Latest "school shooting" scare

[MrShake]

Scan, you've got your facts all wrong. If you're going to be rude and condescending, at least don't make up stories to go with them.

I see and experience quite a lot here in Japan. What do you know about it first hand? You know what's funny? You're sitting there slamming me about things I have roots in, and what I believe in, yet for years now even as I'm thousands of miles away, I've experienced and function in more culture, languages, laws, environments, societies, and lifestyles than anyone can shake a stick at in a lifetime...and you're criticizing me about what I do or don't understand?? Man, yall are really insecure.

Well sorry for making up the facts, but I couldn't recall them all. I did make a lot of leaps based upon what I could remember reading in the past. Sorry again for the inacurracies and thank you for setting them straight.

And thank you for sharing the extra details. I'm glad to hear you see things in the society and don't live in a compound. Mostly I was commenting on what I percieved as a likely set of situation that made your possition make sense. Some makes less sense now that I know that you have a broader scope of reference, but hey, you believe what you think is right. More power to ya.

I've never lived in Japan, or the UK, or other non-gun owner countries, but I've read the stats. They are doing something right with their lower crime numbers, and less accidental citizen and children deaths. There are no cases of gunman in a school. Sound good to me. I know one thing they all have in common, is no one accept cops or crooks have guns. That means a lunatic is less likely to have one too, or so the facts seem to bare out. I do agree about morals being stronger, and family meaning more too. I'm sure that does put some weight on the issue as well.

Again, sorry for the sarcastic tone. You might notice, I don't often get that worked up, but when I do, I tend to use quite a bit of passion on the topic at hand.

Before we start touting off about no-gun countries and the such, lets take a minute to look at the least restrictive gun laws by state in the US. Specifically, TEXAS, having the least restrictive. They also have the LOWEST crime and accidental gun deaths in the country. Why? Because guns are not unusual. Parents teach their kids. They are out there in nature hunting. They are spending quality time with their kids at gun ranges and trap rangers. They are members of gun clubs, hunting clubs, and probably even the NRA. All of these activities are based on the Parents TEACHING their kids, and spending TIME with their kids. Guns are not the problem.. period.

Now, I am not from Texas, nor am I in the military. But, the best memories I have of my youth involve hunting with my father, learning about how to care for and use guns, going to ranges and clubs, and generally learning how to be SAFE while spending time with family.

[scan]

Now, I am not from Texas, nor am I in the military. But, the best memories I have of my youth involve hunting with my father, learning about how to care for and use guns, going to ranges and clubs, and generally learning how to be SAFE while spending time with family.

Yeah, this could go on forever back and forth. I will respect ya'll's rights to bare arms, and teach your youth. My opinion is well known, and I'd feel safer with less guns, even in safe ole Texas. I feel like guns being so easy to obtain adds to danger in this country. I can see many of you would disagree and think it would be worse if we took the guns away. I suspect if we tried to take the guns away, there would be a civil war, so you are probably right. It is safer to let you keep your guns.

[Loonette]

I already covered this point by mentioning that the mother should have gotten her son some counseling instead of some new deadly weapons. He was demonstrating that he was troubled, yet instead of addressing his issues, she gave him an escape that could have been deadly. Would we protect her "rights" if she had bought him some rx to sooth his wounded soul?

rx is illegal and inherently dangerous, Guns are not either

OK, fine - since you AND Shorts insist on digging into semantics - if my child were suicidal, I would not go out and buy him a pack of straight blades - if my child were morbidly obese, I would not go out and buy him a pack of ho-ho's - if my child were feeling depressed, I would not go out and buy him a bottle of scotch - AND, IF MY CHILD WAS PISSED OFF AT A BUNCH OF KIDS FOR BULLYING HIM AND HAD TO LEAVE HIS PUBLIC SCHOOL BECAUSE HE COULDN'T HACK IT EMOTIONALLY (a sociopathic response), I WOULD NOT BUY HIM A GUN!

The only points I tried to make here was that the mother was severely irresponsible for buying this particular kid a gun in his particular set of circumstances, and that, yes, the weapons this kid possessed were more than just "toys".

As far as ownership issues, I only responded to what Shorts had said - I never set out to proclaim any agenda to the contrary of gun rights (I happen respect our 2nd Amendment!!).

Now maybe I can't make myself better understood, so I'll quit trying at this point. Shorts, it's clear that you feel very threatened about possibly losing your rights to own your guns and to pass them onto the children you may someday have, but never once did I try to pose some agenda that supported anti-gun laws. Please show me where I did, in case I've somehow missed it. I stated (more than once) that I was stating a case for accountability and for being realistic about what so-called "toy" guns can do (getting back, once again, to the original poster). So keep going at me if you like, but I'm officially done with this thread. Adios!

[Shorts]

Now maybe I can't make myself better understood, so I'll quit trying at this point. Shorts, it's clear that you feel very threatened about possibly losing your rights to own your guns and to pass them onto the children you may someday have, but never once did I try to pose some agenda that supported anti-gun laws. Please show me where I did, in case I've somehow missed it. I stated (more than once) that I was stating a case for accountability and for being realistic about what so-called "toy" guns can do (getting back, once again, to the original poster).

No one is "going at you".

If you're mad about the "get moms of the street" comment, that wasn't aimed at you. You stated it was a bad mom and her decision that enabled the kid. It was a sarcastic comment jabbing at 'if it wasn't guns, it was the mom, let's get the moms off the street'. In this case, moms are an analogous to the guns. Lest you forget, I have a mom (I wasn't hatched, or was that misperceived too?), who raised me straight and kids would be lucky to have. You took the comment personally, but it wasn't aimed at you.


As for the gun ownership, as I stated several times which for some reason you cannot understand, is that incidents and scares like this, involving guns, when the dust is flying around and people are trying to figure out how to "fix" this problem and figure out "what went wrong?", "ban guns!" is ALWAYS one of the major pushes that results. So you can tell me all you want that "it was a bad mom", so we can blame her all we want, but what in the world do you do to fix that? Hmm, everybody thinks and thinks and cannot come up with a simple answer, because frankly, it isn't a simple fix. Well, the next question is raised, "What is a simple fix?". AHA! The simple fix is to ban the tools/objects..ie, guns that could have potentially been used. Ok, that's simple enough, ban guns.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Your stop threshold is keeping the kids safe, period. How do you keep your kids safe when you know there are bad moms/dads out there raising kids? How do you fix that problem from the root without jumping past it to an easy fix? Can you honestly give me a straight problem solving, program implementing answer on targeting this "bad parenting" issue? If you can, I and every other person in society who does have moral fiber would like to hear it.

Are you understanding what I am explaining? Because that is the big picture. It isn't a simple problem but as a society we tend to flock towards the easy way out of a problem and take no personal responsibility, step on those we can in order to get what we want. Again I ask, how do you fix that? Taking away liberties doesn't fix anything. Its only a band-aid on a wound that requires internal operation.


We're both looking at the same picture but we're seeing different highlights. In my world, kids are raised right, parents aren't at the shallow end of the gene pool and everyone is free to pursue activities they enjoy while respecting the space and lives of others by making correct decisions.... but I'm the one with a narrow view???

[Shorts]

Mostly I was commenting on what I percieved as a likely set of situation that made your possition make sense. Some makes less sense now that I know that you have a broader scope of reference

I've had the broader scope of reference for quite some time. It did not just become active because I told you about it.

You wanted to think I was nothing and nobody with nothing to backup what I live and why I live it because it makes my opinion and beliefs much easier to dismiss. You wanted to use stereotypes to attack what you don't understand and what you dislike because you want your qualities to be more relevant by negating mine. There are strong, smart, educated, good people who don't hold your same exact values. Because I don't want my liberties to stop in order to protect yours doesn't make me a low-life.

This protection of gun ownership is not 'just for Shorts' or 'Texans' as you both seem to think. It's for other men and women in all 50 states who also express the very same interest in keeping their rights and not making ownership and purchase more difficult and taboo.

This is a response I'm not surprised coming from you Shorts. Anti-kid, Anti-mom, and pro-gun. Yeah, from Texas too. One more reason for me to question that whole state. You know Texas thinks it is a whole other country, and we should let'em go. And send George back there to run the place. You'd all be much happier that way. Me, I'll keep my distance if I can. But I doubt that would be enough for Texas anyway.

And you are currently in Japan, right? Another place that has found a lot of success with anti-gun laws. You haven't seen that? You have all kinds of reason for your skew though. You are from Texas, where I think it is a law to have a gun. If your pickup doesn't have a gun rack, they know you are from out of state. Maybe even, if you don't have a pickup, they know you are from out of state. And beyond the Texas damage you have, you also have an Army husband. So the whole "gun rights", and Army thing go pretty much hand in hand. If you are trained to handle guns, and taught about the need for guns, and about the safety in trained hands, you tend to live by that programming.

So it sounds like a slam Shorts post. But no, I'm actually saying I can understand your point of view. Mine is different, and you would probably never understand, or try to understand my point of view. That is just the Texas way. Freedom of speech, rights, and ideas, as long as they are the right ones. Soldiers dying for my right to think they way moral majority thinks is most fit.

But back to the whole living in non-violent, and low crime Japan with strict gun laws - I'm guessing you don't see much of that as I'd guess you live in some US compound, so you likely know little of that life, but you do know the US has the highest crime rates in the world, and people owning guns has not done much to improve that statsitic here anyway.

Sorry, the attacking Mom thing got me going. Loonette is a damn good Mom, and I know a lot of good Moms. Moms are not the problem, but people with screwed up ideas of what is a good therapy - like giving a kid a gun - is screwed up. I will grant you this though, any woman can have a baby (well most anyway), and that is not always a good thing.

scan wrote:

Acting as a vicious person in return for vicious behaviour hardly seems civilized, nor does it seem morally correct.

And you wrote the long quote about with good intentions?

[scan]

And you wrote the long quote about with good intentions?

Nah, I got all fired up and was being snotty. Sorry. I defer to you.

I don't agree with all that you hold close to your heart, but I don't have to live you nor you with me. My spirit is far from perfect and I can be mean and negative. I endevour to make that a smaller part of my life.

We both ride bikes, and that is cool. So I call peace.

[mgdavis]

Wow, I was gone for a couple days and missed all the fireworks.

As I stated in the original post, I wasn't trying to downplay the event at all. What I was attempting to do was critique the media on their misrepresentation of the table 'o guns. I really wasn't trying to dredge up the pro vs. anti argument.

Loonette, the Airsoft guns are indeed toys. They are designed to be fired at people without doing injury. There were a couple bb or pellet guns that are definitely not designed to be fired at people, but are still basically toys. There was one firearm pictured. I was griping that the media was making it out to be a table chock-full of eeevil assault weapons.

As for the rest, I generally agree with Shorts, but she is far more eloquent than I am so I'll just let it go with what has already been said.

[scan]

As for the rest, I generally agree with Shorts, but she is far more eloquent than I am so I'll just let it go with what has already been said.

Oh no you don't, get back and fight like a man!


Just kidding. Yeah, we talked it to death, and I will admit Shorts can hold her own quite well. I don't agree on this topic, but I think we on either side will do little to sway each other.

[Loonette]

Now maybe I can't make myself better understood, so I'll quit trying at this point. Shorts, it's clear that you feel very threatened about possibly losing your rights to own your guns and to pass them onto the children you may someday have, but never once did I try to pose some agenda that supported anti-gun laws. Please show me where I did, in case I've somehow missed it. I stated (more than once) that I was stating a case for accountability and for being realistic about what so-called "toy" guns can do (getting back, once again, to the original poster).

No one is "going at you".

I never said that I thought anyone was (although after reading this new post of yours, I have to wonder).

If you're mad about the "get moms of the street" comment, that wasn't aimed at you.

Don't read into things - I never took it that way, nor did I imply that I had taken it that way. Where ever do you get this stuff?

You stated it was a bad mom and her decision that enabled the kid. It was a sarcastic comment jabbing at 'if it wasn't guns, it was the mom, let's get the moms off the street'.

Yup!! And putting your sarcasm aside, I believe that this particular mom should be "taken off the streets", or put quite plainly, held responsible for purchasing a weapon and supplying it to her son who quite clearly was not stable enough emotionally to be handling his life.

Lest you forget, I have a mom (I wasn't hatched, or was that misperceived too?)

Cute... but why on earth are you saying this to me? What does it mean in the context in which we're speaking? Your little quips mean nothing if you aren't able to connect them with something I've said or implied. You have a mom ... - Okie Dokie... So do I. But why are you being so snarky about this with me?

... who raised me straight and kids would be lucky to have. You took the comment personally, but it wasn't aimed at you[/b].

Again, I have no idea from where you're getting that I took your sarcastic comment personally. I'm not so insecure that I sit here and think, "oh no, Shorts is picking directly on me and my maternal self". I have better things to do. You really are just grasping for anything at all here, and I'm not sure what benefit it serves you.

As for the gun ownership, as I stated several times which for some reason you cannot understand, is that incidents and scares like this, involving guns, when the dust is flying around and people are trying to figure out how to "fix" this problem and figure out "what went wrong?", "ban guns!" is ALWAYS one of the major pushes that results. So you can tell me all you want that "it was a bad mom", so we can blame her all we want, but what in the world do you do to fix that? Hmm, everybody thinks and thinks and cannot come up with a simple answer, because frankly, it isn't a simple fix. Well, the next question is raised, "What is a simple fix?". AHA! The simple fix is to ban the tools/objects..ie, guns that could have potentially been used. Ok, that's simple enough, ban guns.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Um, yeah. I've already addressed that. I do understand that you feel your rights are going to be compromised. But I also mentioned, ad nauseum, that "banning guns" is not my stance, nor is it truly the stance of most Americans, so... this one incident, regardless of how the media pushes it, isn't really going to make a difference on Capitol Hill.

Your stop threshold is keeping the kids safe, period.

I'm feeling a bit dim here, because I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "my stop threshold". Please inform me as to what that means!! (and no, I'm not being sarcastic - I really have no idea what you mean)

How do you keep your kids safe when you know there are bad moms/dads out there raising kids? How do you fix that problem from the root without jumping past it to an easy fix? Can you honestly give me a straight problem solving, program implementing answer on targeting this "bad parenting" issue? If you can, I and every other person in society who does have moral fiber would like to hear it.

For cryin' out loud!! I never claimed to have an answer, nor would I want to attempt to find the perfect answer. I only said that the weapons were not "just toys" and that the mom should be held responsible for her role in her son's situation. I never took any other stance, nor claimed to have any answer. You really have taken this to a new level all on your own.

Since you did ask, however, I can't keep my kids safe, and would never pretend that I can. I remember after 911 - all the "experts" were telling us that the best way to talk to our kids about 911 was to just tell them that something terrible happened, but that they would be OK, and that nothing bad was going to happen to them or to us (the parents). Bullocks! I'm not a believer in that - I tell my kids that we have to live the best life possible, be responsible for ourselves, make the best choices that we can, and to love each other and make steps towards a peaceful world. I can teach them how to take care of themselves, but if some maniac truly wants to do harm, invades their space, and has a way to kill them, there's really not much I can do about that.

Also, I can hope that more kids, like the one who spoke out about the plans of the other kid, will continue to speak up.

Taking away liberties doesn't fix anything. Its only a band-aid on a wound that requires internal operation.

No kidding - I never thought that stripping away liberties is the answer. Again... why are you addressing this issue towards me as though it's what I believe.

We're both looking at the same picture but we're seeing different highlights. In my world, kids are raised right, parents aren't at the shallow end of the gene pool and everyone is free to pursue activities they enjoy while respecting the space and lives of others by making correct decisions.... but I'm the one with a narrow view???

Still - not sure where you see me as different in this picture. I'm all for it, as well as holding people accountable for their poor choices.

If you want to go further with this, you're welcome to PM me. I still think that you've, for some unknown reason, mispercieved me in a huge way. I can't keep trying to explain it though - maybe I'm just not good enough at explaining myself.

[Loonette]

Loonette, the Airsoft guns are indeed toys. They are designed to be fired at people without doing injury. There were a couple bb or pellet guns that are definitely not designed to be fired at people, but are still basically toys. There was one firearm pictured. I was griping that the media was making it out to be a table chock-full of eeevil assault weapons.

Thanks for the tidbit, but as I've explained, there was more going on than just what the photo showed. Hand grenades, homemade bombs, and three guns fully capable of inflicting death were in the home. Yes, yes, they also showed images of his other "toys" that he had been "collecting" since his childhood, but that's what they found, so they showed it. I'm sorry that YOU fell into the media trap (the same as those who Shorts fear will strip away her liberties), but there was more going on with the story if you had only looked beyond the web-posted photo.