Text 49719, 115 rader
Skriven 2007-04-20 09:20:25 av Jeff Smith (1:14/0)
  Kommentar till text 49701 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Shootings
=================
Hello Michiel.

20 Apr 07 10:02, you wrote to me:

 MV> Hello Jeff!

 MV> On Thursday April 19 2007 14:08, you wrote to me:

 MV>>>>> As I see it the basic problem is indeed the mindset. The
 MV>>>>> mindset that tells people that violence is a quick solution
 MV>>>>> for every problem.

 JS>>>>      I think it is because it is so easy to respond to a
 JS>>>> problem by hitting, stabbing, or shooting, etc. instead of
 JS>>>> taking the time to understand and communicate.

 MV>>> A mindset that appears o be widely spread in the USA.

 JS>> A mindset that is unfortunately too common to a number of
 JS>> counties.

 MV> It is not limited to the USA, but AFAIK, the USA is the only country
 MV> where it is reflected in the constitution.

 JS>> I usually go hunting several times a year and there are some
 JS>> years when I never fire a shot. I try to be a one shot, one kill
 JS>> type of hunter. And will avoid shooting at all unless I am sure
 JS>> of the shot and more importantly what is beyond the shot.

 MV> But when the conditions are right, you shoot nevertheless.

     That is kind of the goal here Michiel. I kind of enjoy the sport
of the hunt. But that is secondary to the food aspect of the hunt. People
that will shoot and leave a sometimes dying animal in the woods are people
that I disagree with.

 JS>>  There are those that primaraly just target shoot.

 MV> Excuses, excuses, excuses. Target shooting is practising. Practising
 MV> for what? Ask yourself that question.

     Practicing to be good at something. One doesn't have to possess a desire
to kill to be proficient at the use of a gun.

 JS>>      Using a gun is not the problem. It is how and against
 JS>> what/whom that is the problem.

 MV> It is the people that say that guns are not the problem, that are the
 MV> problem. But you can't see that because you are one of them.

     You like to use circular logic don't you? One possible use of a gun
is to kill. One possible use of a car is to kill, one possible use of a
knife is to kill, one possible use of drain cleaner is to kill. It is not
any of the these that kill by themselves. It takes a person to use the
item in a specific manner to kill. Change the attitude of the person and
the item will be irrelevant.


 MV>>> As i see it, there is a direct relation between desire to own
 MV>>> guns and the mindset that leads to the use of them. The mindset
 MV>>> that make people use guns is the *same* mindset that makes them
 MV>>> want to have them.

 JS>>      Possible? Yes. Althought not as probable as you seem to
 JS>> suggest. I could want and choose to have a gun and have that
 JS>> mindset. But I would not necessarily need to have the mindset to
 JS>> want to use a gun in the context of shooting/killing someone
 JS>> else. Except in the case of defending the life of my family. The
 JS>> thought of using a gun to attack or inact revenge against someone
 JS>> would never occur to me.

 MV> All just talk. Nobody who buys a gun openly claims to intent to use it
 MV> for killing people. It is always for "defence".

     That doesn't mean that it isn't also true. You are just unwilling to
accept it as being possible.

 MV> Yet at the beginning of this week 32 people were killed by a lunatic
 MV> with a gun.

     Upon reflection I have concluded IMHO that he wasn't the insane
lunatic that some try to lable him as being. He thought out and calculated
his actions with a degree of premeditation. If there was some mental defect
involved I could in some small way understand why it happened. Buy to decide
to kill by choice and desire is something I have a time understanding.

 MV> It did not happen here, where guns are extremely
 MV> restricted, it happened in the USA where every citizen has the
 MV> constitutional right to own fire arms.

     It could happen anywhere Michiel.

 MV> And it is people like you that defend that right.

     At least you acknowledge that it is a right to be defended.

 MV> And you refuse to see that without giving up that right, there will
 MV> be "accidents" like the one at Virginia Tech. THAT is the problem.

     Regardless of the matter of guns. If this person wanted to make use
of a gun. The fact that guns were outlawed would have made no differance.
If someone intends to kill the matter of using an illegally owned gun is
of no consequence. Again the gun was not the cause of what happened. The
cause was the person that used the gun.


 MV> Cheers, Michiel

 MV> --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 MV>  * Origin: http://www.van.der.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Jeff

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - MN USA (1:14/0)