From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #155 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, April 16 2007 Volume 16 : Number 155 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: reap x 33 [2fs ] Re: all you fegaholics was: Re: QEH no info; Games for May some info [Rex] Re: reap x 22 [Rex ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #153 [Rex ] the path of no resistance (was Re: reap) ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: reap x 33 ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: reap x 22 [kevin ] Re: all you fegaholics was: Re: QEH no info; Games for May some info [kev] Re: all you fegaholics was: Re: QEH no info; Games for May some info [kev] Re: reap x 33 ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: all you fegaholics was: Re: QEH no info; Games for May some info ["La] Re: reap x 22 [Rex ] Re: all you fegaholics was: Re: QEH no info; Games for May some info [kev] Re: reap x 33 [2fs ] Re: reap x 22 [2fs ] Re: reap x 22 [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: reap x 22 [FSThomas ] Re: reap x 22 [2fs ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:45:01 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: reap x 33 On 4/16/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > 2fs says: > > On the other hand, even assuming concealed-carry laws would apply to > > students or faculty on college campuses (many such laws have > exemptions), > > for "an armed citizen [to] have dropped that toll a lot lower," such a > > citizen would have had to have (a) been on the scene, (b) ID'd the > gunman, > > (c) not be seen first by the gunman, (d) have the will to shoot the > gunman > > (people talk macho talk - but you're still in the position of taking > another > > person's life, even if you realize that in doing so you might save > others' > > lives), (e) shoot well the first time, so as to avoid (f) being targeted > > directly by the gunman after the citizen misses the first shot. Long > odds, > > if you ask me. > > maybe i'm just heartless, but once you've got someone on a shooting > rampage, i personally wouldn't have an ethical dilemma about point > (d). Replace (d) then with (d2) be confident enough in your aim that you're certain you'll hit the gunman and only the gunman and not anyone else in his vicinity. I just don't buy this hero bullshit about, oh, someone with a gun might have stood up and taken the guy out: at the first shot, everyone in the vicinity probably either hit the ground or took off running (understandably). > Given that people with guns (I'm not talking about hunters, or collectors, > > or anything Mark Seymour was involved in) often act as if they're more > > powerful than everyone else, and given that a lot of shootings happen > > opportunistically (in that an argument breaks out, which turns into a > fight, > > which turns into a shooting because somebody or both somebodies had a > gun, > > why the notion that more weapons would *diminish* such violence seems > highly > > iffy to me. It would seem, instead, as if the need to be the *first* guy > > with a gun drawn would be stronger. > > the unfortunate alternative seems to be waiting for the gunman to run > out of ammo or decide sooner rather than later as to when to kill > himself. i guess there's waiting for the cops, but seconds and > minutes for even a quick response from the police mean more deaths. My comment here is simply: exceptional circumstances are not the situation you keep in mind when making laws. There are no good alternatives in this scenario, whatever the law is. The assumption of concealed carry seems to be that shooters shoot people only because they assume the victims don't have weapons. In most cases, though, that isn't the assumption at all: some guy robbing a liquor store most likely *does* assume the guy behind the counter has a gun stashed away...which is why he (the robber) has a gun, and in many cases is likely to use it the instant the clerk makes a move toward the hidden gun. As for street crime: see again my inner-city example, and consider also the Wild West scenario. Yep, both very low-crime times and places. While I'm at it, has anyone commented on the blatant inconsistency in NRA posturing on guns as home protection? On the one hand, a gun is supposed to be able to protect homeowners in the event of a break-in. On the other, the emphasis of the sane NRA (i.e., most members, not necessarily the leadership) is on training and safety - the last bit including, for example, keeping the gun in a safe, locked place, keeping it unloaded, etc. Okay - so someone breaks into your house, and to defend yourself you have to first get the gun out of its cabinet and then load it and *then* confront the burglar? (Again assuming the steely nerves of television heroes...rather than bleariness spiked with abject fear far more likely to be the case of the average person awakened by noises that soon prove to be inescapably someone breaking into your house.) Not to mention: exactly which items of property are worth your life? I'd be smart enough to say nothing, probably...but if, say, my brother-in-law got himself killed trying to stop a break-in at his house (as opposed to laying low), I'd be pretty damned pissed off at him for widowing my sister and leaving my niece and nephew fatherless, all to save, what, his computer? Or maybe you're lucky, and you get downstairs with your loaded weapon, wide awake, ready to shoot, and without having been heard. Do you click on the light, hoping to startle the burglar? (See again: nerves of steel...not bloody likely) Or do you hope you can see him in the dark, and just fire away? And then find out it's your teenage son, sneaking in after being out past curfew drinking with his girlfriend. Happens a hell of a lot more often than Captain America saving-the-day shit. then again, i'm a "liberal who's been robbed" as the old joke goes, > and i don't have a lot of sympathy or patience for fuckers who point > and /or shoot guns at unarmed civilians. Uh, nor do I. I just think it's a lot easier to talk about heroically saving people by killing another person than to actually do it. (I suppose for some people it wouldn't be: off-duty cops, ex-soldiers, etc., i.e., people who've had experience. That, of course, isn't most of us.) as an aside and probably more importantly, like everyone else, i'm a > bit heartbroken to-day. Yeah...I tend to deflect that sort of thing into anger, I guess. I haven't read the latest news, whether they know (or are saying) who it was, what the circumstances were, how he got his weapons, etc. This is already too long - but it makes me sick how much we love violence in this country. And I can't help but think that's a huge part of what makes people like this guy. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:49:20 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: all you fegaholics was: Re: QEH no info; Games for May some info On 4/16/07, Carrie Galbraith wrote: > > >From: "Stewart C. Russell" > > >mine would be: chickens in a chicken coop / wish they had some human > soup. > > > > "Take my eyes, I've used them" "The sea is my mother, , pea green and wild/There's so many ways you can screw up a child." Seems appropos to rather a lot of stuff today. Also the glum predecessor of "Museum of Sex"... seeeeeaaafoam... - -Rx ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:57:06 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: reap x 22 On 4/16/07, FSThomas wrote: > > kevin wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > >> From: ken ostrander > >> Sent: Apr 16, 2007 9:54 AM > >> To: fgz > >> Subject: reap x 22 > >> > >> at least twenty two dead at virginia tech shooting. the second > shooting incident on their campus this school year, and the second since i > stopped working there. > > > > And once again I say, thank Gawd for the second amendment and its > vociferous, well-bankrolled supporters. > > The other side of that argument is that were there more concealed carry > permits an armed citizen could have dropped that toll a lot lower. Yes, but that argument is really dumb. Sorry, but it had to be said. Dude, the bodies aren't even in their graves and the pro-gun talking points are already being trotted out? Damn. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:59:10 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V16 #153 On 4/16/07, John Irvine wrote: > > Re- TNOTB and SMS: > I've been thoroughly enjoying some 1980 concert clips of TH's in Rome > on the YouTube: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVIKF03KkVM > That's some really fine footage of an unbelievably great live band. > > Re- Arcade Fire: > Anything that smacks of Porcupine-era Echo covering Suffragette City > is A-OK in my book. I also just got "Funeral" which seems to be > equally great. And speaking of Echo, I heard some very nice tracks > from their latest "Siberia" CD. A lot better that there earlier > reunion stuff, Will's guitar finally sounds like it should again. I like "Evergreen" for its Les Pattison quotient, and Will sounds normal on that one, too (maybe just comparted to Electrafixion?), but "Siberia" is probably the best of the lot. "Flowers" isn't even that bad, really. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:59:10 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: the path of no resistance (was Re: reap) ken says: > maybe. i know a few who would debate with you until you come around to their way of seeing things. sort of a "if you don't agree with me, then i must be explaining it wrong" kind of thing. i know a few of them. they even continuing trying to convince me when i already agree with them. it makes me wonder what they're trying to accomplish. > searing your conscience with a hot iron, in other words. i prefer the pirate utopias to the free trade zones. i do like the idea of living off the grid; and indeed, sometimes i feel like fletcher christian; but i will always have a hankering for a sweet taste of the dominant culture and all of it's trappings. one nice thing about the dominant culture is that it's a fairly good place to hide. there's a lovely and very true line in gatsby about large parties being more private than small ones. i had a yoga teacher named ramesh and once when i was paying him for classes, i teased him about potentially having trouble cashing the check as it was made out to "ramesh". he looked at me a bit perplexed, and then said no, he wouldn't do it if it were a problem. he believed in making things easier on oneself, not more difficult. one of things i adored about ramesh is that he rarely if ever had a point to make. > >Is everyone really, in their heart of hearts, a hateful bastard? < > > i think everyone has that potential. are babies born hateful? no, just needy. i think anyone who doesn't get their needs met can blossom into one. "some people have no choice and they can never find a voice to talk with or even call their own / so the first that they see that allows them the right to be / they follow it / it's called bad luck." > >"do you like bad boys?" > >http://www.takebackyourheart.com/ > > i'm reminded of harvel hendrix' imago therapy that focuses on how we are unconsciously drawn to people like our parents so that they can help us heal the emotional wounds of our childhood. if they don't kill you first. i don't know hendrix but i'm reminded of the buddhist way of thought that you are what you pay attention to. notice what you pay attention to and you can learn a lot about yourself. xo - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:04:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: reap x 22 On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Rex wrote: > On 4/16/07, FSThomas wrote: > > > > kevin wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > >> From: ken ostrander > > >> Sent: Apr 16, 2007 9:54 AM > > >> To: fgz > > >> Subject: reap x 22 > > >> > > >> at least twenty two dead at virginia tech shooting. the second > > shooting incident on their campus this school year, and the second since i > > stopped working there. > > > > > > And once again I say, thank Gawd for the second amendment and its > > vociferous, well-bankrolled supporters. > > > > The other side of that argument is that were there more concealed carry > > permits an armed citizen could have dropped that toll a lot lower. > > > Yes, but that argument is really dumb. > > Sorry, but it had to be said. Dude, the bodies aren't even in their graves > and the pro-gun talking points are already being trotted out? Damn. To be fair, this was blamed on the second amendment FIRST--he was reacting. So: "dude...and ANY gun talking points are being trotted out"? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:14:51 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: reap x 33 Rex says: > Yes, but that argument is really dumb. > > Sorry, but it had to be said. Dude, the bodies aren't even in their graves > and the pro-gun talking points are already being trotted out? Damn. not to play peacekeeper here, well yes, to play peacekeeper here, i think that people react in different ways to this sort of violence and much of what they say comes out of that anger, and i don't believe at all that it's any disrespect for the people who were killed. personally, i just feel so angry that one person can ruin so many lives so quickly. one of the thoughts that keeps going through my head is that i wish someone had been able to stop him sooner. as i mentioned, i was a victim of a gun crime and it's just sickening how helpless i felt. maybe it should have made me more understand the senselessness of guns, but sadly, now, more often than not, i understand why people choose to arm themselves. xo - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:18:56 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: reap x 22 >Gun ownership is far higher in rural areas than in urban settings with a >correspondingly lower murder rate. Gun ownership is higher among whites >than blacks, with correspondingly lower murder rates. > "Correspondingly" suggests you're inferrring a causal relationship without presenting evidence to support the inference. >Outlawing/banning them (as undoubtedly there will be renewed calls to do >so) will only do two things: Ensure that only outlaws and the >police/military have arms. Neither situation appeals to me in the slightest. > Uh huh, it's like the old NRA propaganda line: guns don't kill people kill people, people kill people. But the guns make it so much easier, don't they? Simply put, a handgun is a tool whose intended purpose is killing people. They're not really much use for anything else. You can't kill a bear with one unless you're close enough that the advantage is pretty much in the bear's court. You can drive a nail with one, if it's not made out of plastic, and not loaded (and how many victims of handgun accidents are killed with weapons they believed to be unloaded? More than you might think), but that's not what they're designed for and they actually make crappy hammers. They're tools for killing people, and nobody has any reason to have one unless they're nursing the intent/desire to kill somebody. And is that really someone you wanna party with? Not me. My take on the situation is, noone who isn't a law enforcement professional has any legitimate reason to own a handgun, period. I'm speaking here as someone from a police background who grew up in a houseful of guns, used to shoot them regularly as a child (and was very good at it), and has never owned one in his adult life and doesn't intend to any time soon. This handgun epidemic is just one more symptom of the disease of violence and inhumanity that's taking this country down the dumper at warp speed, to mix a terrible brew of metaphors. I'm feeling physically sick over this stupid rampage in Virginia, and while I'm happy the sick fuck who perpetrated it had the grace to take himself out so nobody else would have to take that responsibility, I'd be happier if it hadn't happened. Particularly since my wife is in NYC at the moment and I'm on the opposite side of the country, so I'm feeling a certain amount of helpless anxiety. OK, this is turning into an out-of-control rant so I'll sign off with a variation on the traditional mantra: God Help America. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:33:19 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: all you fegaholics was: Re: QEH no info; Games for May some info >> "Take my eyes, I've used them" > I do love that lyric..."she falls on you like rain/when will she fall again?" > >"The sea is my mother, , pea green and wild/There's so many ways you can >screw up a child." > >Seems appropos to rather a lot of stuff today. Also the glum predecessor of >"Museum of Sex"... seeeeeaaafoam... or as uncle Lou sez, "people get all emotional and sometimes they don't act rational/they think they're just on TV." np: Eno/Another Green World (always calms me down) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:33:27 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: all you fegaholics was: Re: QEH no info; Games for May some info >> "Take my eyes, I've used them" > I do love that lyric..."she falls on you like rain/when will she fall again?" > >"The sea is my mother, , pea green and wild/There's so many ways you can >screw up a child." > >Seems appropos to rather a lot of stuff today. Also the glum predecessor of >"Museum of Sex"... seeeeeaaafoam... or as uncle Lou sez, "people get all emotional and sometimes they don't act rational/they think they're just on TV." np: Eno/Another Green World (always calms me down) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:33:48 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: reap x 33 2fs says: > Not to mention: exactly which items of property are worth your life? I'd be > smart enough to say nothing, probably...but if, say, my brother-in-law got > himself killed trying to stop a break-in at his house (as opposed to laying > low), I'd be pretty damned pissed off at him for widowing my sister and > leaving my niece and nephew fatherless, all to save, what, his computer? i don't want to prolong the discussion, but i did want to say that i don't think it's about the property. i can only speak for myself, but e.g. having the computer stolen isn't the worse thing that can happen. let's just say that when i think of the property i lost to the person pointing the gun at me, i am beyond grateful that was the extent of it. xo - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:47:03 -0400 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: all you fegaholics was: Re: QEH no info; Games for May some info hssmrg@bath.ac.uk wrote: > PS For all you fegaholics, what are your favourite single lines in > his songs? i completely forgot sebastian's sig line: "being just contaminates the void." if i come up with one i like more than that, i bet it'll take at least a day or two (the sign of killer hitchcock line.) xo - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:54:49 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: reap x 22 On 4/16/07, kevin wrote: > > >Gun ownership is far higher in rural areas than in urban settings with a > >correspondingly lower murder rate. Gun ownership is higher among whites > >than blacks, with correspondingly lower murder rates. > > > > "Correspondingly" suggests you're inferrring a causal relationship without > presenting evidence to support the inference. > > >Outlawing/banning them (as undoubtedly there will be renewed calls to do > >so) will only do two things: Ensure that only outlaws and the > >police/military have arms. Neither situation appeals to me in the > slightest. > > > > Uh huh, it's like the old NRA propaganda line: guns don't kill people kill > people, people kill people. But the guns make it so much easier, don't > they? Simply put, a handgun is a tool whose intended purpose is killing > people. They're not really much use for anything else. You can't kill a bear with one unless you're close enough that the advantage > is pretty much in the bear's court. You can kill rabid animals with them. I'll give them that. But that's only because I grew up in a place where rabid animals actually did wander by from time to time. I agree with just about everything else you have to say, though. Benjamin: > To be fair, this was blamed on the second amendment FIRST--he was > reacting. So: "dude...and ANY gun talking points are being trotted out"? > Almost fair, rhetorically. But viscerally, at moments like this, any defense of gun ownership is gonna make me feel a little pukey. But just to be fair, I'll try... Kevin: Uh huh, it's like the old NRA propaganda line: guns don't kill people kill people, people kill people. But the guns make it so much easier, don't they? Simply put, a handgun is a tool whose intended purpose is killing people. They're not really much use for anything else. > > You can't kill a bear with one unless you're close enough that the > advantage is pretty much in the bear's court. You can kill rabid animals with them. I'll give them that. But that's only because I grew up in a place where rabid animals actually did wander by from time to time. So Exhibits A-Z in favor of handun ownership are, like, rabid raccoons, possums, skunks, Ol' Yeller... I agree with just about everything else you have to say, though. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:59:46 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: kevin Subject: Re: all you fegaholics was: Re: QEH no info; Games for May some info - -----Original Message----- >From: Lauren Elizabeth >Sent: Apr 16, 2007 6:47 PM >To: "a sweet little cupcake...baked by the devil!" >Subject: Re: all you fegaholics was: Re: QEH no info; Games for May some info > >hssmrg@bath.ac.uk wrote: >> PS For all you fegaholics, what are your favourite single lines in >> his songs? > >i completely forgot sebastian's sig line: >"being just contaminates the void." > >if i come up with one i like more than that, i bet it'll take at least >a day or two (the sign of killer hitchcock line.) But there are so many...for sheer quotability the guy's up there with Oscar Wilde. "I was born with something missing/but I know your lip was made for kissing" "He's the president of Europe and he's talking to the dead/Thery're the only ones who'll listen or believe a word he said" etc etc etc. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:06:04 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: reap x 33 On 4/16/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > 2fs says: > > Not to mention: exactly which items of property are worth your life? I'd > be > > smart enough to say nothing, probably...but if, say, my brother-in-law > got > > himself killed trying to stop a break-in at his house (as opposed to > laying > > low), I'd be pretty damned pissed off at him for widowing my sister and > > leaving my niece and nephew fatherless, all to save, what, his computer? > > i don't want to prolong the discussion, but i did want to say that i > don't think it's about the property. i can only speak for myself, but > e.g. having the computer stolen isn't the worse thing that can happen. > let's just say that when i think of the property i lost to the person > pointing the gun at me, i am beyond grateful that was the extent of > it. But that's the point: confronting a person with a gun is a good way to make your loss far, far worse than mere property - which can be replaced. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:10:05 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: reap x 22 Okay, anyone sick of this, delete please... On 4/16/07, kevin wrote: > > >Gun ownership is far higher in rural areas than in urban settings with a > >correspondingly lower murder rate. Gun ownership is higher among whites > >than blacks, with correspondingly lower murder rates. > > > > "Correspondingly" suggests you're inferrring a causal relationship without > presenting evidence to support the inference. The more relevant statistic, perhaps (if anyone records it) is gun *density*. A higher percentage of such rural residents might own (or have, legally or not) guns...but because they're more spread out, the sort of argument-spiraling-into-gunplay scenario that happens over and over again in our cities is less likely. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:15:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: reap x 22 On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Rex wrote: > Benjamin: > > > To be fair, this was blamed on the second amendment FIRST--he was > > reacting. So: "dude...and ANY gun talking points are being trotted out"? > > Almost fair, rhetorically. But viscerally, at moments like this, any > defense of gun ownership is gonna make me feel a little pukey. But just to > be fair, I'll try... I can certainly understand that, and believe me, I don't want guns to proliferate. But isn't it in fact TRUE that if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have them? I mean, look how well other prohibitions are working. We'd have to turn into a (worse) police state to really get the guns out of the hands of the criminals. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:25:20 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: reap x 22 kevin wrote: >> Gun ownership is far higher in rural areas than in urban settings with a >> correspondingly lower murder rate. Gun ownership is higher among whites >> than blacks, with correspondingly lower murder rates. >> > > "Correspondingly" suggests you're inferrring a causal relationship without presenting evidence to support the inference. Casual relationship or statistical citing? 1.) From 1976-2004 over half of the homicides occurred in cities with a population of 100,000 or more. Almost one-quarter of the homicides occurred in cities with a population of over 1 million. 2.) Homicide Type by Race, 1976-2004 Victims Offenders White Black Other White Black Other All homicides 51.0% 46.9% 2.1% 45.9% 52.1% 2.0% ... Gun homicide 47.3% 50.8% 1.9% 42.0% 56.2% 1.7% Taken from the DOJ/Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/city.htm http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:40:53 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: reap x 22 On 4/16/07, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Rex wrote: > > > Benjamin: > > > > > To be fair, this was blamed on the second amendment FIRST--he was > > > reacting. So: "dude...and ANY gun talking points are being trotted > out"? > > > > Almost fair, rhetorically. But viscerally, at moments like this, any > > defense of gun ownership is gonna make me feel a little pukey. But just > to > > be fair, I'll try... > > I can certainly understand that, and believe me, I don't want guns to > proliferate. But isn't it in fact TRUE that if you outlaw guns only > outlaws will have them? Well, technically...you know, when downloading music is outlawed, only outlaws will download music. The problem arises in separating people into "outlaws" and "law-abiding citizens." Most people are, of course, basically the latter...but raise your hands everyone who's never broken a single law in their life. Everyone still typing with both hands I see? Right then. Yes, it's true that hardened criminals will continue to have guns no matter what the laws say. How many gun deaths are committed by hardened criminals, and how many are suicides, accidents, first-timers, etc.? The idea is that by strongly regulating gun ownership (I didn't say "banning"), deaths in the latter category will be considerably reduced - and quite possibly, deaths outside of that category (i.e., hardened criminals) might decrease as well, simply because even though possible, getting a gun would be more difficult. I mean, look how well other prohibitions are > working. Which prohibitions do you mean? Some work poorly - prohibition of alcohol certainly didn't work, and the drug war's a joke (or would be if it weren't so tragic) - but no one seems to complain that we can't all have rocket launchers. However, the grain of truth here is that guns are so hugely a part of the American psyche that any outright ban *would* fail, and probably lead to more problems. What I don't get is when the NRA goes off against even regulations of guns and weapons that cops favor (the regulations, I mean), or against waiting periods, prohibiting resale (a *huge* loophole that allows guns to get in the hands of all kinds of folks who shouldn't have them), etc. Mention these things, and "jackbooted government thugs" are never very far from anyone's lips (not in so many words, but already someone here's raised the notion of a dictatorial government...). Yet it seems obvious to me that you're a hell of a lot likelier to be deprived of freedom by some desperate crack addict with a gun than from a government thug trying to take away your freedom. Sorry, but there's absolutely no reason to bring Nazi Germany into this (as people - again - already did): the background of that situation, the desperation and humiliation of the Germans, the fact that the Nazis were *voted* into power, that many of their policies *were* popular (there was a huge current of anti-semitism, heavily crossed over with anti-communism - the two were equated in the public mind) - none of that is remotely similar to America today. Even though we do have a president who seems to have a rather limited conception of freedom and open governance, there's simply no way a reasonable person can compare the situation to Germany in the '20s and '30s. We've got our own problems. We've got the preconception that violence is, often, the best way to solve problems. We make heroes of violent men; we find violence entertaining (apparently it's not harmful for children to witness limbs being blown off - but seeing nipples? Terror!); we're constantly thinking in terms of conflict and escalation into violence rather than reasoning and de-escalation. We tend to believe that some people just can't be reasoned with - and while that may be true, the moment we treat a person that way, we pretty much make it so even if it wouldn't have been true otherwise. We've completely given up on the potential of vast numbers of our citizens, making their schools into warehouses at best and prisons at worst. Our child poverty rates are (or should be) a scandal, for the supposedly wealthiest nation on the planet - instead we put Donald Trump and Bill Gates on the front page. We privilege conflict, adversarial relations, and competition above all else. Is it any wonder this leads to, at the low end, "ethical flexibility" along the lines of cheating and evading moral questions so long as, say, there's no specific law against it, and at the more extreme end, violence? Those who would reconcile, those who would seek to understand, those who would negotiate: they're scorned as weak. Those who 'stand firm," those who render the world in high-contrast black and white, those who order and dictate: that's our notion of "strength." The gun's a perfect metaphor: hard and dark and implacable; pull the trigger and no one can argue. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #155 ********************************