![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by BeardedLady on October 24, 2002, at 7:04:27
Just woke up from yet another 3:00 a.m. sleeping pill to news that a father-son team has been captured in the exact vehicle police have been looking for. Fingerprints of the son match those left on one of the notes.
Someone at a rest stop thirty minutes from here reported the two men sleeping in the vehicle, and they were arrested two hours later, while police carefully dotted Is and crossed Ts.
Please pray it's them that we are no longer the sniper's prey.
beardy
Posted by Mal on October 24, 2002, at 7:18:55
In reply to PRAY it's them!, posted by BeardedLady on October 24, 2002, at 7:04:27
I watched last night till midnight, when the names of the men the police were searching for were released. Then I woke at 5 to news that they were caught. I really really do hope this is over. I have been thinking of you...
MAL
Posted by mair on October 24, 2002, at 12:44:42
In reply to Re: PRAY it's them! » BeardedLady, posted by Mal on October 24, 2002, at 7:18:55
Beardy - one of my first thoughts last night when I realized that they were really getting close and again this morning was that maybe you can start sleeping better. What a wonderful thing it would be to have this nightmare end (and of course your nightmares as well).
Mair
Posted by IsoM on October 24, 2002, at 13:56:39
In reply to PRAY it's them!, posted by BeardedLady on October 24, 2002, at 7:04:27
Checking over the news, it seems while authorities don't want to say for certain, they sure thinks they are the ones responsible.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/South/10/24/sniper.shootings/index.html
Posted by BeardedLady on October 24, 2002, at 16:13:22
In reply to Re: PRAY it's them! » BeardedLady, posted by IsoM on October 24, 2002, at 13:56:39
I remember thinking the day before, after seeing a criminology expert from my school on the news, that the guy probably ticked them off now by what he said, and they'll come to Baltimore and attack someone at the school. I remember being terrified for two days that I was going to be in the wrong place on my birthday. It was a silly thought, I admit.
And today I found out that they were just about fifteen blocks from my school--a mile away--on my birthday, sleeping in their car at a donut shop. On my birthday! I mean, go figure! What were they doing here?
I called the help line today and spoke with one of the crisis people, and she was really smart! She said what Judy1 said--that she wasn't saying I had post traumatic stress but that I was probably having a delayed stress reaction similar to PTS due to unresolved issues about my own robbery, as it involved the woods, where these two often hid to shoot. She also said that the 2:00 time may be significant, as if something happened at that time (my last visit to my in-laws before my father-in-law died, I woke up at 2:00 from the grandfather clock bonging?) or that I had a feeling then that every time I wake up, someone has died, which is now being renewed, as the sniper had taken new lives in the mornings or the evenings before.
Quite a productive day. I don't think their being caught will help me sleep tonight, but I am seeing my therapist tomorrow. Maybe that will help.
Thanks for all the positive thoughts.
beardy
Posted by Kari on October 24, 2002, at 16:15:44
In reply to PRAY it's them!, posted by BeardedLady on October 24, 2002, at 7:04:27
Praying along with you.
Take care,
Kari.
Posted by mashogr8 on October 24, 2002, at 21:44:01
In reply to Re: PRAY it's them! » BeardedLady, posted by Kari on October 24, 2002, at 16:15:44
You people down there have been through enough. It has to be over.
Take care!
MA
Posted by jay on October 26, 2002, at 16:35:03
In reply to PRAY it's them!, posted by BeardedLady on October 24, 2002, at 7:04:27
I think one thing *everyone* should realize this is VERY much a political issue. I don't want to go on to big debates, but it is the lawmakers and politicians to be responsible for the safety of any community. Especially with the upcoming U.S. elections. This is a subjective political opinion, so please Dr. Bob keep that in mind. :-)
The U.S. voter turnout is usually between the 50-60 percent mark, at best. If people 'care' about what happened with the 'Sniper', they should also think of the thousands of deaths each year by guns. Politicians and government CAN sort the gun-control issue out, but with NRA and such, it seems everything is woven into the American 'gun-culture'. On a per capita basis, the U.S. has thousands upon thousands greater the gun-related violence death rate than any other country.
If people REALLY care, they will do everything they can to go to the polls and vote for the person who will *do the RIGHT and moralistic thing*. People cannot just sit idly by, humming and haw over what is in the news, and then refuse to go out on election day to vote for your desired "change" on the issues. It is a "show, don't tell" issue, and we have to put our money where our mouth is. Gun violence and control is a MASSIVE political issue, and we can not be armchair critics. If we wants some social issue to change, you *gotta* vote. Otherwise, the apathy is a negligence that does bear some greater societal costs.
Again, I know how strongly Americans value their guns, but I think it is about time you look at why gun homicide and suicide rates are far beyond those of any other country.
AND..if you want to see a good movie about the issue..go see 'Bowling for Comlumbine'. (It is from the GREAT Michael Moore, and his websites are www.michaelmoore.com and www.bowlingforcolumbine.com) This man has become the massive 'conscience of American society, and his books and movies easily sell in the millions.
So, read and learn about the issues..check out the excellent social and political science research out there. It is time people protest and raise their voices, and we can no longer afford to just read or watch the news and say..."..ahhh..someone else will look after it."
OK..sorry about the rant...but I feel it is vital. Raise your fists..and get involved. Here is a letter from Michael Moore which sums up the situation great:
October 25, 2002Dear friends,
Yesterday, Larry Bennett, a 16-year old, was shot in the head after he was
involved in a minor traffic accident. You probably didn't hear about it
because, well, how could he be dead if he wasn't shot by The Sniper?Yesterday, an unidentified woman was shot to death in her car in Fenton,
MI. You probably didn't hear about it because she had the misfortune of not
being shot by The Sniper.Two nights ago, Charles D. Bennett, 48, an apartment security guard, was
shot to death after confronting two teenagers in his parking lot in
Memphis, TN. You probably didn't hear about it because the sniper was too
busy sleeping in his car that night, and thus, poor Charles was not shot by
The Sniper.Yes, The Sniper has apparently been caught, so we can go back now to NOT
reporting the DOZENS of gun deaths that occur every day, the ones that just
aren't newsworthy because they happen in all those old boring ways --
unlike the ways of The Sniper, who was interesting and creative and
exciting and scary! He played so much better on the news.Of course, had Congress not caved in to the NRA we would have known after
the first HOUR of the first day of the killings three weeks ago that those
bullets were coming out of a rifle that belonged to John Williams/Mohammad.
How would we know this? It's right there in the state records in New
Jersey: this gun was purchased this past July, under the name of John
Mohammad!Many more people died needlessly in the days and weeks after that first
hour of the shootings, and every one of their deaths could have probably
been prevented had we had a national ballistics fingerprinting data base.Thank you, Mr. Heston for this unnecessary carnage. Thank you, Mr. Bush,
for supporting Mr. Heston and his group's agenda -- which protects only the
criminals.And thank you, Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., for providing the gun used to
shoot the 13 people in the DC area. Bushmaster's president, Richard E.
Dyke, was the Maine finance chairman of George W. Bush's 2000 Presidential
campaign. According to Business Week, Dyke had to step down as Bush's
finance chair "after reporters began quizzing him about his business
dealings. Bushmaster Firearms Inc., is notorious for using loopholes to
sidestep a 1994 federal ban on assault rifles." Bush and Bushmaster. Too
tragically perfect.
If everyone reading this letter (and you now number in the millions) would
share this fact with just one person who is thinking of skipping going to
the polls on Nov. 5th, I believe that on Nov. 6th, Mr. Bush will have
neither the Senate nor the House doing his or Heston's bidding. Americans
don't like people who assist serial killers in being able to ratchet up
their kills because The Sniper knows that his bullets are prohibited by law
from being traced to his gun.That, in a nutshell, is what the NRA is all about -- and I implore all
responsible gun owners and hunters to join with me in putting an end to the
NRA agenda once and for all. Don't give Bush his majority on November 5th.
He's already seen to it that his cronies in big business have wiped out
your 401 (K), and they are doing their best to see that you are left with
no pension at all. That alone should be reason enough to NOT pull a single
lever for a Republican on Nov. 5th. Send a message. Do something brave.Yours,
Michael Moore
mike@michaelmoore.com
www.michaelmoore.com <http://www.michaelmoore.com>;
PS. "Bowling for Columbine" opens in a few dozen new cities this weekend,
including Portland, Minneapolis, Sacramento, South Florida, Atlanta,
Dallas, Houston, Baltimore, St. Louis, Kansas City, Cleveland, a bunch of
towns in New Jersey, that village in Connecticut where we liberated the
beaches, a theatre in Times Square, Detroit (Royal Oak), and Denver. Click
here (http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/about/theaters.php) to see the
full list of theatres where it opens today.PPS. Don't forget to show up in DC or SF tomorrow to voice your opposition
to the War on Iraq. Many other cities are holding rallies. Check out my
mission from the Office of Homeland Security (http://www.michaelmoore.com)
for details.PPPS. You can find out more about the candidates to beat and the ones to
support in the upcoming election here:
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/involved/gop.php.
> Just woke up from yet another 3:00 a.m. sleeping pill to news that a father-son team has been captured in the exact vehicle police have been looking for. Fingerprints of the son match those left on one of the notes.
>
> Someone at a rest stop thirty minutes from here reported the two men sleeping in the vehicle, and they were arrested two hours later, while police carefully dotted Is and crossed Ts.
>
> Please pray it's them that we are no longer the sniper's prey.
>
> beardy
Posted by BeardedLady on October 26, 2002, at 18:27:35
In reply to Re: PRAY it's them!..this is a political issue, posted by jay on October 26, 2002, at 16:35:03
I am against guns. I believe the second amendment is misinterpreted. That said, let me please remind you of something very important.
The gun used by the sniper is illegal. It is not a gun allowed for sale to the public.
No matter what laws exist, criminals are criminals. A gun will always find its way into the hands of a criminal who wants one, and no amount of legislation will change this.
beardy
Posted by jay on October 27, 2002, at 0:41:57
In reply to gun control » jay, posted by BeardedLady on October 26, 2002, at 18:27:35
Yes, but if there was a National Ballistics Database, which the NRA and many oppose, they could have much sooner tracked down the person(s). A further number of lives COULD have been saved.Try watching and reading international sources on gun control, and no I am not Anti-American, but just in a state of deep sadness in the 'gun culture' in America. Go and see Michael Moore's new movie, "Bowling for Columbine", which exposes the heart of gun control and the NRA.
I don't think enacting laws quickly will change a lot, as you have to weave out all of the roots of the 'gun cultrue'. I also believed it's all tied to economics, and that if they would start to remove the gap between the many, many poor who turn to crime to survive, and the very few rich who use white-collar crime to survive (tax evasion, etc.), we could wipe out a few of the big problems.
If these things don't change, the U.S. is going to dwindle to being a 'former' empire, and turn into a war raveged and very poor country. That I feel sad for, because America was such a beacon of hope for so many post-WWII. America is still very rich with amazing minds and thinkers, and many of the values America places on liberty and freedom are quite similar to ours here in Canada.
I *really* hope somebody can save the country. I was a person who admired Bill Clinton in his first presidential election. He had some wonderfully progressive ideas, and he had the knowledge to use them. Sadly..he didn't..and fell back on a number of things, which is also just as sad.
Anyhow..just my .02 cents.Thanks!
Jay
Posted by BeardedLady on October 27, 2002, at 5:35:34
In reply to Re: gun control » BeardedLady, posted by jay on October 27, 2002, at 0:41:57
As I said, I agree with you about guns. But I don't believe that laws will change anything--even if it's a national database. It sounds like a good idea in theory, but what makes you think anyone but the law-abiding citizens is going to buy these guns from reputable dealers that will enter them in this database?
I can say this with relative certainty--that I am equally as anti-gun as the most anti-gun among us. I was robbed at gunpoint in the park just months ago. My mother was mugged in her own parking lot. And my sister was working at a grocery store when the place was robbed and a gun was held to her head!
Being for gun control has nothing to do with being unAmerican (and I can't figure out why you'd say that, since the population is about 50/50 in the gun control debate).
But like it or not, these fellahs didn't buy their guns from a dealer, and I can guarantee you that most criminals avoid the paperwork.
If you wanted an untraceable, unregistered gun, you could get one with relative ease.
beardy
P.S. I love Michael Moore and am sure I will see "Bowling for Columbine."
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2002, at 10:48:37
In reply to Re: gun control » BeardedLady, posted by jay on October 27, 2002, at 0:41:57
>
> Yes, but if there was a National Ballistics Database, which the NRA and many oppose, they could have much sooner tracked down the person(s). A further number of lives COULD have been saved.
>
How? Please forgive my ignorance, but how could a National Ballistics Database (which I do not, by the way oppose) have helped track down the current owner of an illegally obtained weapon? I could understand if it was the weapon used in the Alabama murder, since it would have provided a link to the fingerprint earlier. But the weapon used in the Alabama murder was not the same weapon used in the sniper attacks>
> If these things don't change, the U.S. is going to dwindle to being a 'former' empire, and turn into a war raveged and very poor country. That I feel sad for, because America was such a beacon of hope for so many post-WWII. America is still very rich with amazing minds and thinkers, and many of the values America places on liberty and freedom are quite similar to ours here in Canada.
> I *really* hope somebody can save the country. I was a person who admired Bill Clinton in his first presidential election. He had some wonderfully progressive ideas, and he had the knowledge to use them. Sadly..he didn't..and fell back on a number of things, which is also just as sad.
>
>
> Anyhow..just my .02 cents.
>
> Thanks!
> Jay
>
>
That is an interesting perspective Jay. I suspect we in the U.S. will muddle through somehow. But how do you suspect we will go from where we are now to a war ravaged and very poor country? It would seem that there would be a few steps along the way. And how long a time frame are you envisioning? Ten years? Fifty?I would be interested in hearing some examples of countries that have adopted the policies that you propose to save the United States from the upcoming disaster. Are there any? And how are they faring?
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2002, at 10:49:16
In reply to Re: gun control, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2002, at 10:48:37
Posted by Ritch on October 27, 2002, at 14:11:14
In reply to Re: gun control, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2002, at 10:48:37
> >
> > Yes, but if there was a National Ballistics Database, which the NRA and many oppose, they could have much sooner tracked down the person(s). A further number of lives COULD have been saved.
> >
> How? Please forgive my ignorance, but how could a National Ballistics Database (which I do not, by the way oppose) have helped track down the current owner of an illegally obtained weapon? I could understand if it was the weapon used in the Alabama murder, since it would have provided a link to the fingerprint earlier. But the weapon used in the Alabama murder was not the same weapon used in the sniper attacks
>
> >
> > If these things don't change, the U.S. is going to dwindle to being a 'former' empire, and turn into a war raveged and very poor country. That I feel sad for, because America was such a beacon of hope for so many post-WWII. America is still very rich with amazing minds and thinkers, and many of the values America places on liberty and freedom are quite similar to ours here in Canada.
> > I *really* hope somebody can save the country. I was a person who admired Bill Clinton in his first presidential election. He had some wonderfully progressive ideas, and he had the knowledge to use them. Sadly..he didn't..and fell back on a number of things, which is also just as sad.
> >
> >
> > Anyhow..just my .02 cents.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Jay
> >
> >
> That is an interesting perspective Jay. I suspect we in the U.S. will muddle through somehow. But how do you suspect we will go from where we are now to a war ravaged and very poor country? It would seem that there would be a few steps along the way. And how long a time frame are you envisioning? Ten years? Fifty?
>
> I would be interested in hearing some examples of countries that have adopted the policies that you propose to save the United States from the upcoming disaster. Are there any? And how are they faring?
>
>
Dinah, I think it is going to be too costly (in many ways) for us to aggressively take on this role of being a global supercop. Perhaps I am being a little isolationist here, but we went from nearly a $200 billion budget surplus in 2000, to nearly a $200 billion dollar deficit in 2001, and the "war on Iraq" is supposed to cost $200 billion, AND the president wants MORE money to be spent on defense, AND he wants to cut taxes even further. It is Reagan super-deficits all over again. We may indeed be "war-ravaged and poor" if Bush gets his way. What about all of the money that we will sink into Iraq to rebuild it? It seems a little odd to spend money to arm Saddam in the '80's, spend money to move him out of Kuwait in 1991, spend money to enforce all the sanctions, now spend more and more money to *really* get him out, then more and more money to fix all of the stuff we are going to blow up- a lot of which is oil field equipment which (hmmm) some folks might make a killing on after the war. If we don't emerge bankrupt after all of that it will be a miracle.
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2002, at 15:01:10
In reply to Re: gun control » Dinah, posted by Ritch on October 27, 2002, at 14:11:14
Well, Ritch, if what Jay meant by war ravaged and very very poor was what you described, then I will admit to that being a possibility. I was imagining something far more catastrophic. The government might indeed find itself in debt once again.
I was always against the recent tax cut. When Reagan came into office the top tax rate was a rather unreasonable 70%. His tax cut brought it down to 50%. And I don't think that was altogther a bad thing. People were relatively disinclined to put in a lot of effort to take home 30 cents on the dollar. But the tax rate at the time of the latest cut was not, in my eyes, particularly onerous. And we really didn't have the money to return, especially after the events of 9/11. The tax cuts were a major reason for the deficit, along with a soft economy.
And I'm not a huge fan of being the world's police force either. It costs a lot and everyone ends up resenting you. But isolationism can cost a lot too, as we learned to our great cost in the past. As in most things, a road of moderation is probably wisest.
Now rebuilding I don't mind at all. History has shown it to be extremely cost effective. Just think how differently things might have turned out if help had been given to Germany after WWI, and so averted the calamitous economic conditions that led to the rise of Hitler. And although I realize that what I hear might be biased, it sounds as if women are able to go to school and to the doctor again in Afghanistan and the residents there are much better off than under the Taliban rule.
But at any rate, we're a resilient country. And I think it's a bit premature to be forecasting our demise. And perhaps politics is as divisive a subject as religion. :)
Posted by Ritch on October 27, 2002, at 22:35:16
In reply to Re: gun control » Ritch, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2002, at 15:01:10
> Well, Ritch, if what Jay meant by war ravaged and very very poor was what you described, then I will admit to that being a possibility. I was imagining something far more catastrophic. The government might indeed find itself in debt once again.
>
> I was always against the recent tax cut. When Reagan came into office the top tax rate was a rather unreasonable 70%. His tax cut brought it down to 50%. And I don't think that was altogther a bad thing. People were relatively disinclined to put in a lot of effort to take home 30 cents on the dollar. But the tax rate at the time of the latest cut was not, in my eyes, particularly onerous. And we really didn't have the money to return, especially after the events of 9/11. The tax cuts were a major reason for the deficit, along with a soft economy.
>
> And I'm not a huge fan of being the world's police force either. It costs a lot and everyone ends up resenting you. But isolationism can cost a lot too, as we learned to our great cost in the past. As in most things, a road of moderation is probably wisest.
>
> Now rebuilding I don't mind at all. History has shown it to be extremely cost effective. Just think how differently things might have turned out if help had been given to Germany after WWI, and so averted the calamitous economic conditions that led to the rise of Hitler. And although I realize that what I hear might be biased, it sounds as if women are able to go to school and to the doctor again in Afghanistan and the residents there are much better off than under the Taliban rule.
>
> But at any rate, we're a resilient country. And I think it's a bit premature to be forecasting our demise. And perhaps politics is as divisive a subject as religion. :)
>
Oh yes, everyone knows about the politics and religion thing :-)That's why I tried to limit my discussion to "economic" issues of potential war, as much as possible. I don't think we are on the brink of demise, that's a harsh word. A lot of folks think war makes for a good economy. That is really quite false. WWII brought us rapidly out of the depression because of tremendous government spending increases which brought the unemployment rate rapidly down. We aren't suffering major unemployment problems like we did then. The problem is the bulk of the baby-boomers are retiring (or trying to anyhow), and a huge proportion of the population is going to shift from being a tax-base to a tax-beneficiary. We will need to realistically assess that problem at some point. The failure to do so will not result in a demise, but a considerably dimmer future that we wouldn't ordinarily have to face.
Posted by jay on October 28, 2002, at 0:20:19
In reply to Re: gun control » jay, posted by BeardedLady on October 27, 2002, at 5:35:34
Beardy, I do understand the whole fear things and guns. As much as I am for strong gun control, if it came down to defending someone against my family, I think I would very much advocate having a gun in the house. People are very, very scared these days, and I must have some empathy for that.
The point behind having the Ballistics registry is not exactly to trace the *exact* owner of a gun, but to access information regarding evidence such as markings on the bullets left behind. But..moreso, violent crime *is* down considerably, and as I was saying, if the governments do more to eliminate poverty which is linked to crime. It may take a few generations, but slowly reducing gun production (Like...I can't believe the TYPE of guns it *is* legal to own in America! Assault rifles and machine guns? No citizen has ANY use for those besides a criminal activity.)
Second, I have to say, and I don't mean this in a snotty nationalistic way, but Canada has extremely strict gun control laws, as do the European countries, and even on a per capita basis, the murder by guns in the U.S. is over 100 percent greater in the U.S. than in Canada. That includes guns used for "criminal activity". But, America has become one of the most domestically violent nations on earth, and I sadly don't see how and how long it would take to enact laws and ban most guns.
Anyhow..just IMHO.
Jay :-)
Posted by BeardedLady on October 28, 2002, at 5:56:53
In reply to Re: gun control » BeardedLady, posted by jay on October 28, 2002, at 0:20:19
I agree with you on all counts. And it will take terribly long, should any of that fingerprinting occur. But you also have to remember that Canada and Great Britain have had their laws forever. England, though, has a serious crime problem with the weapons that are legal!
I'm a little unclear about the fear thing you discussed. I didn't ever mention wanting to own a gun for protection, and I wouldn't ever own one with a child in my home. I know that an unloaded gun in the house is almost completely useless, as criminals have the element of surprise in their favor.
But you are right; if someone hurt my daughter physically, I would probably get a gun and hunt him down!
Let's pray not simply that they caught the two who did this sniper spree (and I'm pretty sure these are the two, as serial killers don't usually like others to get credit for their actions and would probably have struck again), but that we get some kind of resolution with guns in America.
Surely there has to be a better way.
By the way, have you ever read Erik Larson's "Lethal Passage"? It's a decent read, though the proposal at the end is a little simplistic (and a lot impossible).
beardy
Posted by shar on October 31, 2002, at 22:48:53
In reply to Re: gun control, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2002, at 10:48:37
> >
> > Yes, but if there was a National Ballistics Database, which the NRA and many oppose, they could have much sooner tracked down the person(s). A further number of lives COULD have been saved.
> >
> How? Please forgive my ignorance, but how could a National Ballistics Database (which I do not, by the way oppose) have helped track down the current owner of an illegally obtained weapon? I could understand if it was the weapon used in the Alabama murder, since it would have provided a link to the fingerprint earlier. But the weapon used in the Alabama murder was not the same weapon used in the sniper attacks
>
> >
> > If these things don't change, the U.S. is going to dwindle to being a 'former' empire, and turn into a war raveged and very poor country.>But how do you suspect we will go from where we are now to a war ravaged and very poor country? It would seem that there would be a few steps along the way. And how long a time frame are you envisioning? Ten years? Fifty?
>
> I would be interested in hearing some examples of countries that have adopted the policies that you propose to save the United States from the upcoming disaster. Are there any? And how are they faring?
>
>These ideas and concepts give me pause. The gun roots of the U.S. run deep, and it is hard to refute (in my opinion) that the U.S. is a very violent nation, and that we glorify violence in a lot of ways. We began, as a nation, through violence; and we grew and expanded as a nation that way, too. These are just my 'takes' on the situation.
It does not mean we will definitely fall into ruin, but we might. And I believe it could happen more quickly than we think. How long would it take for all of us to feel unsafe if 20 large cities in the U.S. had one sniper each? It doesn't take massive amounts of violence to create a fearful atmosphere. 20 snipers make all those citizens feel unsafe, and the families of all those citizens have families who feel concern for them, and the citizens in the next town over feel unsafe....it can spread quickly, I think.
Plus, it makes me wonder why people think it will get better. I believe, it will only escalate. If we could stop all violence right now, that would be the new baseline for us in the U.S. We would not go back to some seemingly safer point in time.
And, I believe there is a lot to do about it. There are SO many countries that match the U.S. in their ability to have as much violence (they have the means and opportunity to obtain weapons, for example), but they DON'T have as much killing as we do. There is, somewhere, somehow, a reason for that. I bet we could identify some of those reasons, and put the concepts into effect here. If the interest was there.
I live in Texas, a very gun oriented place, and have learned some gun safety in my life, owned some, shot some. I understand people wanting to have a gun for protection, but there is a growing population of predators that need to be dealt with, who don't want guns to protect themselves, they want guns to control others, and, they have gotten the message we send over and over and over again--life is not really worth that much. Our killers are getting younger and younger, the violence more and more bent. The violence we see and hear on the news is just a tiny fraction of what happens every day in the U.S. It is not a good situation, and we don't have a very good way of handling it right now, at all. We need, I believe, to change some things before things start changing us.
[There is an excellent indicator variable for violent behavior, one that is almost a perfect predictor (according to Margaret Mead) and that is animal abuse, learning young that life is nothing to respect. The next time there's a story of animal abuse in your own back yard (so to speak) that's a heads-up.]
I've been off the board for awhile, so I guess I had all this typing in me that needed to get out. Just put these thoughts aside as the musings of one rather uninformed but opinionated babbler.
Semi-standard disclaimer: These are only my own ideas and opinions, and I know not everyone will agree with them, and I am not trying to express all possible thoughts or opinions or positions on this issue in this post. Only my own thoughts and opinions, and others are welcome to have their very own, which I expect will differ from mine, and that is just fine and dandy with me.
Shar
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.