Bowling for Columbine

[Antigen]

www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/australias-a-lot-safer-than-we-think/2006/01/19/1137553708823.html?page=2

The above article looks at the growing culture of fear over here. Thought you may be interested.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins; all of them imaginary."
H.L. Mencken, 1923

[AtomicAnt]

You can vote, but you can't choose.
       - Emma Goldman

[Anonymous]

Bill Clinton is Satan! The Trilateral commission & the Bildeburgers run everything. Christianity will soon be outlawed in the U.S. like it was in ancient Rome.

[Oz girl]

I thought ya'll were just lazzy.  :wink:

Yeah we pretty much are ::bwahaha::
Shooting your neighbour is such a bloddy hassle!
And i take your point about Police and corruption. The Qld police were widely known as being openly corrupt for over 30 yrs until their was a big inquiry to try & clean them up. Everyone pretty much just ignored the corruption and went about their daily business in QLD as if there was no law. Then again this was the state that allowed Mel Semmbler to set up a private jail!

However. If police cant necessarily be trusted with guns why can ordinary citizens? particularly since there is no way of guaranteing that people even know how to correctly handle them or enforce safety. Moreover I would argue that private citizens should not be allowed to protect their property with lethal weapons. The police may not be perfect but they are there to do a job.

[Antigen]

However. If police cant necessarily be trusted with guns why can ordinary citizens?

Because the police have as their primary function to apprehend suspects accused by at least two wittnesses and to make arrests. That's what they do and they go into every situation looking first and foremost for an enemy. That's their job and their role and just as it should be. However, we should not forget that when all you've got is a hammer, every thing looks like a nail.

Law enforcement is not a good tool for every situation. Among those problems that law enforcement is not at all equipped to do are immediate self defense and avoiding situations that lead up to the need for immediate self defense. That's actually been supported by American courts when citizens have tried to sue police departments for failure to protect them from violence, avarice and various other kinds of bad behavior. The defense came down to 'hey, es no mi yhob' and the courts agreed.

The ordinary citizen comes at everything but their own vocation from a completely different perspective. He wants to be comfortable, well fed, liked and admired and pretty much left at peace. He'll do just about anything he has to do to avoid anything that threatens his get peace and prosperity. He's not looking for trouble, that's the cop's job.

particularly since there is no way of guaranteing that people even know how to correctly handle them or enforce safety.

See above. Mishandling of fire arms tends to fuck up one's prospects at peace, prosperity and friendly terms w/ the neighbors.

Moreover I would argue that private citizens should not be allowed to protect their property with lethal weapons. The police may not be perfect but they are there to do a job.

Again, see above. It's not their job. It's not even remotely possible to hire enough cops to protect each citizen.

"He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion."
James Burgh 1774

I don't know much at all about Australian law. But we do share the same heritage to a large degree. Aren't these ideas from the Magna Carta sort of part of the Australian identity too?

[Oz girl]

In answer to your question. yes sort of. Being a member of the commonwealth we largely go by the British model. until the 70s we were members of the Privy Coucil. To this day our way of doing things legally is much closer to britian than the US. We do have a High Court though. I guess where Australia differs largely form the US is that we are more concerned with what is best for a society overall than individual liberty. We tend to be more utilitarian. For instance we have the option of taking out private health insurance but a public health care system. We also have mostly public universities. Most students pay  their portion of the fees off in tax once they start working.

As to police in the US being trigger happy. Again this is why I dont like guns. They make an otherwise friendly and cheery culture paranoid!  
Here wehn you get pulled over for speeding you get out and have a bit of a chat with the constable, he writes you a ticket or lets you off and you are done. Where you are he assumes you may be packing!
I also dispute that All citizens are only concerned with peace and prosperity. Crazy people and jealous husbands arent. Nor are those so desperately unhappy that they want to end their own life. The ability and rgiht to own a lethal weapon anly makes it easier for these people to harm themselves and others. This impedes the other persons right to "Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" because it makes them afraid.

BTW i have always found this pursiut of happiness concept fun and quirky. I used to invisiage Americas founding fathers on field trips to Disneyland. Where did it come from?

[Antigen]

BTW i have always found this pursiut of happiness concept fun and quirky. I used to invisiage Americas founding fathers on field trips to Disneyland. Where did it come from?

I don't know, but I'd guess Franklin. He was a real hedonist.

But I didn't say all citizens are pleasant and stable. Just most of us whereas all cops, almost down to a man, go at everything like a war game. It wasn't always like this. We didn't used to fear each other the way we do now. And there were fewer gun laws. The very idea of someone being armed was not cause for alarm, still isn't out in the country.

But things have changed. When the cops showed up at Columbine, they were shamefully unhelpful. They were so focused on securing the scene and controling everyone they could see that they actually threatened to shoot a paramedic if he dared cross their imaginary line to save a person from bleeding to death over the course of about an hour. Now, if that scene had played out in rural WV it would have gone down much differently. Very likely, more than one of the students would have had a hunting riffle in their truck or locker. The mere sight of an armed teenager doesn't have the same disorienting impact in areas where hunting is very popular. That alone wouldn't give a kid much of an advantage.

Same goes for the jealous husband or anyone else who's having a particularly bad day. If it's generally illegal to bear arms then law breakers know they have an advantage over others just by going armed.

[BuzzKill]

I always figured "the Pursuit of Happiness" was about enabling citizens to rise above their rank - to move up through the levels of society and have the finer things in life. It was a short to the point way of striking down the concept of a permanent, unchangable, social ranking.

In America, there was to be no royalty - no royal titles - no Aristocracy. No nobles and no surfs. Any man might aspire to greatness, and possibly achieve it, in America.  In theory, anyway.

Its true enough, that social climbers are looked down upon by both those above and below them - but still - they can climb if they want to.  They have the Right to pursue happiness.

[BuzzKill]

Whats that you say Ginger - about a dog chasing his tail . . .


 Police: School gunman says he has bomb
POSTED: 4:00 p.m. EDT, September 27, 2006
Adjust font size:
Decrease fontDecrease font
Enlarge fontEnlarge font

(CNN) -- Two schools were evacuated Wednesday after a gunman claiming to have a bomb opened fire and took hostages at a high school near Bailey, Colorado, officials said.

One hostage, a young girl, was released, but the gunman was still holding four others Wednesday afternoon, said Lance Clem, spokesman for the Colorado Public Safety Department. The Colorado State Patrol is assisting, Clem said.

Several shots were fired at the school, and the gunman is inside, said Jefferson County Sheriff's spokeswoman Jackie Kelley.

She had no information on injuries, but said a bomb squad and SWAT team had been dispatched to the scene.

The Park County Sheriff's office would not provide further details, but said it is dealing with a hostage situation.

The 450 students at Platte Canyon High School and the 340 youngsters at the adjacent Fitzsimmons Middle School were evacuated, officials said.

The students were evacuated to a safe place about 12:10 p.m. (2:10 p.m. ET), the Park County School District superintendent's office said.

[Deborah]

I always figured "the Pursuit of Happiness" was about enabling citizens to rise above their rank - to move up through the levels of society and have the finer things in life. It was a short to the point way of striking down the concept of a permanent, unchangable, social ranking.

Buzz, come on now. You know that the Constitution was written for white elite males. Women, people of color (particularly blacks), children, working class/poor did not have the right to "Pursuit of Happiness". They had to fight for basic rights, forget the "finer things".
And as far as "rising about their ranks". Not possible. You can't have obnoxiously rich class of people without a large economically oppressed working class. There is most definitely an "unchangable, social ranking".

In America, there was to be no royalty - no royal titles - no Aristocracy. No nobles and no surfs. Any man might aspire to greatness, and possibly achieve it, in America.  In theory, anyway.

In theory. They just changed the names and instead of one King, there were many, and all white males. They allowed other to begin the ascent up the ladder when it was politically correct to do so and generated more profit.

[BuzzKill]

///You know that the Constitution was written for white elite males. Women, people of color (particularly blacks), children, working class/poor did not have the right to "Pursuit of Happiness". They had to fight for basic rights, forget the "finer things". ///

Sure. I know. But it is the constitution that laid the foundation for the ability to win those basic rights when people did fight for them.

It was a revolutionary idea at the time - this notion that there should be no "fixed" social classes. Of corse there will always be rich and poor - and outrageously rich, and profoundly poor as well - but the declaration of independence and the constitution that followed, make it *possible* , if not probable, to move from one group to the next.

As for the "economically oppressed working class", I'd argue that in this country, and in those like this country - these folks have a far more opportunity to pursue happiness than in ages past, or in other less "flexible" societies.

Anyway - what ever your opinion of ones ability to pursue happiness - I think the phrase in the constitution has more to do with this ability to rise up threw the ranks of society, than trips to amusement parks.

[Anonymous]

Buzz, come on now. You know that the Constitution was written for white elite males. Women, people of color (particularly blacks), children, working class/poor did not have the right to "Pursuit of Happiness". They had to fight for basic rights, forget the "finer things".
 They just changed the names and instead of one King, there were many, and all white males. They allowed other to begin the ascent up the ladder when it was politically correct to do so and generated more profit.

Yes, a conspiracy of white males has been oppressing you ever since we climbed out of the trees.

It can all be blamed on WHITE MALES.

If you are white and have a dick, you are evil.

[Oz girl]

Buzz, come on now. You know that the Constitution was written for white elite males.
This concept of no class system is something Australia likes to pretend it does not have either. Of course we do. Although there was a time when we had a really big middle class. We also have a history of good minimum wages. it is slowly being dismantled. I do think that it is a nice idea though. At least by putting this into its constitution the US was apparently aiming for an egalitarian system. Even if it is kinda tokenistic. The British to this day are pretty open about there being a clear class system.

[Anonymous]

Watch the double negatives.

[Deborah]

***I do think that it is a nice idea though. At least by putting this into its constitution the US was apparently aiming for an egalitarian system. Even if it is kinda tokenistic.

Let me reiterate. The Constitution DID NOT APPLY TO WOMEN, PEOPLE OF COLOR, WORKING CLASS/POOR or CHILDREN.  The white boys who wrote it were just coming off of being oppressed themselves and wanted to make damn sure that they weren't oppressed again. They had no intention of it applying to the general population.

Women didn't vote or work outside the home, considered property and subject to hubby's "persuit of happiness". Poor people didn't vote and worked for slave wages for their boss's "persuit of happiness"- was/is that any better than being a serf? Children worked in factories, to further the owner's "persuit of happiness". Blacks, well they got the raw end of the deal, working for nothing to enrich the liberated white guys, which definitely furthered their happiness. If you didn't tow the religious party line you were given a trial by water and/or hanged or burned at the stake.

And what has really changed except we have more than one King, a larger class of Nobles, and the majority still work hand-to-mouth. Change the names, pretend we have a new script, but the roles remain the same.
Instead of one Ponzi scheme, we have many, with all the wealth sucked to the top of the pyramid.

And what a noble idea, that a few may work their way out of poverty so they can be in debt their entire life.

Buzz, where have you read about this "revolutionary" idea/notion that there should be no "fixed" classes? Sounds like a la-la fairy tale to me. Is that true today or then? Without a class system we wouldn't have Capitalism. Do you also believe a poor child can become president? I highly recommend "The People's History" by Howard Zinn. Google his name and I'm sure you'll find some tidbits of reality that 'weren't' in your history book.

Americans like warm fuzzy stories of how philanthropic their government is. Few notice the stark discrepency between the story and reality, because they'd rather believe the myth. As Carlin said, "They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."  

I think "Persuit of Happiness" meant the freedom of white men to rape and pillage- Manifest Destiny- take what you want, by force if necessary, with god's blessings. Did the Native Americans deserve the right to "Persuit of Happiness"?

And has this changed? Not in my view. Manifest Destiny is alive and well. The bully is still throwing his weight around and terrorizing the world. Instilling fear into its citizenry to gain their support for more raping and pillaging. We "the people" are paying for their r&p which will further enrich them and keep our gas tanks full a little longer, for a hefty price of course.