Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Heroin nods.
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
mr self distrukt



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 1249
Location: a crew called self
 Reply with quote  

bowling for columbine wasn't about gun control.
Post Tue Nov 26, 2002 11:23 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

I didn't claim it was. I used that to show that gun violence was at epidemic proportions.
Post Tue Nov 26, 2002 11:25 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

Reggie wrote:
I just did a quick search, and couldn't find anything, but that series a few years back about the Iran-Contra dealings with L.A. Gangs was all about that. Also, I can say for a fact that Desert Eagle firearms, only avaiable to the military and created for Desert Storm, were available to friends of mine the minute they were finished. Another friend of mine got all of his weapons through a military contact. Barring this evidence, your contention that street guns are just wayward legally purchased guns is laughable...or you don't really know how many illegal guns there are out there.


I'm quite positive that most guns did NOT come through military stockpiles.
Could you elaborate on how this system works? I've never even heard this before.
Post Tue Nov 26, 2002 11:26 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

Reggie wrote:


I have to disagree with this. Why all of these crazy kids, all of a sudden? Guns have been around for centuries, school popularity chastes and hazing have been around even longer. But the stakes have been raised, things are more brutal than ever. The backlash is equally brutal.

How do you determine which kids are crazy?



We lived in a different culture. Kids would NEVER use guns against classmates in the past, because kids would be afraid to take said guns from their parents. We live in a different culture. Times have changed. To suggest that Columbine happened because of some high school hierarchy bullshit is totally wrong, and it almost excuses what the kids actually did.
They should not have had access to guns. Period.
Post Tue Nov 26, 2002 11:28 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Reggie



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 5765
Location: Queens, NYC
 Reply with quote  

djdee2005 wrote:
I'm quite positive that most guns did NOT come through military stockpiles.
Could you elaborate on how this system works? I've never even heard this before.


Ice-T spoke on this as early as 1985, that freight cars loaded with guns would come through South Central and gang members would basically get their pick. I mean, the gun of choice on the streets of LA during the 80's was the AK-47...a gun you can't even get in the average rifle store and which is really hard to get even as a collector. I wish I had a whole lot of written substantiation, but I don't, I just know what I know from experience. Much of what I have seen and heard and experienced involving illegal guns you won't see written about on the internet, anyway. But that article last Spring or the one before about the CIA trading drugs on the streets of L.A. for guns that were shipped to Nicaragua was very illuminating about this corruption, I wish someone could chime in and provide a link to it. It was written for the SF Chronicle, I believe.

I'm not really into discussing this issue. The oblique idea of "gun control" is meaningless to me. Sure, if the shooters at Columbine did not have guns they could not have shot up their schools. But what caused them to do it in the first place? How can it be prevented in the future? You're talking about taking away the guns, but that's just treating the symptoms of a much larger disease: an increasingly brutal culture. But you disagree, and there it is.
Post Tue Nov 26, 2002 11:45 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
scott



Joined: 04 Jul 2002
Posts: 808
Location: Rochester New York
 Reply with quote  

Reggie wrote:
djdee2005 wrote:
I'm quite positive that most guns did NOT come through military stockpiles.
Could you elaborate on how this system works? I've never even heard this before.


Ice-T spoke on this as early as 1985, that freight cars loaded with guns would come through South Central and gang members would basically get their pick. I mean, the gun of choice on the streets of LA during the 80's was the AK-47...a gun you can't even get in the average rifle store and which is really hard to get even as a collector. I wish I had a whole lot of written substantiation, but I don't, I just know what I know from experience. Much of what I have seen and heard and experienced involving illegal guns you won't see written about on the internet, anyway. But that article last Spring or the one before about the CIA trading drugs on the streets of L.A. for guns that were shipped to Nicaragua was very illuminating about this corruption, I wish someone could chime in and provide a link to it. It was written for the SF Chronicle, I believe.

I'm not really into discussing this issue. The oblique idea of "gun control" is meaningless to me. Sure, if the shooters at Columbine did not have guns they could not have shot up their schools. But what caused them to do it in the first place? How can it be prevented in the future? You're talking about taking away the guns, but that's just treating the symptoms of a much larger disease: an increasingly brutal culture. But you disagree, and there it is.


i think your wrong here, im pretty sure the gun of choice in the 80s was the mac 10 because its small, lightweight and automatic, you cant really conceal a ak47 and its REALLY loud.
Post Tue Nov 26, 2002 12:09 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

guns aren't the problem--I thought bowling for columbine made that really clear. Because the canadians have as many guns as we do, but they don't have near as many gun-related deaths. The diffrence it seems to me, is a culture of fear. And I think that's what Moore was getting at. This is not a problem that can be treated just by taking people's guns away. And anyways, there are a lot of other problems that arise from this fear, which is also part of ignorance.

The answer is probably some sort of media control. As bad as that sounds, the problem is the 24-hour news channels having to fill time and sensationalize and get ratings and scare the pants off of people. The answer is probably to find some way to take the emphasis of ratings out of news. News shouldn't be about making a profit, making some fat cat television exec a little richer--it should be about informing the public of the facts, of important matters, in an unbiased way. There's too many filters and contortions on the news.

And does anyone want to tell me how we can have 24 hour news networks, but never hear about anything from africa--just little blurbs every few months about people starving and dying--but no actual news about it.

anyhow, that's my take on Bowling for Columbine, and gun control. This thread really blew up.
Post Tue Nov 26, 2002 12:53 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

Reggie wrote:
djdee2005 wrote:
I'm quite positive that most guns did NOT come through military stockpiles.
Could you elaborate on how this system works? I've never even heard this before.


Ice-T spoke on this as early as 1985, that freight cars loaded with guns would come through South Central and gang members would basically get their pick. I mean, the gun of choice on the streets of LA during the 80's was the AK-47...a gun you can't even get in the average rifle store and which is really hard to get even as a collector. I wish I had a whole lot of written substantiation, but I don't, I just know what I know from experience. Much of what I have seen and heard and experienced involving illegal guns you won't see written about on the internet, anyway. But that article last Spring or the one before about the CIA trading drugs on the streets of L.A. for guns that were shipped to Nicaragua was very illuminating about this corruption, I wish someone could chime in and provide a link to it. It was written for the SF Chronicle, I believe.



The gentleman that blew the whistle on this whole thing (CIA trading guns/drugs, etc., to inner city gangs) has a website at www.copvcia.com - unfortunately he charges a premium to get into the site, but if you do a search for his name (escapes me at this second) I'm sure you'll see some info on the whole fiasco.

Peace,
Shane
Post Tue Nov 26, 2002 1:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

OK, first off, I'm not saying that guns are what is CAUSING people to want to kill. But guns are ENABLING them to kill with more efficiency and ruthlessness. Tell the parents of one of the dead columbine students that its ok that guns are so available, because the army could suddenly try to make the United States a police state. Guns are enabling crazy people to kill MORE people than they would if it was harder to gain access to guns.

And fine, in South Central LA the guns came from military stockpiles...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But its certainly not that way across the country... 9mms are available through an underground trade that is possible because of the availability of guns throughout this country. Because of their legality. I don't say that the reason we are more violent than other "1st world" countries is because we have more guns, but it certainly ENABLES our violent tendencies to become more lethal.
Post Tue Nov 26, 2002 2:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

djdee2005 wrote:
OK, first off, I'm not saying that guns are what is CAUSING people to want to kill. But guns are ENABLING them to kill with more efficiency and ruthlessness. Tell the parents of one of the dead columbine students that its ok that guns are so available, because the army could suddenly try to make the United States a police state. Guns are enabling crazy people to kill MORE people than they would if it was harder to gain access to guns.

And fine, in South Central LA the guns came from military stockpiles...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But its certainly not that way across the country... 9mms are available through an underground trade that is possible because of the availability of guns throughout this country. Because of their legality. I don't say that the reason we are more violent than other "1st world" countries is because we have more guns, but it certainly ENABLES our violent tendencies to become more lethal.


Right. They do enable us to kill...I'd except that as an axiom.

So do steak knives, water, rope, CARS (!!! They kill more people than guns), karate (outlaw it, QUICK!), planes (I don't know a 9mm that can kill 200 people in one shot...), etc. I don't have to tell you where I'm going with this...

Didn't you say you treasured individual freedoms? Stealing (mp3's) is breaking a law, but if people try and actually enforce it you get upset (and rightfully so, I might add...you brought up a good privacy issue in that post). So are we to assume that, with you, "personal freedom" and "privacy" refers only to protecting yourself from being caught stealing and not for people who would like to, legally and benignly, own a gun?

Is it not an invasion of my privacy to ask what I own!?!? Is it not an invasion of my personal freedom to tell me that I can NOT own a gun?

Or is "personal freedom" the kind of thing that you can only have in moderation...like heroin. ;-)

Peace,
Shane
Post Tue Nov 26, 2002 4:20 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:


Right. They do enable us to kill...I'd except that as an axiom.

So do steak knives, water, rope, CARS (!!! They kill more people than guns), karate (outlaw it, QUICK!), planes (I don't know a 9mm that can kill 200 people in one shot...), etc. I don't have to tell you where I'm going with this...


I disagree. Guns enable people to kill MORE people, and more EFFIFICANTLY. If the DC sniper was a karate expert, or he had a kitchen knife, he would hardly have killed as many people, nor would he have been as hard to catch. Also a good chance that most of his victims wouldn't be as seriously injured. There is a world of difference between knives, cars, rope, and karate abilities, and guns. Guns are much more dangerous. And aside from cars, they cause many more deaths in this country. If guns were completely illegalized (Which, again, I do not advocate) you cannot truly deny that the number of murders per year would go down, easily.


MessiahCarey wrote:


Didn't you say you treasured individual freedoms? Stealing (mp3's) is breaking a law, but if people try and actually enforce it you get upset (and rightfully so, I might add...you brought up a good privacy issue in that post). So are we to assume that, with you, "personal freedom" and "privacy" refers only to protecting yourself from being caught stealing and not for people who would like to, legally and benignly, own a gun?

Is it not an invasion of my privacy to ask what I own!?!? Is it not an invasion of my personal freedom to tell me that I can NOT own a gun?

Or is "personal freedom" the kind of thing that you can only have in moderation...like heroin. ;-)

Peace,
Shane



Well, in that case, why don't we let you own a nuclear missile? I mean, who are we to violate your privacy?

The answer is that you have to draw a line somewhere. I draw it where the lives of other people are at stake. You are more likely to kill a relative than a home invader when you own a gun.
THere are plenty of people who died who would be alive today if guns were illegal. They would not have all been stabbed or hit by cars.
Post Wed Nov 27, 2002 12:45 am
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

djdee2005 wrote:

I disagree. Guns enable people to kill MORE people, and more EFFIFICANTLY. If the DC sniper was a karate expert, or he had a kitchen knife, he would hardly have killed as many people, nor would he have been as hard to catch. Also a good chance that most of his victims wouldn't be as seriously injured. There is a world of difference between knives, cars, rope, and karate abilities, and guns. Guns are much more dangerous. And aside from cars, they cause many more deaths in this country. If guns were completely illegalized (Which, again, I do not advocate) you cannot truly deny that the number of murders per year would go down, easily.



If you cannot buy guns, people will make them themselves. They won't be very safe and will kill even MORE people. I know that the concept of a "safe gun" seems strange, but bear with me. Heh.

djdee2005 wrote:


Well, in that case, why don't we let you own a nuclear missile? I mean, who are we to violate your privacy?

The answer is that you have to draw a line somewhere. I draw it where the lives of other people are at stake. You are more likely to kill a relative than a home invader when you own a gun.
THere are plenty of people who died who would be alive today if guns were illegal. They would not have all been stabbed or hit by cars.


What I am saying is that the line IS drawn using PRACTICALITY.

Basically - where the fuck does the average citizen cop a nuclear weapon?

But let's progress this to the next step. What exactly is it that you want to DO regarding "gun control" that isn't already done in most states? I'm curious what kind of legislation you're pushing for, so hit me back with a quick outline of sorts.

Peace,
Shane
Post Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:53 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
weedy420
Guest




 Reply with quote  

anything is considered bad if its in the wrong hands. but how is heroin good. its like saying coke and lsd and x and weed is good. i love pot, im a total burnout and i hate the fact that i am. the only people that say a drug is good for them is the people that are addicted to it. But i cant ignore terminally ill patients rights to stuff like that, but to say its not bad is a total joke.
Post Wed Nov 27, 2002 4:45 pm
 
Petrouchka Rasputin



Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 852
 Reply with quote  

Shane, I agree with everything you've said. I'm glad to be reading something supporting what I think but am unable to articulate so well.


np: Pip Skid - Gun Control
Post Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:12 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

I am NOT advocating a total change, shane....obviously I'm glad that there are certain measures of gun control. But there are FAR too many loopholes...and what is the point of automatic weapons being available? I am COMPLETELY against the sale of automatic weapons in this country as well.
And in addition, you are aware that a majority of states in this country have legalized concealed handguns? Yet another law that I find completely ridiculous....

Bottom line for me: If there was more control, less people would be dead. I don't care what your moral/ethical objection to gun control is, for me, any moral and ethical issues with it are far outweighed by the moral and ethical issue of 11,000+ deaths a year in this country by guns.
Post Sun Dec 01, 2002 1:19 am
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Thu Oct 23, 2014 6:00 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon