What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Columbine father

Re: Columbine father

Tweedle Dee said:
Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early do.
Click to expand...

PETER

Anne wants me to go. She thinks it might help. Y'know, sometimes I just think... I keep thinking that she's cheating on me.



MICHAEL

Yeah. I know what you mean.



SAMIR

Yes.



PETER

What's that supposed to mean?
 
Re: Columbine father

FreshFish said:
Guns don't kill people *, bullets fired from guns kill people.





* unless used to cause fatal blunt-force trauma
Click to expand...

"We don't need gun control. What we need is some BULLET control." -Chris Rock


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OuX-nFmL0II" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Re: Columbine father

Old Pio said:
Be specific please, what is the antecedant of "it?" And what is it about "it" that makes you think it would have stopped Klebold and Harris?
Click to expand...

I don't know. What law would prevent every auto fatality? If the burden for each law is that it must prevent every possible negative event, we wouldn't have any. Murder is against the law and it still happens. I don't see a whole lot of 'let's legalize murder" campaigns out there but I do see efforts to reduce them whether it is restraining orders against crazy boyfriends or body armor for cops. Neither ensures the safety of every girlfriend or policeman, but I still support the effort.

If you are saying there isn't one thing that could be done to reduce gun fatalities then take that position.
 
Re: Columbine father

pirate said:
a very complicated issue and we certainly all won't have the same opinion...but if we are a country that requires all school buses to stop at RR crossings, all extension cords to be tested at UL, expiration dates on milk, cancer warnings on cigarettes etc couldn't we become a little more conservative on the purchase of weapons (especially automatic assault rifles) without throwing the constitution out the window? Is it really the current situation or elimination of the 2nd A? Those are the only two stations on this dial?

..... nobody has convinced me it isn't worth the effort to try to reduce gun violence.

And no, I wouldn't rather have my head beaten in by a Louisville Slugger, but when was the last time a 4 year old across the street was killed in a drive-by knife fight?
Click to expand...

One interesting phenomenon that complicates the conversation is what the linguist Fernando Flores would call a "mismatch in their 'background of obviousness.'"

Two major factions don't even seem to realize that the term "gun" appies subconsciously to very different machinery used by very different people in very different contexts. I've been lucky to live in both worlds.

Part I

To many people, "gun" ="hunting rifle." Everyone learns to use one safely and respectfully as part of their practical childhood education, usually after learning to ride a bicycle and before learning to drive a car. We went to a father/son night at a local rec center and one of the activities was to shoot targets together in the shooting range in the basement. Hunting is essential to a sound, well-balanced natural eco-system; because there are no natural predators, ungulate populations can over-breed and over-graze and then suffer mass starvation (very unhealthy as the decay from dead bodies washes into streams). The State Dept of Game Mgmt will take a census in the spring and determine how many hunting permits to issue in the fall. Most people tend follow the rules safely, and generally the deer, elk, and moose will become many servings of food which will significantly supplement a generally lower-middle class existence.

The image of "gun" evokes all the positive associations that accompany the image of "hunting rifle."

In addition, law enforcement resources might be scarce, and threats to self and flock might also come from bear or coyote. Hunting rifles are a potent protective force as well.

To many other people, "gun" = "handgun", frequently used in the commission of a crime, often the source of random harm to innocent people, something primarily used to threaten and intimidate and kill other people. Who would not want to limit that??
 
Re: Columbine father

pirate said:
I don't know. What law would prevent every auto fatality? If the burden for each law is that it must prevent every possible negative event, we wouldn't have any. Murder is against the law and it still happens. I don't see a whole lot of 'let's legalize murder" campaigns out there but I do see efforts to reduce them whether it is restraining orders against crazy boyfriends or body armor for cops. Neither ensures the safety of every girlfriend or policeman, but I still support the effort.

If you are saying there isn't one thing that could be done to reduce gun fatalities then take that position.
Click to expand...

You have suggested "we should do something" to ameliorate the problem of gun violence (especially in schools). And suggested there is something (or perhaps several somethings) we can to to achieve that goal. And I have asked you to be specific. And you have punted. Providing instead the useless and irrelevant "we can't guarantee 100% success argument." I ask again, what are you talking about? Surely you must have something in mind. And since this thread is about Columbine, why not provide an answer that would have eliminated or even reduced the liklihood of that outrage.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbine father

Old Pio said:
You have suggested "we should do something" to ameliorate the problem of gun violence (especially in schools). And suggested there is something (or perhaps several somethings) we can to to achieve that goal. And I have asked you to be specific. And you have punted. Providing instead the useless and irrelevant "we can't guarantee 100% success argument." I ask again, what are you talking about? Surely you must have something in mind. And since this thread is about Columbine, why not provide an answer that would have eliminated or even reduced the liklihood of that outrage.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that Pirate was asking a question: "what can we do?" If that is the case, then he is suggesting he doesn't know the answer and so asking him for "specifics" is a bit of a non sequiter.

A challenge for an empiricist is when one looks at the data and finds a data-driven idea, it often is counter-intuitive.* For example, while anecdotal, the data with which I am familiar would suggest that, to reduce problems with gun violence in our society, gun safety classes and gun training classes would be part of the elementary school curriculum. That suggestion, absent proper context, would drive quite a few people bonkers, no matter how worthy an idea it might be.



For those demanding a quick fix, it wouldn't work in the cities for about ten years, and it is already working quite well elsewhere.




* a simplistic example: I've found that, when a door or a window is stuck, often a good way to get it to move is first to move it in the opposite direction from which you want it to go. Can't get the window down? try pushing it up first and then pulling it down again.
 
Re: Columbine father

mookie, what have you done?

This all reminds me, I need to buy more guns.

edit: also, arm the teachers.
 
Re: Columbine father

OP - I didn't say especially in schools, I didn't say we could prevent things that have already happened and I didn't say I had the answer to make sure this never happened again.

Great tactic though, demand THE ANSWER to complicated social problems.

I started by saying we all couldn't have the same view, if yours is different, I respect that...but you are taking more issue with my suggestion that there could be ways to make progress than taking a stand of your own.

You lack transparency in your desire to start internet fights. So, go find a newbie that doesn't know the 1-2-3 of how Old Pio goads people into mindless message board arguing.

Good day sir.
 
Re: Columbine father

pirate said:
OP - I didn't say especially in schools, I didn't say we could prevent things that have already happened and I didn't say I had the answer to make sure this never happened again.

Great tactic though, demand THE ANSWER to complicated social problems.

I started by saying we all couldn't have the same view, if yours is different, I respect that...but you are taking more issue with my suggestion that there could be ways to make progress than taking a stand of your own.

You lack transparency in your desire to start internet fights. So, go find a newbie that doesn't know the 1-2-3 of how Old Pio goads people into mindless message board arguing.

Good day sir.
Click to expand...

This is a thread about Columbine. A school shooting. Remember? It was in all the papers. And you have suggested there are remedies to this problem. And I have politely asked you a couple of times to be more specific. Rather than providing specifics, you claim you can't or won't because of my reputation, or something.

And your argument consists of such incomprehensible phrases as "you lack transparency in your desire to start internet fights." Doesn't that "lack of transparency" mean it is more, rather than less likely you'll fall for my "tricks?" Or "I didn't say we could prevent things that have already happened." Really? Calling H.G. Wells! You call it "mindless message board arguing," I call it having a lively discussion. I guess it depends on your perspective. Maybe if I would just agree with you.

My view is that school shootings are so rare that there is nothing out there (in terms of new laws) remotely cost effective, that could materially reduce the likelihood of these events.

If you don't have specific answers in mind, why not just say so? I haven't "demanded" anything. I've asked you what you're talking about. I have said I could support any law which would have a reasonable chance of reducing the liklihood of school shootings. But more gun control legislation per se is not an answer to this problem, imo.

I think you're acting like a five year old. The slighted challenge to your views, implied or expressed, sets you off, and you run to your room and slam the door. Very well. But whatever my repuation is, I wouldn't exchange it for the reputation of being so intellectually light weight that I run from a discussion of my glittering generalities.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbine father

pirate said:
OP - I didn't say especially in schools, I didn't say we could prevent things that have already happened and I didn't say I had the answer to make sure this never happened again.

Great tactic though, demand THE ANSWER to complicated social problems.

I started by saying we all couldn't have the same view, if yours is different, I respect that...but you are taking more issue with my suggestion that there could be ways to make progress than taking a stand of your own.

You lack transparency in your desire to start internet fights. So, go find a newbie that doesn't know the 1-2-3 of how Old Pio goads people into mindless message board arguing.

Good day sir.
Click to expand...
The bolded portion is the key point to this post.
 
Re: Columbine father

FreshFish said:
Seems to me that Pirate was asking a question: "what can we do?" If that is the case, then he is suggesting he doesn't know the answer and so asking him for "specifics" is a bit of a non sequiter.

A challenge for an empiricist is when one looks at the data and finds a data-driven idea, it often is counter-intuitive.* For example, while anecdotal, the data with which I am familiar would suggest that, to reduce problems with gun violence in our society, gun safety classes and gun training classes would be part of the elementary school curriculum. That suggestion, absent proper context, would drive quite a few people bonkers, no matter how worthy an idea it might be.



For those demanding a quick fix, it wouldn't work in the cities for about ten years, and it is already working quite well elsewhere.




* a simplistic example: I've found that, when a door or a window is stuck, often a good way to get it to move is first to move it in the opposite direction from which you want it to go. Can't get the window down? try pushing it up first and then pulling it down again.
Click to expand...

You're darn tootin' the "evidence" is annecdotal. And boy howdy it's counter intuitive. That is, if you're talking about bringing guns and instructors into public schools. Giving Klebold and Harris "Eddie Eagle" instructions in middle school strikes me as totally unlikely to change their future behavior. In fact, you could plausibly argue that familiarizing those little psychopaths with weapons would increase rather than decrease the likelihood of gun violence.

Just a few days ago in Detroit, a squabble about seating arrangements at a baby shower led someone to "air out" the baby's residence. 30 or 40 shots fired. And the infant was killed. How can any form of "safety instruction" be realistically expected to alter the behavior of such urban animals?
 
Re: Columbine father

Old Pio said:
You're darn tootin' the "evidence" is annecdotal. And boy howdy it's counter intuitive. That is, if you're talking about bringing guns and instructors into public schools. Giving Klebold and Harris "Eddie Eagle" instructions in middle school strikes me as totally unlikely to change their future behavior. In fact, you could plausibly argue that familiarizing those little psychopaths with weapons would increase rather than decrease the likelihood of gun violence.

Just a few days ago in Detroit, a squabble about seating arrangements at a baby shower led someone to "air out" the baby's residence. 30 or 40 shots fired. And the infant was killed. How can any form of "safety instruction" be realistically expected to alter the behavior of such urban animals?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, did I somehow miss the "solution" in your post that you keep insisting others provide?
 
Re: Columbine father

Old Pio said:
I think we need to call the CDC, this outbreak of "weenieitis" is spreading.
Click to expand...

I think this is what pirate was talking about. Of course I could be wrong since I'm under 30, don't take Cialis, or call myself "old" in my avatar title.
 
Re: Columbine father

FreshFish said:
I'm sorry, did I somehow miss the "solution" in your post that you keep insisting others provide?
Click to expand...

No, you didn't miss it. Because I don't think there is a "solution" to such an infrequent problem. Certainly no new law(s) will prevent the next demented kid from walking into a school, gun blazing. I suppose you could ramp up security several orders of magnitude and turn schools into prisons. That might work. But would be hugely expensive and probably unconstitutional. I belieive the kids generally know who's behaving strangely, talking about suicide or blowing up the school, etc. And the extent to which we can open lines of communication where kids trust faculty and staff enough to give them heads up, is perhaps the way to head off these events. Annecdotally, it seems like in the wake of Columbine we've had quite a few Klebold and Harris wannabes who've been stopped. Faculty and staff, of course, need to respond quickly and forcefully when they hear of a kid talking violence. Other than that, I got nothing.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbine father

cross cheque said:
I think this is what pirate was talking about. Of course I could be wrong since I'm under 30, don't take Cialis, or call myself "old" in my avatar title.
Click to expand...

Don't sell yourself short, kid. From where I sit, you're as much of a schmuck as you think I am. A true prodigy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top