Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> In the News
Frightened
Previous  1  2



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

chestnut




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Oct 02 2017, 11:04 pm
I know he had some legal guns. Don't think he used those, though. You're right that we'll see the report on that within a few days
Back to top

DrMom




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Oct 03 2017, 12:12 am
Bluesky 1 wrote:
I'm frightened too. And so. Are many people. Let's all say a kapitel tehillim now. To me it's very soothing. I think it's important to know more facts before we understand what happened here. I'm understanding his family is shocked but why didn't they speak more about him like his neighbors did?

Apparently his neighbors realized way more what an oddball he was. Without having much contact. His family knows something they are not saying. Tell me I'm wrong I really hope so.

His girlfriend is in another country? Also pretty weird, not sure what that means. She definitely knows. More then anyone.

I think that there is no real way to protect ourselves from such sick people. There always will be crazy ones. Hotels need better screening before entering their facilities

Being an oddball (whatever that means) with an out-of-town girlfriend should not prevent anyone from checking into a hotel. I don't want hotels deep-diving into everybody's background before letting them stay there. That would be ridiculous.
Back to top

moonstone




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Oct 03 2017, 4:24 am
Raisin wrote:
I think Fox is right, banning guns or restricting them will not prevent a lot of mass shooting. eg the drug/gang/criminal related shootings. But it would help prevent events like Sandy Hook. Those guns were legally acquired by a law abiding citizen.

I live in a country with very restrictive gun laws. Sure, there are criminals here and they get hold of guns and people get shot, although nothing like the scale of Chicago or other big american cities. (It sure helps when you don't have a history of enslaving people - no embittered, hopeless, poverty stuck descendants hanging around our inner cities) But no mass shootings.


So these criminals have an excuse for murdering innocent people? I hope that's not what you're implying.
Back to top

Raisin




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Oct 03 2017, 6:09 am
moonstone wrote:
So these criminals have an excuse for murdering innocent people? I hope that's not what you're implying.


Nope, I am saying that there are historical reasons why there are such high crime rates in inner city USA - not just slavery, years of discrimination, both legal and illegal. Drug use is directly linked to people being unhappy. Drugs cause a lot of crime. And yes- give me two boys - one born to middle class professionals living in the suburbs, the other born to a single mother addicted to heroin and a criminal father, the second has a pretty high chance of going on to replicate his parents lives.

To Fox, according to this https://www.vox.com/policy-and.....harts Illinois is quite low on the chart of gun deaths.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Oct 03 2017, 1:55 pm
Raisin wrote:
Nope, I am saying that there are historical reasons why there are such high crime rates in inner city USA - not just slavery, years of discrimination, both legal and illegal. Drug use is directly linked to people being unhappy. Drugs cause a lot of crime. And yes- give me two boys - one born to middle class professionals living in the suburbs, the other born to a single mother addicted to heroin and a criminal father, the second has a pretty high chance of going on to replicate his parents lives.

You're absolutely correct that there is a great deal of "cultural legacy" that surrounds the issue of guns in America, but it's far more complex than race.

The right to "keep and bear arms" was written into the Constitution not so that Americans of future generations could prevent home invasions or go hunting, but so that they would have the means to overthrow a tyranical, oppressive government.

The U.S. is always referred to as "a nation of immigrants," but it's important to recalll why that's the case.

* The earliest European settlers came to escape religious persecution. Smaller, secondary waves of colonists came as a result of the system of primogeniture in Europe -- the feudal practice of the first-born son inheriting a family's estate.

* By the mid-19th century, half the population of Ireland had emigrated to the U.S., largely in response to the Irish Potato Famine, fueled by British land acquisition, absentee landlords, and the Corn Laws -- which made it impossibly expensive to import food during lean years.

* Another major ethnic group -- the Scottish -- emigrated to the U.S. in huge numbers as a result of the Highland Clearances in the early- to mid-1800s. These were people evicted from land by absentee English landowners who wanted the land for sheep grazing. The words "h*******y" and "r*****k" -- pejoratives used against rural Southerners -- date back to this era.

* Class disparity and/or religious issues were also key factors in 19th century immigration to the U.S. from Sweden, Norway, Italy, Mexico, France, and Poland.

Even today, immigrants don't come to the U.S. because they just can't get enough of our hamburgers. Rather, they come because the economic and social conditions of their home countries are restrictive and oppressive in one way or another.

What is the common theme running through all of these immigration stories?

It is the fact that the people who came -- or were brought -- to America do not trust in the goodness of government. In many cases, they came as a direct result of actions their governments took against them.

Unfortunately, most people in the world don't really know or understand how powerful this cultural legacy is. There was a post recently in a discussion on medical insurance by someone who said that the rest of the world doesn't understand why America is so slow to adopt some form of government-paid medical coverage. It's not the Americans necessarily hate socialism; it's that we have a powerful cultural legacy of not trusting the people at the top of whatever hill we happen to occupy.

Cultural legacies are a good thing . . . except when they aren't. Every country or ethnic group has cultural legacies that make it unique and successful in some ways while holding it back in others. A popular example is that East Asian pilots must be taught to override their cultures' deference to authority and speak up if the captain has made a navigation mistake.

Every single political discussion in America reflects the push-and-pull of our cultural legacy of distrust of government, whether it's states' rights; medical insurance; gun control; or making an eruv in New Jersey. Every public policy debate is really a fight over granting our governments tiny wedges of control or authority.

Like the Korean Air pilots who would fly a commercial airliner into the side of mountain rather than contradict their captain, it must seem inexplicable to people that Americans would often prefer sometimes-horrific consequences to an ounce more of government control.

I don't pretend to know where the ideal line between government control and individual freedom should be drawn, but without understanding the cultural legacy from which those attitudes spring, it's impossible for the participants to draw any line or for observers to understand why Americans are so stubborn about their guns.
Back to top

sequoia




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Oct 03 2017, 2:06 pm
^^^ That
Back to top

InnerMe




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Oct 03 2017, 2:22 pm
Fox, I always enjoy reading your commentaries. You put everything out so clearly, and take the time to back up your claims with research. I also enjoy your smooth and engaging writing style, and the humor you'll often throw in.

I vote you should write an Opinion column for a magazine or newspaper!
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Oct 03 2017, 2:34 pm
DrMom wrote:
Being an oddball (whatever that means) with an out-of-town girlfriend should not prevent anyone from checking into a hotel. I don't want hotels deep-diving into everybody's background before letting them stay there. That would be ridiculous.


I have an extremely odd neighbor. We see him less than once a year, but we hear his wife talking to him, so we assume he's still alive and well. But I don't anticipate that he's going to shoot me.

Not to mention all those oddball husbands who go to Uman and leave their wives home. Don't think they're shooting up the shul on Sukkot.
Back to top

Raisin




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Oct 03 2017, 3:28 pm
I just listened to a horrific radio piece by a woman whose ex husband killed their two sons and then himself. She knew he was depressed and suicidal, yet she still left her kids with him. Of course she had no idea he would do such a thing. If a man's ex wife doesn't know a man will act like this, how should a neighbor or the police know?
Back to top

Raisin




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Oct 03 2017, 3:34 pm
Fox, you may be right. But modern americans (and likely even recent immigrants from oppressive regimes) seem to me to be a lot more scared of meshugoyim buying semi assault rifles and shooting dozens of random people then being harmed by the US government, even under Mr Trump.

Never mind that the people who stayed in Ireland and Scotland other parts of Europe are perfectly happy to enact strict gun laws. Plus a lot of those who emigrated at the same time went to Australia. Guess who enacted strict gun laws about 20 years ago - and has seen a resulting drop in death by guns?
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Oct 03 2017, 4:55 pm
Raisin wrote:
Fox, you may be right. But modern americans (and likely even recent immigrants from oppressive regimes) seem to me to be a lot more scared of meshugoyim buying semi assault rifles and shooting dozens of random people then being harmed by the US government, even under Mr Trump.

Don't bet on this. There is a significant difference between fear levels following an event such as a mass shooting and support for government intervention in its wake.

The overturn of the Obama-era rule regarding SSI management assistance and gun ownership is a perfect example. Everybody is against gun violence, but when a rule is enacted that resembles a thin edge of the wedge of government curtailment of Constitutional rights, a huge number of groups with extremely disparate goals and viewpoints become the strangest of bedfellows.

Raisin wrote:
Never mind that the people who stayed in Ireland and Scotland other parts of Europe are perfectly happy to enact strict gun laws.

What you are essentially saying is that people whose forebears trusted their government have the cultural legacy of . . . trusting government. Can't argue with that!

It's not that "People descended from Scottish forebears have a cultural legacy of distrusting government." It's that "People descended from Scottish forebears who emigrated to America after being driven out by the Highland Clearances of English landowners have a cultural legacy of distrusting government."

Raisin wrote:
Plus a lot of those who emigrated at the same time went to Australia. Guess who enacted strict gun laws about 20 years ago - and has seen a resulting drop in death by guns?

There's a great deal more regarding the Australian model than there might seem:

* The number of homicides didn't decline significantly in Australia -- just the number of homicides committed with guns. AU Institute of Criminology

* Gun violence indeed dropped precipitously after enacting gun laws and buying back guns in Australia. However, the U.S. experienced the same rate of decline in gun violence at the same time -- despite producing twice as many guns for sale. Pew Organization

* When examined independently of guns, violent crime did not decrease significantly following Australia's gun ban. AU Violent Crime Rates

* Lifeline Australia reported in 2013 that suicide rates were at an all-time high -- despite the number of gun-related suicides being down 57 percent. Australians weren't taking their lives less often; they just weren't doing it with guns.

I have no doubt that to someone viewing the U.S. from Europe, Asia, or Africa, we look mad as hatters. Why go nuts anytime government wants to do something that, arguably, is for our benefit? But many people in the world think they understand the U.S., when, in fact, they really are just consumers of American arts and entertainment. Ahem, Richard Dawkins.

President Reagan is often remembered for his "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" speech. But there is a rhetorical moment that scholars of his presidency and American history in general consider more definitive: his 1987 State of the Union address that included this line:

President Ronald Reagan wrote:
In our Constitution, we the people tell the Government what it can do, and it can do only those things listed in that document and no others.

Without understanding the cultural legacy that produced either the document or the President, it's impossible to understand why, when push comes to shove, so many Americans fear government more than guns.
Back to top

Mayflower




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Oct 04 2017, 4:01 am
I've been reading this site for a long time but never got to actually posting. This gun issue fascinates me, as a European, because to most of us, as Fox put it so eloquently, the obsession of Americans with their freedom to carry guns is as puzzling as Korean pilots flying into a mountain.

My question is, if the underlying reason is indeed not to trust government and to oppose any interference by the government in the way people live their lives, why do the same people who oppose gun control (conservatives, Republicans...), support government interference in other areas? Such as:

* abortion. Why should the government control a woman's body?
* drugs. Why shouldn't drugs be legal, according to this reasoning? Also, just as bad people will find a way to own guns, the same holds true for drugs...
* drinking under 21

... I could go on, but you get the idea. To me, it seems they very much support government control as long as the goverment is imposing their world view on others.

Please illuminate me.
Back to top
Page 2 of 2 Previous  1  2 Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News