No.
To take freedoms away from millions of people because 2 murderers abused them is not a sensible way to go.

I knew somebody would feel the need to get on a soapbox about guns and why they are responsible and not the kids and their parents.

I could really rant, but it would only send my blood pressure up.

IMHO, the lessons are many. One, kids need to be taken seriously. Bullying is a real problem. Being a teenager is difficult enough with support -- those without, (or with mental illness) need more. Maybe there is a time to seperate "kids." (Or, least restrictive environment isn't always the best choice for special ed. kids.) And I'm sure there is more.

Another thing I've been thinking about is how things really haven't changed that much. There were gangs in the 50's, civil rights and hippies in the 60's, etc. Each had their own element of violance. I believe we are seeing less violance in schools right now because of the war. People have a "safe" and "acceptable" place to focus their energy. What happens when that changes? Unfortunately, violance is a way of human kind -- I wish it weren't true; but history states otherwise.

The issue is guns, and this tragedy happened becaise of guns, not sociopaths... without guns they would have just been two angry kids with no means to do what they did.

Like I said, American people have a choice, if the so called freedom to bare arms is so important, then you will have more tragedies like this, and the parents of the dead shall be the voice of your conscience, of course they can be ignored or rationalised away, but that is what they are.

The Columbine mass murder happened because it was so easy for the kids to get guns, and as long as it remains so easy, the same thing will happen again, there will ALWAYS be sociopathic personalities and angry people, in most countries they are not allowed to be armed to the teeth.

Its not just the guns, its the whole nature of white, anglo saxon based societies (america leading the way, with britain et al rapidly catching up).

Most of the world has very liberal gun laws.

There is something peculiar to the unforgiving, terribly fearful and vengeful societies in the u.s., britain and a handful of other nations with a similar leaning that lends itself to producing large scale acts of terrible violence.

We as people love to be reminded of pain and suffering for some sick reason.

I will just say that I have history to back up my assertion that this is nonsense and then I am done with it.

This didn't happen because of guns.

This didn't happen because these kids were crazy.

This didn't happen because these kids listened to Marilyn Manson.

This didn't happen because of bad parents.

This didn't happen because no one tried to stop it.


This happened because two kids got picked on at school to the point that in their minds the only way to solve it was murder. It could have been done with a knife, car, bombs (which they used), or anything else really. They could have killed someone with a fuckin' screwdriver. You gonna speak out against screwdrivers now? Do we need to ban thoes too? They can be used to kill someone. Fuck the guns. They did this because they had to. It was time for two free-thinking kids to stand up and fight. I mean that.

Well, that really isnt true is it OK?

If two people went on a killing spree armed with screwdrivers its not really possible they could have killed 13 people in one attack. There are many ways of killing people, but guns are designed, created, built and intended to kill people.

2 sociopaths with a chemistry set or some fertilizer and gasoline could wreak havoc even worse than that possible with guns. Witness Oklahoma City. If one doesn't have access to guns, there are a host of murderous options.

This is an endless debate. I've stated nothing more than the obvious. Those in favor of less freedom and more government control will always be with us.

How much freedom should people have then, with regards to weaponry?

handguns? rifles? machine guns? grenade launchers? where is the line, what does the government have the right to say people cannot have?

And freedom is not a simple construct, the freedom of some people creates the unfreedom of others (ie if I am free to do what I want, you would not be free to own a gun)... the goal is surely safety, security, and a society that people can pursue happiness.

We have that society.
Personally, I'm not ready to dismantle it on shot-in-the-dark solutions to solving social problems.

What these two boys did was born of pain. Desperate, agonizing pain. No one gave a shit about them or what they thought. From what I've understood, the symtoms that something was wrong with Harris were quickly suppressed with anti-depressants, offering then, the illusion that all was right.

And the masochistic lamentations that permeate our society five years after...is our guilty conscience at work as we whip ourselves over how we let two innocents turn into demons before our very eyes.

buuuuuuuuut Imaybewrong.

With enough rage and force I'll kill 13 people by myself with nothing more then a screwdriver. You get pushed hard enough you will resort to anything to get the job done. Even if it takes years... you will take the life of the person that fucked with you.

Amen.

As an evil gun-owning American, I will add a comment: Those 2 (as well as their accomplaices) broke numerous federal laws before they even set foot on school property. If you can logically explain to me how more laws would have stopped them, I will be more tham willing to listen.

And that's all I'm saying on that subject.

I got picked on mercilessly in high school. I got over it, I went on with my life.

Perhaps we should control fertilizer better, a registration system might work. Make it a federal crime to own unregistered fertilizer. Some really forward thinking states would then impose that mandatory fertilizer locks be installed at the factory before that fertilizer could be sold in their state. Start a zero-tolerance fertilizer program where crimes committed involving fertilizer receive a minimum 20 year sentence. Anti-fertilizer groups would allow their lawns to wither and die as a show of support. Pro fertilizer groups would sport bumper stickers that read A gun is a tool. Nothing more or less. A state that attempts to remove tools from the populace is exercising the worst form of tyranny.

I'll restate to stay on-topic:

Yes, very easily. The American people must be disarmed. The laws must be changed to make it criminal to own, sell, distribute or buy a gun. The goal is simply that there are no guns in America, we disarm the farmers, we disarm the police, we disarm the criminals, and we disarm the ordinary people - the only people who will be allowed to bare firearms of any kind will be the army.

And yes, the sociopaths may still try to go on the rampage with screwdrivers, or home made bombs, but we will make their job much harder because we will deny them access to instruments which are designed to kill people.

If their were no guns, if the only way to get a gun was to get it on the black market, and it cost at least $1500 and owning one was a federal crime... these two kids wouldnt have had the guns, the Columbine massacre wouldnt have happened, period, simple fact. The kids that died wouldnt be dead today. If we disarmed the people, those kids would still be alive.

But to most Americans it seems the right to own guns is more important than those kids lives, or all the other victimes lives... and of course most gun owners arent killers, most of them are perfectly decent law adiding people... but a gun is a tool designed to kill, and if it is widely distributed their will be more murders, we know this... the gun lobby doesnt want to know it, and that is why they are the parents wont shut up, they have become the conscience of America, they are the one's saying "well sure YOU never did any harm with your gun, but the fact you have it is the reason my child is dead, and how is it worth it?"

So of course the gun lobby want them to shut up, of course they dont want to hear it, but free speech is the American mantra, and you cannot silence the voice of your own collective conscience, because without an outlet for the collective guilt everyone would have to carry it in their heart.

Pray tell, who is this royal "we" you keep using?

The last time I checked, we kicked England out with guns they didn't want us to have.

Well, whoever they are, I'll not lay down for their (or your) misguided, misinformed plans, not while I draw breath.

Two more final (really final) thoughts.

"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."

and

Molon Labe.

The civil war was fought mostly between English, German, French and Dutch settlers and their governments, it was not a war between nations because America only became a nation when those settlers were able to expel the British colonial government.. in fact the American's were defeated by the English, German, French & Dutch settlers because the settlers had guns and the Native American people didnt. America lost the war of conquest because of firepower, not won it - thats why it became a European colony in the first place.

When I see "we" must disarm the people, I mean that the government must, the safety of the people is the state's main objective, and the people are not safe when they are so heavily armed and when 10,000 people a year are being shot to death.

Because I am English, and I have always lived in a culture where hardly anyone has a gun, it is difficult for to understand the emotional attachment people have to guns, I accept... when people say "you will only take my gun from my cold dead hand" they cant be just saying "look, I really need this gun to live my everyday life, I use it all the time to do this and that..." it is a very emotional attachment, and that is what has to be broken, that is what the tears of the parents of dead high school kids are trying to wash away. Why does anyone need a gun?

To hunt? Well, I doubt that many gun owners actually do hunt, but those that do dont need to, the state can give them paintball guns and they can go to special centres and have exactly the same experience, without killing and maiming wild animals. If anyone genuinely needs to hunt for food, they should be receive extra welfare so that they can buy enough food to eat which is slaughtered in the conventional way.

For self protection... but this is the ultimate prisoners dilemma... if you have a gun, then the burgular needs a gun the police needs a gun... if they are all disarmed, then we have the same situation and just less fatalities.

For trophy display? I understand a few people like to collect things, and I have no problem with them collecting guns that have been altered so that they cannot fire.

What other reasons are there that people actually need to own a gun for?

I am a criminal.

We are all criminals.


Get the fuck over it.

As Art stated, there are many, many other ways to kill. Most notably, they could have just set fires. That's quite easy.

As King stated, 2 guys with as little as screwdrivers could do a hell of a lot of damage. I guess we'll have to outlaw anything remotely pointy, as well. We're really screwed now.

Also, driving a car or truck through a crowd would kill a HELL of a lot more than 13 people, especially if you spread it out over time.

I'll also add that they made numerous pipe bombs and planted them on campus, and THEY were supposed to be the main source of the carnage. Fortunately, they sucked and the bombs never went off. You don't use guns to make bombs, you use things that are very available to anyone who wants them.

Amen.

To protect myself and my family from the likes of you.

I understand that you have no interest in using any sort of gun, but if you go to a firing range, shoot at targets, and then go paintballing wiht your friends, I guarantee that the experience is not even close to comparable. Thanks to safety equipment, paintball is an almost risk-free sport and more comparable to tag an dcapture the flag than to hunting. Hunting is about tracking and killing an animal for food. It encompasses the enjoyment of tracking and shooting your game, then preparing and cooking it, and then eating something that you worked hard to get.

what's baseball without bats?

i blame the maker of black trenchcoats and would rather drink the screwdriver...

I think many sad things will continue to happen like this, 9/11, the war in iraq... these things will happen, and not until afterwards will people start to investigate to see what could've happened differently, how it COULD have been prevented..etc. Much like the 9/11 commission is doing right now, going over all the info th gov't had before 9/11.

I know that they are able to stop many horrible things from happening, but they can't stop them all.. no matter if there are "pre-warning" signs or not.

Bad things will always happen, but I think everyone learns from them and moves on in some way, shape, or form.

Ya know, jsut once I would like to see a news story that went someting like this:

The above story is completely false, but the point is, you will never see this story in the news because it doesn't sell. Just like you don't hear about people driving safely on the roads...no one cares and it doesn't sell.

There are to many good stories of things that never get reported in our society because the don't sell.

I'm getting pretty tired of people not taking responsibility for their actions. It's always someone else's fault. Bull shit. It is not the fault of an inanimate object. It is the fault of people who make bad decisions because they either don't know better or can't comprehend the consequenses of their actions. Otherwise I could say it wasn't my fault I wrecked my truck...it must be Fords fault because they built it.

And the reason America has 10,000 gun deaths a year and the UK has about 150 is this.

pop great britain 60 million
pop usa 294 million

sounda about right Hanxter, so do the math 60 million into 300 million vs 150 into 10000

As I recall, that 10,000 is a Michael Moore/Bowling for Columbine statistic, right?

that's pretty mean-spirited, making people do math on a weekend. that's why people get shot.

next time can the condescension and do the math yourself. it makes your argument sound better to include numbers instead of "so do the math"

Pardon me for being thick but what is the "this" you are referring to?

I think I got the 10,000 figure from someone who posted it here, but I remember Moore quoted about 11,000, I also remember Bill Hicks quoting 12,000.

And what I mean by "this" is this whole attitude of being so emotionally attached to gun ownership... the fact that people seem to feel it is an inalienable human right to own lethal weapons.

I know, we crazy Americans value Free Speech and The Right to Keep and Bear Arms so much that we made it our First and Second Amendments of our Constitution.

Why would anyone feel that the right to speak your mind is important enough to defend with firearms?

How fucked up is that?!?

:rolleyes:

Meanwhile the statistic in Bowling For Columbine includes statistics where people were killed for defensive purposes, suicide, etc.

Strange Famous, have you ever lived in a wilderness type area? How about an American wilderness where you have animals like bears or wolves? Sure, you might not be attacked by either one, but if you ever come face to face with them and they start coming towards you, you'd want to be holding a nice big gun.

I don't know of the exact percentage, but I do know a VERY large majority of gun owners in Wisconsin hunt.

I will say that your comment on hunting is entirely ignorant and doesn't require rebuttal.

Why not? I would love to see this poll question to every person in the USA: Have you ever pointed a loaded gun at someone, and if so for what reasons? I can tell you the top two answers. 1) No 2) Yes, because I'm a police officer.

I dont want to be accused of taking the thread off course, so maybe hunting is something to discus in another thread?

But with regards to the legacy of Columbine, the police are one of the first groups that will need to be disarmed, if America ever decides to rid itself of guns.

Considering that the thread was about how sick and tired I am of the incescent rehash of Columbine and not about whether or not guns caused it, I think you've already taken it off course.

"Oh my God! Lift me up out of this illusion Lord. Heal my perception that I may know only reality, and only You"

I think Columbine and gun control are pretty much tied together.

Interestingly enough, that was precisely one of the very first things Hitler did. And precisely why it's one of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, labelled the "Bill of Rights." Without that right, it's pretty damn difficult to protect yourself from some military coup.

I also find it interesting that you're conveniently ignoring the fact that the logic that all guns should be universally outlawed is no different from the logic that all cars should be outlawed because they can be used - illegally, just as guns are - to kill people. Cars are lethal weapons. Trust me - if I wanted, I could easily kill at least 50 people in about half an hour right here in the city.