to post on this, it seems that most people are arguing over things that don't really have much to do with the issue. I am not a champion speller, I am very well read and an internatioanal parli debater, so hopefully people can focus on the ideas rather than the literal verbage. Please understand that when I ask a question I never mean it rhetoricaly or in a sarcastic manner, I really do want to hear what people think about this. I have for months enjoyed reading the threads here, thank you for that =D A little history to explain the perspective: I grew up in a very poor, rural area in California. Being in California, poor and rural are relative for most, but I grew up on a farm, not a rich farm, a working farm, where as an 8 year old I got up in the middle of the night to fix irrigation ditches breaking down from time to time. I grew up with mostly mexican kids (who see the word Hispanic as an insult, a nod to the spanish conquistadors.) Real mexicans whose fathers taught them concepts like machismo and honor, kdis that would get pissed if you called em a wetback, because most likely they did swim over. I bring this up because more and more I realize that the world at large does not value things like honor anymore, so maybe I grew up in a different environment than is the norm. We learned to take a whuppin and give one, you don't go for a knife or a gun, if you got a problem you take it out mano e mano if you can't talk your way through it. I never had to worry about getting jumped by 8 guys, or stabbed, or shot. We had plenty of guns around, it just wasn't even an idea that you would use a gun to solve a problem with another person. My family are all white christian cowboys, while I may be the black sheep in the family, we found alot of common ground with the people we worked with, we all fought for our honor and are great friends, even greater enemies. Looking back at it I can say I didn't grow up the california norm, but who does? Thats not true anymore though. Most of this thread has centered around school based gun violence. Both that caused by students and by adults not involved with the school. As far as the students go, my perception is that most of these kids are either A. afraid to take a whuppin or B. afraid they will get jumped/stabbed/shot if they try to deal with the issue mano e mano. But understand, that to fall into either of those categories, you must have already decided that violence is the answer to your problem. The thought process does not instantly devolve to gun = kill. First you have to decide upon that method as resolution. After that, you begin to take stock in your resources. Even if that thought process takes less than a second, it happens in that order, probably not with conscious thought all the time. Can I fight fairly? Will that solve the problem? Will I have to worry about vengence? There is no reason to consider the gun as an answer until you have already decided that other answers will not resolve your issue, so the gunis all that is left. Fear takes over. So this is my question to the people in the thread talking about guns being a direct reason for violence. This is not rhetorical, nor sarcastic. Do you think that violent crimes would have have occured if guns were not available? Do you think that if they had not had the access to firearms that they wouldn't have gone to a knife? Or somthing else? There is a broader issue occuring that EVERYONE in this thread agress on, but maybe it takes someone else to point it out. Our world has become more violent, and that violence is intruding upon areas of our lives that we traditionaly have not had to relate to violence. (I say we in general, there are large portions of the world that do or do not have the problem in the same proportion that we do.) Some people in the thread have accused others have having a wild west attitude. If you look at that period in history, many many people died of gun violence. But was it in schools? Were children performing these acts, and were schools the target they have become then? If not, then why not? There was just as much lawless activity and viciousness, if not more, with more firearms readily acessible and accepted publicly. The truth of the matter is that the world is evolving, AS USUAL. At one time statistics told people that fighting back against a rapist, or home assalt, or classroom assault, would get more people killed, as the people doing those crimes were not as likely to kill the victim. That is no longer true though, rapists and child molesters are much more likely to do away with the victim when they are done rather than run the very real risk of being caught. That has changed the paradigm under which "victims" may respond. Today, if an armed gunman takes overa school campus, it is not very likely that a student will not get shot, that people will not die. I lived though the Stockton Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_Massacre), my girlfriend in highschool was a very good friend of some of the cambodian girls that were killed, she still remembers what happened. That guy decided before he showed up at that school that people were going to die. As a result of that, semi-automatic assault weapons were debated and then a federal law was put into place to try and stop these kinds of things from happening. As a gun owner and hunter, I was very happy for that, I have no problem not owning semi-automatic weapons, just have to be a better shot. Sorry for the long post Look at what happened at Beslen! Had the teachers been armed, had they fought back against the intruders, they would never have had the chance to work explosives into the scenario. Even if some children were hurt doing this, wouldnt some be better than 186? On the other hand, they had alot of problems with local parents showing up armed, they finally had so many of them that at one point there were reports coming out indicating that they had to include them in the police work, had to organize and utilize them to get them outta the way. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_massacre) What Im really saying here folks, is that there is NO one answer for a situation like this. Saying that situation X will best be solved by Answer Y because that worked last time, or the opposite, situation X will not be solved by Answer Y because that didnt work last time, is a verifiable and defined fallacy of logic. Logic dictates that each situation be evaluated and analyzed on its own, we can apply the lessons history has taught us, but not in a rote manner, always with reason and analysis. At times force will be the only means of saving our childrens lives, at times we will be able to find other means of resolution. At times its appropriate to gather all the kids into a fortress of a classroom and lock themselves in to prevent some madman with an AK from shooting them, at other times that same action will provide the attacker with a defendable base and hostages, with time for explosives. Prioviding an easily defensible area may not be the a good thing when taken with things like Beslan in mind, or take a step back farther and see the power a few people can wield in a small defensible arena. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae) How to tell ahead of time? Steve PS I know that there are statistics that would support every viewpoint in the world, so please refrain from them, unless you can give the statistic for every variable, which we know isn't possible. Logic and reason are the flavor of the day. Last edited by theirontower; 10-24-2006 at 05:41 PM.